Yeah, I'm aware. Can we frame the concept differently?
Why the projection of "alone with thoughts"? Why seed the concept of existential dread in the mind of the reader of the study results?
How do the researchers know that it was assuredly the terror of the subject's own mind, their internal monologue or what have you, which certainly provoked them to preoccupy themselves with pain?
Answer: they cannot know why the individuals shocked themselves, but only that the shock happened.
Congratulations, you've just confronted the suspension of disbelief regarding pornography, such that having a camera in the room somehow renders the act as "not prostitution" by virtue of performers (rather than johns and hookers) "putting on a show."
We would rather electrocute ourselves
than spend time in our own thoughts.
It really doesn't matter what was demonstrated by that study. Whatever percentage you want to try and come up with, it's still wrong for me.
How about instead of "we" change that to "some" and catch your breath on the provocative tone of panic. That some might feel this way is no shock. To presume all is where the controversy lies.
Why not both?