Lazy and smart versus Conscientious and uhh.. not as smart.

[Oculus Sinistra]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I have also recognized this broad spectrum in people. As I see it, it breaks down like this:

1) Some people grasp onto certain concepts faster than others. Someone may understand Calculus instantly and be bored with it, but when they get to stereochemistry they fumble a little bit.

2) Sometimes people luck out. The fact that you got 5/5 on a pop quiz even though you didn't study beforehand should not motivate you to wing all the rest of the tests.

3) Some people have better short term memory than others. I know someone who casually "crammed" for two hours before each Organic II test and had an 89 average. He remembered everything. It was unbelievable. The downside to that is that you don't generally transfer that into long-term memory, so it may hurt you to do this in the long-run.

4) Neurobiologists are always saying that repetition is essential for remembering a bulk of information. Practice, practice, practice. So according to them, the conscientious person who studies every day a week before a test should have better recall.

Anyway, I know it's annoying but you'll have more peace of mind if you just concentrate on your own performance. If you can't cram and get A's, don't.

 

[shoal]

All of the comments regarding lazy/smart people being unproductive and they will never add up to anything is absurd. In engineering, generally these are the type of people who have made huge advances in technology.

For instance, who do u think thought of a dishwasher, washing machine, cell counters, analysis tools that save time etc.

There are countless inventions that have been created to 1) save time.
And the type of people who generally realize these inventions are the lazy/smart people.

In the end they want to be lazy and do things the easy way, however the process to do it the easy way may result in initially more work -- it ends up with the pleasures of being lazy.


Anyhow, I consider myself to be the lazy type generally most of the time. If you look at my desk, at my computer file structure, unorganized, tons of things withstanding. But when things count, ya gotta push it hard. Thats where the smartness comes in. However, I do not consider myself more intelligent than average, just "smarter", in the respect that I don't always take things as they are. Any way to do something easier -- you can be sure thats what I am gonna do.

 

[Compass]

I sort of fall into the first category. It's not that it seems like I don't study, it's that I remember the information presented, review it lightly once a while, and then make sure I know the stuff in the end. It's what I learned in the Magnet program at my high school, but then again, didn't work for me in high school. My friends see me play computer games for hours at a time, and then they ask me how I get my grades, because the only time they see me truly study with other people is on the day before the exam, for a good chunk of time, when I do the practice problems to make sure I understand concepts, and learn the stuff I forget. It's all about approach. One of my friends, who is a really smart person (skipped a grade) is studying for his Fall classes right now! I'm not doing as much, since I can't stand studying during free time, but I've looked a bit at organic review, and am using MCAT resources to make sure I remember my basic science material for next semester. Origin of life for an eco and evo class, a bit of general chemistry for my orgo class, and a pre-course "refresher" so that if I find something I don't understand in the refresher at all, I'll make sure to mark it as something to study for and ask questions about in the main course. (I failed Physics in high school, and I really don't want to again.) People may seem lazy, but unless you live with them 24/7, you won't know that they do things like this. Even at my desk job, I have an orgo book that you guys recommended at my feet, in case I feel like brushing up on it. If you can get your studying done sooner, when you take the course, all you'll need to do is refresh what you already know, not reinforce what you're still learning.

 

[yobynaes]

Oh btw don't forget about closet studiers, I had some East Asian friends in high school who had to keep up their "coolness" and act like they didn't study. But they were naturally smart too.

closet studiers. haha! Okay, you know those obnoxious asian kids never seemed to study, never give much a damn about the class, and yet always ace the tests no matter what subject it was? yeah, that WAS me. Smart and lazy? yup, though i did attend all my classes, i honestly never studied more than half an hour for any class until my junior year in college. The semester before that, I got three B's in my major classes and dropped my gpa to 3.7 which piss the hell out of me. Yeah, i cared about my grades much more than i thought. 🙄 😱

Now, im just another obnoxious asian kid study all the time and break every curve for everyone in the class.

 

[Bluntman]

Now, im just another obnoxious asian kid study all the time and break every curve for everyone in the class.

Umm so you want a gold star?

 

[scholj]

lol
There is no such thing as lazy and smart.
If you're lazy there is no way that you will EVER excell at anything.
You have to work hard for everything in life.
QUOTE]

I don't know if I entirely believe that. I know someone who managed to go through his undergrad and get all A's and one B, but he spent every day sitting on a couch outside his fraternity house drinking beer. He had like, 3 majors too. He never bragged about it though. He's doing research in a Dartmouth lab right now on flies and courtship rituals.

I do believe that most people who like to announce that they've "barely studied," and "like, omg, I'm so gonna fail" are full of it. Too many people just need attention 🙄 .

I'm definately someone who has to work for my grades though. There is no way I can't study and do well in a class (unless it's math... how can you really study for math???)

Just my two cents.

 

[Shredder]

gold star

 

[akinf]

First of all, no one, I don't care how smart you are, doesn't do well in university without working hard. Sure, there is definitely natural talent, and that is what separates the 4.00 students from the 3.80 students. 3.80 is still good, but regardless of how hard they work, they may not be able to get to that 4.00. A 4.00 students works super hard, just as hard as the 3.80, a little less hard, or a little harder, but just has the natural ability to understand new material better. The idea of people not studying in university and still pulling wicked marks is ****; in highschoo, definitely possible, not in university.

 

[Zuerst]

First of all, no one, I don't care how smart you are, doesn't do well in university without working hard. Sure, there is definitely natural talent, and that is what separates the 4.00 students from the 3.80 students. 3.80 is still good, but regardless of how hard they work, they may not be able to get to that 4.00. A 4.00 students works super hard, just as hard as the 3.80, a little less hard, or a little harder, but just has the natural ability to understand new material better. The idea of people not studying in university and still pulling wicked marks is ****; in highschoo, definitely possible, not in university.

That is also relative to difference university, major, class...etc

 

[yobynaes]

Umm so you want a gold star?

😀 hell yeah!

 

[trustwomen]

First of all, no one, I don't care how smart you are, doesn't do well in university without working hard. Sure, there is definitely natural talent, and that is what separates the 4.00 students from the 3.80 students. 3.80 is still good, but regardless of how hard they work, they may not be able to get to that 4.00. A 4.00 students works super hard, just as hard as the 3.80, a little less hard, or a little harder, but just has the natural ability to understand new material better. The idea of people not studying in university and still pulling wicked marks is ****; in highschoo, definitely possible, not in university.

You may be right about the 4.00, but a 3.80 is possible without working too hard if you are very smart (good memory, or whatever we're calling it these days) and just show up to class every day.

 

[bioboy2007]

lol
There is no such thing as lazy and smart.
If you're lazy there is no way that you will EVER excell at anything.
You have to work hard for everything in life.

People who are lazy and smart are usually just arrogant liars. They try to make ppl like YOU feel bad by bragging about how they didn't study at all and still got an A.

I know a girl who is exactly like those two guys you described.
She has a 4.0 GPA and complains about EVERY test, assginment, quiz, exam, and essay - "omg, I totally am not ready for this. I only studied for like half an hour....", or "there is no way I am going to pass this essay, I only started last night, omg I didn't even proofread it".

Meanwhile everytime we ask her to join us for a drink she says she can't because she's "busy" - even if there are no tests/assignments schedualed that week.

Just ignore ppl like that and do your own thing and remember to enjoy your life.

You want to hang out with someone like that?!?

 

[Shredder]

Yeah seriously. In my experience 4.0ers have not been the most worthy of cultivating relationships with. akinf...one too many commas for coherence

 

[Vox Animo]

Hell, if i could just focus when i study or am in class, i could probably cut my studying time in half. Every 5 minutes i subconsciously get up and start walking around or start zoning out.


Those smart lazy people aggravate me though. I remember this one kid, never studied ever. We had this IR spec. homework, he bombed it cuz he didn't want to do it, we took a quiz in class, and he aced it because he could just figure the stuff out by looking at it. If only i had that ability....

 

[TheMightyAngus]

Undergrad is a poor reference for comparing intelligence. College curricula are developed to facilitate learning. Some people may have more of a background in math/writing/reading but the average student should be able to learn the material eventually. Humans aren't born with an innate ability to solve differential equations or memorize vocabulary lists. Everything has to be learned at some point.

IQ tests would probably be the best standard to measure innate ability, but ultimately they have little application (what does the ability to recognize patterns in 10 seconds as opposed to 2 minutes prove?).

Real creative thinking requires immense time and effort. No one wins a Nobel Prize for a day's work. If you read about the great mathematicians/physicists you learn that their peers don't consider them geniuses for being quick learners, but for their insight into which questions are worth pursuing (solid overall knowlege) and their ability to pursue a unique problem for an extended period of time (creative thinking and effort).

 

[noonday]

(what does the ability to recognize patterns in 10 seconds as opposed to 2 minutes prove?).

i'd say for medicine it proves a lot. yes, you're right, in research, creative endeavors, etc., the time to formulate and ponder is great. but if you're in an emergency situation, a minute or less could be the difference between recognizing what a patient needs to save them and them dying...

plus, quick observational and processing skills are really important of some jobs. intuitive mechanical evaluation is important in others. fine motor skills and manual dexterity is vital in yet others.

i think the point is that there are different kinds of intelligence and skill, and being brilliant in one way doesn't necessarily mean you're suited for any job. working running a lab for years, i see students come and go. i've seen plenty of book smart, 4.0 kids who can't even walk through the door of the lab before they've broken something and can't for the life of them produce a decent datapoint. and i've seen b/c students (on tests, etc.) who blow those 4.0 kids out of the water when it comes to doing the work in the lab. and then i've seen 4.0's who are great and 3.0's that suck. there's no correlation.

the world needs all kinds...

 

[QuikClot]

All of the comments regarding lazy/smart people being unproductive and they will never add up to anything is absurd. In engineering, generally these are the type of people who have made huge advances in technology.

For instance, who do u think thought of a dishwasher, washing machine, cell counters, analysis tools that save time etc.

There are countless inventions that have been created to 1) save time.
And the type of people who generally realize these inventions are the lazy/smart people.

That's ridiculous. The most prolific and successful American inventor was Thomas Edison. He patented hundreds of time-saving (not to mention life-changing) devices. He was a workaholic who often conducted thousands of experiments to perfect an invention. He and his staff worked 18-hour days.

There is no logic to the assertion that devices that benifit lazy people were thought up by lazy people; if that were true, we would expect tropical medicine researchers to be hobbled by malaryia.

Lazy people make avid use of things that other people thought up. It's one of our core strategies for success.

 

[Iwy Em Hotep]

i'd say for medicine it proves a lot. yes, you're right, in research, creative endeavors, etc., the time to formulate and ponder is great. but if you're in an emergency situation, a minute or less could be the difference between recognizing what a patient needs to save them and them dying...

Maybe. But in your training you see common cases so many times that reacting to a familiar situation becomes almost reflexive.

 

[akinf]

Yeah seriously. In my experience 4.0ers have not been the most worthy of cultivating relationships with. akinf...one too many commas for coherence

Thanks, I needed the grammar lesson. I'll just slap myself on the wrist for you.

*slap*

 

[akinf]

You may be right about the 4.00, but a 3.80 is possible without working too hard if you are very smart (good memory, or whatever we're calling it these days) and just show up to class every day.

Ok.

 

[akinf]

That is also relative to difference university, major, class...etc

I agree, if you are mathematical genius and have an amazing natural ability for it, I guess it's possible to get through those degrees without especially studying for it. But I think for the science courses that most pre-meds do: biochemistry, organic, molecular biology, I don't think it's possible to get the 4.00 GPA without putting in some legitimate study time.

 

[MirrorTodd]

Will Hunting is a real person. How you like them apples?

 

[ssefase]

To all those who deny the existence of smart people, your wrong!

My roomate, studied about 2 hours for his finals total while lying on his bed and falling asleep. This was the only time he studied since his last midterm, and he was two points away from setting the curve in a 350 person Ochem Class.

 

[armynavy]

math and physics are the only 2 subject that i do well in after a 1 or 2 day cram session. cant say that about chem or bio though. but i do know this girl that gets As in Bio after cramming in the nite before. But for her, when in comes to math, physics and chem, she has no clue. Some people are good at certian things while others arent.

 

[NonTradMed]

I knew people in college that could pick up stuff really fast. What would take me mutliple readings through my notes to understand would take them one or two read-throughs and they would end up breaking the curve. Those people are 'smart'. However, smarts will only get you so far before you hit a brick wall and have to compete against people who compensate by working hard or those that are smart *and* ambitious.

I am not smart, but I do work hard. That's how I managed to get anywhere in my life. I don't have a natural affinity for standardized exams or for math or science, but I manage to compete against those lazy individuals who cram at the last minute. However, put me against a smart kid who's also a hard worker, and I get my ass kicked. Luckily for me, there aren't *that* many of those students in the world. So I consider myself moderately successful in the academic world. I got into a good college, finished my engineering degree with a respectable GPA and am headed off to med school. I was never a straight A student in college, nor did I get into a top 20 med school, but I worked for everything I got, so I feel I fulfilled my potential and that is as much as anyone can be asked to accomplish in their lifetime.

 

[Vox Animo]

That's ridiculous. The most prolific and successful American inventor was Thomas Edison. He patented hundreds of time-saving (not to mention life-changing) devices. He was a workaholic who often conducted thousands of experiments to perfect an invention. He and his staff worked 18-hour days.

There is no logic to the assertion that devices that benifit lazy people were thought up by lazy people; if that were true, we would expect tropical medicine researchers to be hobbled by malaryia.

Lazy people make avid use of things that other people thought up. It's one of our core strategies for success.

How much time do we actually save by thought or labor saving devices? What are we saving this time up for?

IF anything, these devices cause us to have less time overall.

 

[locoindio]

Honestly, I don't know where any of us got the idea that if someone needs to study a topic, it means that they aren't "as smart" as someone who doesn't need to review.

Also, some people are just exceptional test-takers. I am not sure whether this makes them "smart" or anything else besides "really good test takers."

As a Biochem TA I got to see the full spectrum of students, very bright students who spent a lot of time studying and working problems, very bright students who didn't spend much time studying, etc.

How much someone studies is not a good measure of their intelligence.

Preach, Jackie. Preach. I notice a lot in my pre-med classes that there are ppl who for some reason get off to getting a better grade than somebody else, as if that makes them smarter.....and even if they smarter, so what ya know? I'm a pretty bright guy but lack motivation. But when I buckle down, I usu get the grade. Regardless though, I'm not mentally jerking myself off like I am aroused by being smarter than somebody else. Who cares really. In the end, everybody is constantly learning. That's the beauty of medicine IMO-- the idea that even the most qualified physician is still learning to do his or her job better. That being said, I'd like to turn the focus on and off, on when I need to study and off when I want to return to being the guy I was before I started pre-med/med school, whatever. If someone is bent on being smarter than me, they can have it. Think I'm the dumbest guy alive. I don't care. As long as I'm workin hard and learning to becoming the best d*mn doctor I can be, they can think they are as smart as they please...

Loco

 

[Anastasis]

Preach, Jackie. Preach. I notice a lot in my pre-med classes that there are ppl who for some reason get off to getting a better grade than somebody else, as if that makes them smarter.....and even if they smarter, so what ya know? I'm a pretty bright guy but lack motivation. But when I buckle down, I usu get the grade. Regardless though, I'm not mentally jerking myself off like I am aroused by being smarter than somebody else. Who cares really. In the end, everybody is constantly learning. That's the beauty of medicine IMO-- the idea that even the most qualified physician is still learning to do his or her job better. That being said, I'd like to turn the focus on and off, on when I need to study and off when I want to return to being the guy I was before I started pre-med/med school, whatever. If someone is bent on being smarter than me, they can have it. Think I'm the dumbest guy alive. I don't care. As long as I'm workin hard and learning to becoming the best d*mn doctor I can be, they can think they are as smart as they please...

Loco

That's a good attitude to have. Bet it keeps you sane when the gunners come around.

I get so sick and tired of the competitiveness of some of the kids at my school. Partially because they're so young, and they think I'm stupid just because I'm a nontrad. And partially because they think their kings of the world because they have 4.0s at podunk U. Seriously, these kids have no idea what REAL hardwork is. Med School will be a rude awakening I think.

 

[almost_there]

How much time do we actually save by thought or labor saving devices? What are we saving this time up for?

IF anything, these devices cause us to have less time overall.

Um, you're joking, right? Cars. Dishwashers. Washing machines and dryers. Farm machines. Factories. Electric light. Calculators.

 

[QuikClot]

No, Vox makes a good point that, as far as we can tell, technology has given us less leisure and no more pleasure in life than we had before. Hunter-gatherers (which was everybody 20,000 years ago) tend to work about 25 hours a week. Think about that for a minute.

Henry David Thoreau was the most eloquent advocate for this point of view; he discusses it at length in the opening chapters of Walden: "We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph from Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing important to communicate."

Thoreau didn't know what we now know about pre-agricultural societies, but it would have been grist for his mill.

 

[KornKobs]

Which are you?

Lazy and smart - These guys barely study, cram, do everything at the last minute and ALWAYS GET A's! Two guys that sit next to me in calc are like this, one is asian, and the other is a total dork. Both came into the test on Tuesday bragging about how they didn't study, and we got our tests back today.. both got 100s, compared to me, who studied hard, 93.

Conscientous and not as smart - We study hours on end in advance for tests. We take good notes. We are organized. We do everything in advance, never procrastinating. yet we can barely keep up with the lazy and smart type. Is it fair?

I think I'm somewhere in the middle. I consider myself smart, but I'm not as smart as the lazy and smart type, and I'm conscientious, but a little lazy sometimes.

Just a fun little thread here.

I know that I'm very lazy and definitely procrastinate all the time. But, somehow, last semester I managed to pull off A's and B's with one C. I usually cram for tests..but in Biology, i have to read over the entire text..whereas anatomy..I studied for like less than an hour and got a B on the final..I know I could have done better..but I'm LAZY! So, anyway, I'm somewhere in between the two.

 

[Zuerst]

Preach, Jackie. Preach. I notice a lot in my pre-med classes that there are ppl who for some reason get off to getting a better grade than somebody else, as if that makes them smarter.....and even if they smarter, so what ya know? I'm a pretty bright guy but lack motivation. But when I buckle down, I usu get the grade. Regardless though, I'm not mentally jerking myself off like I am aroused by being smarter than somebody else. Who cares really. In the end, everybody is constantly learning. That's the beauty of medicine IMO-- the idea that even the most qualified physician is still learning to do his or her job better. That being said, I'd like to turn the focus on and off, on when I need to study and off when I want to return to being the guy I was before I started pre-med/med school, whatever. If someone is bent on being smarter than me, they can have it. Think I'm the dumbest guy alive. I don't care. As long as I'm workin hard and learning to becoming the best d*mn doctor I can be, they can think they are as smart as they please...

Loco

I just tell myself that I have a bigger c0<k in those situations... yes, they got a higher grade on a test than me, BUT, can they seriously call their sexual paraphernalia a "third leg"? I can. 😀

 

[pathstudent]

To succeed in medical school you don't have to be smart. You have to be stupid enough to be willing to study 12 hours a day every day.

Compulsive and stupid will get AOA over smart and lazy every time.

 

[Rafa]

Um, you're joking, right? Cars. Dishwashers. Washing machines and dryers. Farm machines. Factories. Electric light. Calculators.

Point is, we spend just as much time managing these machines as we did managing ourselves back in the day - if not more.

 

[Anastasis]

No, Vox makes a good point that, as far as we can tell, technology has given us less leisure and no more pleasure in life than we had before. Hunter-gatherers (which was everybody 20,000 years ago) tend to work about 25 hours a week. Think about that for a minute.

Henry David Thoreau was the most eloquent advocate for this point of view; he discusses it at length in the opening chapters of Walden: "We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph from Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing important to communicate."

Thoreau didn't know what we now know about pre-agricultural societies, but it would have been grist for his mill.

You have a really great point. I remember how shocked I was to read that fact about hunter gatherers in my anth class. Makes you think about just how valuable modern society has been. Now I know I'm going to be flamed about all the advances modern society has spawned and I enjoy them just as much as everyone else. But that fact about lifestlyles in preindustrial societies is still compelling.

 

[werd]

yeah smart and lazy people exist. to be more correct, it's usually people that are really smart but don't care about being the top of the class... so they work a lot less than most people but still do well above average. honestly these people do well in (and tend to go to?) med school... many med students get overwhelmed, freaked out, and depressed over all the work which is just bad for you. keeping good grades and keeping your mental health is, obviously, the optimal combination.

 

[Jacks Mannequin]

I just tell myself that I have a bigger c0<k in those situations... yes, they got a higher grade on a test than me, BUT, can they seriously call their sexual paraphernalia a "third leg"? I can. 😀

Or a bigger "khram," as Borat would put it.

 

[almost_there]

No, Vox makes a good point that, as far as we can tell, technology has given us less leisure and no more pleasure in life than we had before. Hunter-gatherers (which was everybody 20,000 years ago) tend to work about 25 hours a week. Think about that for a minute.

Henry David Thoreau was the most eloquent advocate for this point of view; he discusses it at length in the opening chapters of Walden: "We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph from Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing important to communicate."

Thoreau didn't know what we now know about pre-agricultural societies, but it would have been grist for his mill.

I can't speak to levels of happiness in pre-agricultural societies, but... what was the average life expectancy? 30, 35? What % of women died in childbirth?

I have nothing but respect for Thoreau, but I think there may be a tendency to over romanticize some idyllic past.

 

[SanDiegoSOD]

No, Vox makes a good point that, as far as we can tell, technology has given us less leisure and no more pleasure in life than we had before. Hunter-gatherers (which was everybody 20,000 years ago) tend to work about 25 hours a week. Think about that for a minute.

You can also think about the fact that hunter-gatherers routinely starved if the hunting-gathering went bad that week. Americans enjoy less leisure time than citizens of almost every other country in the world; America is also the most productive country in the world (I'm talking GDP here). Coincidence? Maybe. But I think it has something to do with enjoying less leisure time.

 

[Rafa]

You can also think about the fact that hunter-gatherers routinely starved if the hunting-gathering went bad that week. Americans enjoy less leisure time than citizens of almost every other country in the world; America is also the most productive country in the world (I'm talking GDP here). Coincidence? Maybe. But I think it has something to do with enjoying less leisure time.

America is the most productive country in the world because of our policy of invading countries we deem counterproductive to our interests, and controlling the economies of others via "free trade" policies. The "developed" world plunders the remaining 2/3rds of the planet with a combination of lawyers and guns. This is a product of unregulated capitalism and 20th century hegemony; I assure you it has nothing to do with our leisure time or "pioneering spirit" or any of that other nonsense they taught us in junior high.

 

[TheMightyAngus]

America is the most productive country in the world because of our policy of invading countries we deem counterproductive to our interests, and controlling the economies of others via "free trade" policies. The "developed" world plunders the remaining 2/3rds of the planet with a combination of lawyers and guns. This is a product of unregulated capitalism and 20th century hegemony; I assure you it has nothing to do with our leisure time or "pioneering spirit" or any of that other nonsense they taught us in junior high.

This is a very naive, liberal, and incorrect view of American economics.

 

[almost_there]

This is a very naive, liberal, and incorrect view of American economics.

I object to the "liberal" label. That's like calling survivalists "conservative".