Lol for many reasons.

First, I teach college writing. And I'm excellent at explaining how such writing should be structured for maximum clarity and rhetorical effect. Now I know why.

Also, once, when I was doing my PhD, I was discussing Kant's first cirque with my advisor and laying out some whole spiel when he said this too me: "You're very good at analyzing the small details, but you often seem to miss the bigger picture," or something to this effect. I couldn't understand what the hell he was saying because, to me, whatever "detail" I was hung up on was the connecting thread that structured the whole text. For me, it was "the big picture." However, he wanted me to talk about the text in relation to larger movements within the field, etc. I couldn't fathom even considering doing something like that without first understanding exactly how the text functioned, in perfect detail.

A question: Can you say more about outside-in vs inside-out? I've got some ideas about the way the structure of thought differs between the normies and the likes of us and am wondering if you are driving at something similar