I generally prefer the more direct {lesson, evidence}. I have on several occasions thought that Luke has implemented this well.
But—I think we have evidence that EY is a particularly good writer of narrative. While also getting the content across. The epiphany hit is pretty sweet too.
Embedding lessons in stories (like the Blue and Green) makes the mind labile to their content and makes it easier to hang on to the memory and to retell to others. I imagine it comes at the cost to extra thinking and writing time to package lessons so.
Is that cost worth the marginal effort? I’m pretty sure the answer is ‘sometimes’.
And if you have a Luke and a Eliezer both on board, surely not everyone needs to their own lesson building, literature sweeps and narrative weaving (in the situations where those might be particularly useful).
I generally prefer the more direct {lesson, evidence}. I have on several occasions thought that Luke has implemented this well.
But—I think we have evidence that EY is a particularly good writer of narrative. While also getting the content across. The epiphany hit is pretty sweet too.
Embedding lessons in stories (like the Blue and Green) makes the mind labile to their content and makes it easier to hang on to the memory and to retell to others. I imagine it comes at the cost to extra thinking and writing time to package lessons so.
Is that cost worth the marginal effort? I’m pretty sure the answer is ‘sometimes’.
And if you have a Luke and a Eliezer both on board, surely not everyone needs to their own lesson building, literature sweeps and narrative weaving (in the situations where those might be particularly useful).
Use comparative advantage?