I think that that is just how the human motivational system works: there is a set point, and if for example I get hit by a car and lose the use of my legs, my life gets much suckier for a while, but a month or so after I have settled in to being paralyzed (i.e., I have gained enough experience with it to have a practical understanding or knowledge-grounded-in-lived-experience of all the significant new constraints on my life) I will be about as happy or as miserable as I am now.
Would you agree with my theory of the set point?
If so, what I am missing? I don't see anything wrong or irrational about the manner of living described in the original comment that you disagreed with, namely,
I wholly agree with this, as I've done it myself, but nothing about this requires treating oneself like they are "born in sin". This whole idea of "I'm a broken person so I must live a curtailed life" is lifted straight from Puritan ideals. In fact, a lot of American culture carries the tinge of Puritanism still, as if it's the only solution against the Wests' hedonistic level of distractions.
The reality is that a bit of self-examination can help one monitor the ebb and flow of their attention, and maximize it for effectiveness. Putting guard rails on every corner of your life will likewise limit the positive elements of having a wandering mind. As a good autistic friend of mine put it: "my disability is my superpower". He doesn't hide away in his room out of fear that his poor social skills will offend someone.
Medicine is a shortcut to that, but as you've already noted, it's a huge undertaking of trial-and-error, and may only amount to a transitory solution. Nonetheless, if it carries you forward even a little, it's a worthwhile endeavor.