I think this is an interesting point. I don't think the article makes it well. So I'm going to throw away the article and just make what I think is a better arg

I think this is an interesting point. I don't think the article makes it well. So I'm going to throw away the article and just make what I think is a better argument. But if you want the tl;dr version (and this is the Internet, so people want that), I would say: Math. Frankly I don't think math is really a 'story.' You can try to fit it into that frame, but I don't think it's a natural fit. So often the data we need doesn't easily compress into story form: in fact, the best way to describe it is to use mathematical terms. Which leads me to my other example: Physics. Now here's an area where we've become really explicit about saying "Do NOT tell a story about this" in many situations. There's the math and what it describes, which goes first, and then some limited descriptions around that, which comes second and tends to get more wrong the more of a "story" it becomes. In fact we often say something like "this is what the math says and all interpretations beyond that are speculative." Which is about as anti-story as you can get. Which is interesting and worth reflecting on. Because what could be more fundamental than that? And yet, if the most fundamental things cannot be fit into story form, that really calls the whole story framing into question. A writer who's taken that concept and developed it is Timothy Morton, with his idea of hyperobjects. But you don't have to agree with that; the above examples make the point - they're as 'basic' to reality as you can get, and yet resistant to the story format.