You know how in some sciences, like bio/genetics for example, they teach you something, and you're like "Oh it really is that simple!" and you master it? Like let's say Mendel and the pea plants? Then if you like bio you take another year or two of it and they're like "AHAHAHA just joking, this is really how genes work" (in other words they start demonstrating to you the more complex genes that are determined by more than a simple 2x2 grid, like I don't know eye color - I don't know enough bio to actually know these, I just know they're more complex than what they teach students in an intro class). Then you take even more bio and at some point half of the concepts you learned in your original biology class have been completely overturned in your head as you have learned more. That's kind of like the rule of three. In English and in writing teachers drum the rule of three into students' heads because it gives them structure, and if you can think of three points to prove something, you're probably on pretty solid ground. But when you're being persuasive in essays, you don't really need three points. My favorite essay form became a good ol' 4-pager, with two main paragraphs addressing the needs of my "thesis." Moreover, each paragraph doesn't have to be a boring "THis is another reason I'm using to convince you" format - again, that's just what teachers use to get students used to the format of the essay. Often I would collect reasons and then slap them together in a paragraph by "type." Like, "Environmental effects" or "economy effects." Then you can count multiple reasons within one paragraph as long as they are looped together under your topic sentence. I guess I wanted to let you know that there is a lot out there beyond the mold(s) that you've been taught. If that is what you find constraining about writing - chuck 'em to the wayside. And fast.yadda yadda rule of three
Yeah, essays for me don't really follow the old PEE and rule of three structure but they're still useful. Another example of what you explained with biology is chemistry. You get introduced to atoms, then atoms being made up of protons/neutrons/electrons and then you learn about ions and electron 'shells' which are explained to you by saying that certain electrons orbit the nucleus at a 'further' distance. (this is about where my education in chem stopped) Then you learn that it's not actually about distance or energy levels or something like that? Every level of complexity tells you something useful but there's usually another one just beyond it. I did a course in my first year of Computer Science which was a combined cognitive science and writing course. The idea was that we would learn about cognitive science and then write essays on it (three 1000 word essays), but also that we would learn how the act of writing is in fact very similar to other creative activities such as programming or invention. I wonder if there is a difference in how different sorts of programmers write. Java programming and Haskell programming are very different experiences, maybe the different habits you pick up bleed over into other areas.