I've been trying to learn a lot about investment finance in the last 18 months. I find that I probably learn more from light, non fiction texts like Barbarians at the Gate and Liar's Poker. Why? Because all the strange abstractions of finance are easier to grasp when you have a sense for why they needed to be created. You get the story behind them.
That'd really block away the potential cognitive interest, wouldn't it? At least you could name it like "Why this is the last link you will follow that contains the word 'brain'."
Ugh. I got into a spirited disagreement on HN a few months back sparked by how much I hate when magazines like Wired feel the need to entice me to read something mildly analytic by interweaving it with a human story. The author can't just talk about a law and its potential for unintended consequences, or even just the law and specific examples of people it hurt. He had to tell me a full narrative about Bob Jones and his green bicycle that means so much to him and the overcast clouds on the fateful day he had his front tire stolen when he was already late for work! I find myself skipping from paragraph to paragraph looking for actual analysis.
Fantastic book, both from a writing perspective and wanting to understand why people react to certain things they do. I need to reread my copy but it gave me a ton to chew on.
If you're selling a product, is it best to tell a story of why it's useful or just to show what it does and let the product do the talking?
Personally, if I go to a site and I have to sign in/up to get to the application, then I'm less likely to do it than if I was immediately logged into a guest account, perhaps with some pointer bubbles explaining what to do/what you can do.
I'm pretty sure that there are harmful and undesired things that activate the brain too, so I'm not sure that activating the brain is the ultimate goal.
Why not concentrate on why stories are powerful? E.g. exploring their strength of making connections and emotions...
