The part on stories reminded me of Neil Postman's arguments in Amusing Ourselves to Death.

> Being told a story is to be infantilised, somewhat: to suspend one’s critical faculties.

One key argument in the book is that TV shows offer significantly less information density nor coherence as that of written mediums. They are optimized to reduce cognitive load. Thus our ability to think and process information diminishes greatly when there's nothing to think about. This is essentially what storytelling is - piecing together loosely related information to elicit an emotional response. The more harmful aspect is that they give us an illusion of learning, which the author also articulated with this quote:

> ‘The story wouldn’t be any good if you came back to your normal life completely unchanged, and having learned nothing, or having had no new observation,’ Vogler told me. ‘I think that we are always searching for upgrades, improvements in our behaviour, in our performance, in our relationships with other people.’ Films, he says, offer the opportunity for ‘slight improvement’.

TV shows wrap thin veils of lessons around stories. We feel like doing something fun and learning while learning something. Why not do more? So we consume more of it and spirals down into a self-reinforcing loop. But it is often not the case in real world. Learning is challenging. It's meant to confuse you and question your preexisting beliefs. We are numbing ourselves by associating what we watched in flashy media as concrete and substantial knowledge. The real takeaway is the experience and the emotional response from those dopamine-inducing flash cuts. When we associate learning and by extension, thinking, with emotions, that's when our critical thinking degrades and we become "infantalised."