This sounds nice, but given that the title is "The Psychology of Dreaded Tasks", I'm saddened there's essentially no reference to psychological findings. The references to the brain in the article are completely unreferenced. They sound fine given what I know about predictive processing, but I can't really tell whether they're just a nice sounding story, or something scientific. There a lot of psychological work on procrastination (I'm not sure how much neuroscience there is, but there's bound to be some).
This post would have been less impressive but more honest without the veneer of psychological authority.
I don't think whenever someone says "psychology" they're going to have extensive knowledge on the subject. Sounds like he's speaking from his own experience. What would you call it? He's talking about the brain isn't he? Or are these terms reserved only for those who've gotten their PhD?
Make the title something like "How to approach dreaded tasks", or maybe something a little more creative than that.
The topic really doesn't have to be about the brain. We all have experience confronting tasks we dread, but we don't have to know anything about the brain to talk about that experience.
Now, maybe neuroscience comes along and tells us something new about how that dread happens, how to confront it, etc. If so, that's great--but it should be properly cited. Also note that simply invoking the brain does not necessarily add anything: if you find out dread involves the XYZ subsystem of the brain, that is irrelevant to a discussion of the experience of dread, until you say what we've learned from it being the XYZ subsystem.
So my demand is intellectual honesty. Which parts of your post are grounded in science, which are personal experiences, which are just fluff?
This post would have been less impressive but more honest without the veneer of psychological authority.