Here is why I think I'm better off. Earlier, I used to get my cup of coffee, and then go to my desk all pumped up, still feeding off from my narrative, and then work with hard focus for maybe 10 mins, following which I would open my browser, turn on some music and do shitty work for the following hour or so. I would then feel mentally foggy and distracted. Then I would notice that my narrative is getting hurt. And I know how to fix that! More coffee! So I'd probably go to coffee machine or walk over to the coffee shop. Come back to my desk. But now the extended break has made it even harder to find my focus again.
Rinse, lather, repeat.
Having realized how little coffee actually helps, when I feel distracted and feel the urge get more coffee, I'm now able to stay at my desk and continue working because I know that coffee isn't some magic drug which helps all the time.
So yes, it might help me get to my desk feeling good. But it sure as hell doesn't help me do good work.
The problem I think, might be that narratives put you into far mode, while actually making progress in real life requires near mode. Now, you might build a narrative where you are a near mode person, but it's feeding off from far mode fuzzies. And it's hard maintain both at the same time.
Interesting, I often use a coffee or bathroom break exactly because it allows me to stop working and get up from my desk, whether because I need a change of perspective to think about a problem or because I just don't feel like working and want to use a socially acceptable method to slack off for ten minutes. Then again, I drink tea instead of coffee, so I don't have the issue of taking in too much caffine at once and actually harming how I work. YMMV.
Narratives definetly seem to be far mode, yes - you can construct a narrative where you're a Good Worker...
Our internal dialogues are often exactly that: dialogues that suit a narrative. Narrative building (the basis of the narrative fallacy) is often quite detrimental to attempts to think clearly. It is therefore beneficial to detect and correct for biases introduced from narrative building. But it can be hard to distinguish a 'clear' thought from one that is a consequence of a narrative.
I offer a heuristic to make the distinction between a thought which is a direct attempt to model reality and a thought which is based solely on its suitability to a narrative:
Two examples:
1. When buying something: Often times, when I'm standing in a Starbucks line for a coffee and try to imagine why I'm standing there (when I can make my own coffee both at my home and at my office), I am usually returned with a feeling of being part of The People Who Do Things. Or one of being a Hard Worker who needs his Coffee to do his Hard Work with Focus and Determination. It fits too well while introducing a character in a novel. After I started noticing this, I've been realizing that coffee is not as useful in improving my focus as I thought it was earlier.
2. In conversations: This must be very familiar to most people. Anecdotes get highly embellished based on their suitability to a story. Also the way they are usually 'narrated' rather than just 'conveyed'. Realizing this when it happens can be quite useful.
Other examples?