It wasn’t so easy after my 1st attempt to understand this story. I had to pause a couple of times to understand their word choice. For instance, when Loewenstein mentioned visceral rewards – I had an assumption that perhaps psychology was incorporated into this concept of procrastination, and I believed it was something like the token economy which made a lot of sense of why 3 fields (Psychology, Economics, and Philosophy) weighed in on procrastination. I will be honest; my 1st attempt took me more than an hour to process, and I had breaks in between pages because it was a lot of references from different fields to connect and the word choices sounded antique, which again is reasonable since major philosophers for instance, Socrates had his input of procrastination which he stated it has something to do with “ignorance.” If I were the author, to make this story more appealing to college readers, I would emphasize the importance of combating procrastination since it’s common in any institution. It started to get much sense after my 2nd attempt, and it wasn’t as bad as the 1st time I read the story. However, what sort of threw me off was that the references were out of timeline order and I’m unsure if I was the only one who interpreted it. We had context from Greek philosophers which took place a long time ago, the Civil War which was not long ago (2 centuries ago), Netflix queues, Victor Hugo’s habit, and George Akerlof who is the focus during the story opening. That structure sort of confused me and gave me a hard time fitting my interpretation of procrastination from this story. If I were the author, I would simplify the text to a more accessible text for readers and in a more structured timeline since on my end I would understand it much better.