> Else you would conclude that taking heroin or posting on HN all day must be the most valuable way to spend your time.

Considering that I don't make time for heroin use, I believe by my metric that I don't find it valuable. Or else I would use it. Conversely, I don't spend all day on HN because the value degrades as the day goes by. This kind of response is wholly inappropriate. As you yourself point out

> podcasts compete with surfing the internet, Netflix, etc.

So what I'm suggesting is that you are placing higher (satisfaction) value over surfing the internet, Netflix, etc over the value of podcasts.

> Being unable to identify this procrastination usually stems from rationalization. "Hmm, if something was more important to me, I'd surely be doing it!" being a great example of that faulty bargaining.

You are misreading. Asking if you find value (what kind of value?) in podcasts is a driving question. The question may be rhetorical in nature but the answer isn't simply "I don't make time for it ipso facto it is not valuable to me." Rather the answer is deeper and not singular, coming to possible different conclusions: "podcasts aren't as valuable as the other things I prioritize" or "podcasts are more valuable than the things I am prioritizing over it, maybe I should re-prioritize." You may fail at the latter, but the question and (personal) answer is necessary if you are to take that step. Either you convince yourself that you're placing too much weight on the value of podcasts and that the relaxing nature of surfing the internet and Netflix is more valuable to you, relaxing IS a valuable and necessary part of existence (yes, people go too far). Or you need to evaluate and work at extracting more value within your day, be that with podcasts, exercise, whatever. No one, except you, implied that such a task is easy. The whole point of the question is to get you to prod yourself and push you to make a decision on the answer instead of just expressing frustration. What you choose is up to you at this point as well as how you choose to accomplish your answer.

Additionally I should mention that there are different types of value and what that means to people is different. Don't discount stress relief in the form of "slacking off" as not valuable. You can't be running in high gear all the time. This statement also doesn't ignore addiction unless you are not giving a good faith reading.

> And we are often slaves to what is easy to do.

Do not fall into this trap. Addiction is treatable and you can get out of it. It isn't easy, but it is treatable. You are not subjugated to that existence forever.

> What is easy to do doesn't always agree with what we want to do.

Who claimed this? Rather I'll say that not everything that is critical is a personal attack and often we package complex questions that require the listener to make difficult decisions into compact statements as an intentional method to get the other person to think hard about the question. Frankly because no one can give you an answer but yourself and thus it is woefully inappropriate to do so. So a mechanism is needed to get you to do such a task. This is not an attack on you unless you make it one. The pattern which I have just discussed is littered all throughout this response. What it means to be a good faith response is to think about the intention of the words and not just your interpretation (which both are different than the literal words). It does not mean you have to agree, but it does mean you have to demonstrate that you listened.