I've always found it interesting that when people encounter challenges and roadblocks when playing a game like Dungeons and Dragons, they are energized and sometimes even relieved the game is not too easy. But when encountering setbacks in work the default is to get frustrated.
I'm pretty sure it's not the type of challenge that differs. In DnD a lot of the challenges are logistical in nature or some kind of interpersonal conflict.
My take is that the main difference is perceived risk / perceived high stakes. In a game you are in a circle of safety, so you don't get as stressed about roadblocks - whereas if you perceive negative consequences for failing to reach a goal in real life, then any obstacle looks like a survival threat and the anxiety about failing distracts from fully engaging with the challenge. As an example outside of work: if you're playing DnD and the DM says: "the bartender gives you a rude look" you are intrigued and curious. If a waiter in real life gives you a rude look, most of our brain's will at least temporarily go into ego threat mode and fall into a default of freezing, leaving or arguing back. We will be distracted, bothered, and generally the opposite of open-minded and curious. My point is not whether these are ideal responses but to note how differently our brains respond in a situation where there is actually minimal risk, but our brain perceives high risk because of outdated programming. Another example in the other direction: people can easily start taking games too seriously and become ego-attached to the goal, and the same brain response occurs. These extreme examples strongly suggest that it is the perceived threat rather than actual threat that drive our responses, and perception can often be very out of whack with reality and inhibit effective problem solving.
For most people in most work challenges, the actual survival threat from obstacles is small. Our brains massively overexaggerate it because we evolved in a context where most problems (especially social ones) actually were life-threatening. I would even say that in cases where survival (or your income) is threatened by an obstacle, downregulating the fear/threat response will usually improve your chances of finding a solution. Negative emotions narrow attention, draw us inward and prevent both mental flexibility and engagement with the world, which make solving difficult problems much harder.
To summarize: given how much more inherently motivating it is to work on challenges that are similar in nature to the ones we procrastinate on in life, it seems worthwhile to try to downregulate our evolved fear/threat response when encountering obstacles.
For many, it depends what kind of setback it is. A technical problem can be intriguing and challenging in a good way. People problems or red tapey stuff can be frustrating(or vice versa depending on roles).
I wonder how much of it has to do with the reward. In D&D you get experience points, gain levels, get powerful magic items, etc. There is generally immediate positive feedback when you accomplish a goal or overcome an obstacle in the game world. But in real life, most times the only reward is that the obstacle has been cleared.
In the work environment this is where talking and praising becomes important again in my opinion. Acknowledgement of achievements, even very small ones by colleagues, managers etc has its purpose.
I am a weird person and for me thinking about the ultimate outcome (death) helps. Cannot be avoided, only procrastinated, but not by much and with great cost. Also the realization of my insignificance helps too. If I was not here, I was not born, if I did not turn that corner in my life, all the people in my surroundings would do very very similarly. Not the same but likely along the same trajectory. Similar good, similar bad. Have friends, child, colleague, husband. Someone was achieving in my place what I achieved. There are rare examples in history for exceptions, but even if my unique gift for humanity achievement was missing, the humanity was doing well anyway (we surely had one off people like Einstein or Taylor Swift - hehe - wasted yet here we are, we cope without that some way we call our precious life).
No point tiptoing around my precious life because it is so boringly ordinary that it exists in the billions. It is fragile, a little miracle in fact, so better not waste it by taking too big risks but not risking it by putting it into a protective case and put in a guarded corner for show either. Risk it, so not to risking it becoming too insignificant. Insignificant not for the crowds and social media outlets but for yourself! Bad things will hapen to cautious and not that cautious people alike. At least at and around the end. Better not wasting the time until then by putting us in a comfort cage.
Nothing new was said here actually, with different words this was told a million times perhaps, yet, it needs to be repeated.
If you die or fail in DnD, it just makes up for a story, there's no actual impact to your life, no consequence.
Setbacks at work could absolutely have a real consequence. Indirectly making it harder to get a promotion, bonus, better QoL at work, etc.
I agree that one should be used to challenges and avoid becoming stressed due to work but saying "you get excited when you encounter a problem in a game" is just ridiculous. The game is designed to tweak that obstacle to be just enough and you can always turn it off and go back to your life.
A problem in your actual life is not the same. Life is not a game.
I'm pretty sure it's not the type of challenge that differs. In DnD a lot of the challenges are logistical in nature or some kind of interpersonal conflict.
My take is that the main difference is perceived risk / perceived high stakes. In a game you are in a circle of safety, so you don't get as stressed about roadblocks - whereas if you perceive negative consequences for failing to reach a goal in real life, then any obstacle looks like a survival threat and the anxiety about failing distracts from fully engaging with the challenge. As an example outside of work: if you're playing DnD and the DM says: "the bartender gives you a rude look" you are intrigued and curious. If a waiter in real life gives you a rude look, most of our brain's will at least temporarily go into ego threat mode and fall into a default of freezing, leaving or arguing back. We will be distracted, bothered, and generally the opposite of open-minded and curious. My point is not whether these are ideal responses but to note how differently our brains respond in a situation where there is actually minimal risk, but our brain perceives high risk because of outdated programming. Another example in the other direction: people can easily start taking games too seriously and become ego-attached to the goal, and the same brain response occurs. These extreme examples strongly suggest that it is the perceived threat rather than actual threat that drive our responses, and perception can often be very out of whack with reality and inhibit effective problem solving.
For most people in most work challenges, the actual survival threat from obstacles is small. Our brains massively overexaggerate it because we evolved in a context where most problems (especially social ones) actually were life-threatening. I would even say that in cases where survival (or your income) is threatened by an obstacle, downregulating the fear/threat response will usually improve your chances of finding a solution. Negative emotions narrow attention, draw us inward and prevent both mental flexibility and engagement with the world, which make solving difficult problems much harder.
To summarize: given how much more inherently motivating it is to work on challenges that are similar in nature to the ones we procrastinate on in life, it seems worthwhile to try to downregulate our evolved fear/threat response when encountering obstacles.