Runner vs Coach - in school if you're being forced to run and hate it, the coach shouting at you and the threat of punishment keeps you going (is that the same as it removing your laziness? Is hating running really being lazy?). But in the case of an enthusiast competitively running, they might benefit from the coach holding them to a higher standard, but are they really someone who isn't willing to run without external motivation?

You might imagine a couch potato on welfare as a lazy person. Even then they will likely get up to get their welfare money, get food, use the toilet, go to sleep. When they have reasons they care about to do things, they do. If they literally don't get up to use the toilet or eat, we generally call them depressed or mentally ill rather than lazy. So why does the ordinary 'lazy' person watch TV instead of doing something else? Does calling them 'lazy' add any value as a label, or does it obscure whatever is really going on? Is it a Pavlov-dog conditioned situation, where they were disapproved of as a child whenever they did anything, a kind of learned helplessness, a once bitten twice shy situation? Is it that they lack imagination of what other things could be interesting or enjoyable? Is it that they never did anything long enough to get success at it so they have no internal model of that being possible and what it feels like? Is it that they have physical problems or pains, or mental shame and self-hate that make doing things more unpleasant than is visible from the outside?