In Michael Pollan’s book In Defense of Food, he describes a study in which Americans are more likely to rely on external cues for when to stop eating than those from other countries. While people from other cultures would stop eating when they were full or nearly full, an internal cue, the Americans were more likely to eat until the food was gone or until others stopped eating, factors that are external to their bodies.
One experiment along these lines had a table rigged to create a bottomless bowl of soup. It continuously refilled from the bottom secretly, and some of the unknowing participants consumed far, far more than normal because they were controlled by how much was left rather than how much was enough.
With work, I have the exact opposite problem because, with work, the appropriate cues are the other way around. External cues provide a much better indicator that work is getting done; the stack of papers goes down, the laundry is now put away, the website is up and running. The internal cues, stress, a feeling of productivity, a sense of accomplishment, are often real-life red herrings, diversions from the task at hand, especially when you let them dictate when to start and stop working.
So where that leads to is a place where work can never just be a relaxed, normal event. It either has to be laborious or envigorating, stressful or rewarding in order for it to feel legitimate. If that sounds ridiculous to you, good. But for many of us, our wires are crossed in this way for whatever reason.
If this sounds like you, on the other hand, I invite you to join me in some reprogramming. Pick your external goals, identify the external cues you’re aiming for, and rather than succumbing to the false dichotomy where work is either highly rewarding or laboriously stressful, allow for the more relaxed middle ground.
