If you are interested in these things, I highly recommend Made to Stick by the Heath Brothers . It focuses on the SUCCESs framework:
S - Short
U - Unexpected
C - Credible
C - Concrete
E - Emotional
S - Stories
They elaborate in excellent detail on each of these ideas and the acronym that they coined is a perfect example.
In terms of building your own credibility, I suggest reading How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie.  This book is instrumental in understanding the basic concepts that can have a material impact on your life. I think that Autobiography of Ben Franklin  teaches a few key lessons in the use of diffidence that harmonizes well with Carnegie's ideas.
This applies tremendously in marketing, and is one of the reasons why marketing speak has to change constantly. Otherwise people start ignoring the cliché ad speak.
Sounds like Inception!
Better quote from the article would be:
storytelling is the only way to plant ideas into other people’s minds.
This is way easier than recursively going into someone's dream, only to meet your ex-wife as base condition.
Years later, people will spontaneously write and reminisce about such and such a talk on e.g. extending Roxygen.
This is, incidentally, the same format as my daughter's bed-time stories; coincidence?
If you're interested you can search for Wired for Story.
Wired for Story is a great book about the science of story. I think it applies to a lot more than writing.
And consider, a "hook" like "what X does to your brain" indeed combines interest-in-your-favorite-person-yourself and the crunchy authority of science. Those can work well till they get old and start to sound thin, formulaic and manipulative.
My next blog post will be: "What crude simplifications do to ours brains"
It's good to be reminded of this...
But... what if one has developed a rich vocabulary, and truly does feel those more complicated sentence structures and Five-dollar words from the heart? Is it better to dumb down my storytelling language so the listener can more rapidly assimilate the message, if by doing so, it is no longer my linguistic passion that ignites the tale?
If the point is for you to express yourself in the way that ignites your passion, whether or not anyone else cares or understands, then the answer is no, do not compromise your desires.
Also, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_prose
This knowledge comes in handy when reading other peoples' code, but I don't use those instructions myself. Why? Because I know how to achieve the same effect through carefully-scheduled combinations of smaller, faster opcodes.
Exactly the same principle applies in English composition. Use an awkward or unusual word, or a flowery modifier? That's an L1 cache miss. It'll cost a few cycles of wasted execution time, if viewed in terms of the reader's attention span. How about a word that sends the reader to the dictionary? That's an L2 miss. Those can waste thousands of cycles.
You can tolerate a few L1 misses here and there, but those L2 misses that have to be fetched from DRAM will make your "code" run like shit.
Good communication is not always about passing the message in the optimal way.
I don't think using a rich vocabulary is in diametric opposition to being understood. I think you can achieve both ends simultaneously.
Looks like they forgot to tell the story of why comments would enhance their content. Fail.
Do you have an example of this done well?