I saw this happen in myself too. I think it has to do with experiencing things as a consumer first(the "ooh shinys") and then only later being able to work thro

I saw this happen in myself too. I think it has to do with experiencing things as a consumer first(the "ooh shinys") and then only later being able to work through how I'm actually using the tool towards a goal. A lot of tasks that look like they need a computer in the loop, are actually a tiny layer of tech on top of a more traditional skillset. That is, you would actually be more capable of using the tech well by studying and planning it on paper and walking in the proverbial "recording studio" practiced and prepared, than by getting a device and expecting to be hands-on with it for hours and hours every day. This analogy works for music, for visual art, for writing, for programming, and many other tasks. The cases where you can get a lot out of being hands-on tend to be artifacts of incidental incentive structures, because so much of computing is just an abstract UI to process and edit data you already have and publish the results, vs being an more intrinsic experience - it's supposed to speed you up, not make you dwell on every decision. Staying hands-on with the machine creates incentives to polish things mindlessly, because it will never say "no" to one more layer of processing, and it will always say "yes" to your requests to keep previous versions around. Going traditional cuts out all the fluff - you have to put in ongoing effort to support a traditional workflow, so you automatically drop your level of polish to what the task calls for. It makes you think about handling information as a performance art, instead of an idealized production process. And when you bring the computer in on top of that, it focuses you around making basic adjustments and enhancements, instead of mitigating the need for a performative approach altogether.