Telling Stories That Change Lives, Part 2:
From Evolutionary Roots to Practical Mastery: Why Lawyers Must Embrace ABT
Counterpoint Volume 9; Issue 1 - Article 6 (June 2025)
An article in the Mastery Skills II Course
Patrick. T. Barone, Esq.
Barone Defense Firm
|
Article information:Article - 3000 words (approximately 15-18 minutes)
|
In Part 1 of this series, we explored the idea that storytelling is an evolutionary adaptation. Our brains aren’t built for the rote repetition of data - they’re built for narrative. From an evolutionary perspective, storytelling persists because it has been naturally selected as a tool for solving problems. And it is through solving problems, both individually and collectively, that we’ve survived and flourished.
Because storytelling allows us to simulate possibilities and outcomes, cooperate with others, and make sense of complex environments, it has become the primary lens through which we interpret the world. Viewed through this paradigm we begin to see that legal proceedings are not merely contests of fact and law; they are story contests. In every case, the side that identifies the real problem, frames it clearly, and offers the most complete and emotionally satisfying solution is the side that wins.
Lawyers are problem solvers, addressing conflicts that threaten social balance and individual safety. Using masterful storytelling, they can tap into these evolutionary and psychological roots, crafting narratives that not only persuade but also endure.
|
In courtrooms, where justice hinges on the ability to present clear and compelling solutions, understanding and employing these evolutionary principles of storytelling can mean the difference between a favorable outcome and failure. By aligning their advocacy with these problem-solving frameworks, lawyers not only persuade their audience but also contribute to the broader societal need for fairness and resolution.
|
Complicating this further, lawyers are trained to think in IRAC: Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion. But this four-part legal formula rarely produces the coherent, emotionally resonant stories that decision-makers need to justly decide your client’s case. Instead, what lawyers need is a storytelling tool that is both simple and adaptable, one that aligns with how humans naturally process information. That tool is the ABT: And, But, Therefore.
Don't adjust your sets... In Randy Olson's work, And, But, & Therefore are color coded blue, red and green respectively, so we've adopted that convention here as well.
- Editor
The ABT Template: A Lawyer’s Guide to Narrative Mastery
In its classic form of the ABT narrative template, the And describes the wished-for ideal - the system working as it should, the “heaven” we hope to inhabit. It tells us what’s at stake and what stands to be lost. The But introduces the problem - a “snake in the garden,” signaling that the ideal has been violated. If unaddressed, this disruption escalates; the snake becomes a dragon, and the system veers toward chaos. The Therefore is the solution - the return to alignment, the recovery of what was lost, the “gold” brought back from beneath the dragon.
This classic narrative arc, heaven, disruption, return, is captured in the ABT’s simple but powerful structure:
- And - Establish the normal world, the situation, the ideal.
- But - Introduce the problem, the conflict, the disruption.
- Therefore - Show the resolution, the path forward, the action.
The ABT may appear simple, but mastering it is hard. It takes discipline and practice. To maximize the power of ABT in legal advocacy, we must elevate it beyond its basic form. A refined ABT, especially for courtroom use, includes:
- And - material expresses the area of agreement embedded in an If/Then structure: “If the system functions properly, then justice prevails.”
- But - material identifies a disruption, the problem that the decision maker must solve, and amplifies the pain with a “because” elaboration.
- Therefore - material identifies the solution (what) and states how they can accomplish it.
Former students of Randy Olson have adapted this framework into what they call “DNA,” a variation that reinforces the elemental nature of ABT while offering fresh language for its core components. In this formulation, “Dream” represents the ideal, “Nightmare” defines the problem.
|
While the name “DNA” is a clever adaptation, it also gestures toward something deeper - Peterson’s hypothesis, discussed in Part I of this series, that storytelling is not just cultural but evolutionary. Narrative, like DNA, may encode adaptive problem-solving strategies that have helped shape the human genome. This resonance between storytelling frameworks and evolutionary principles underscores their lasting utility, particularly for lawyers seeking to persuade by aligning with the way human cognition evolved to process information.
|
If your first reaction is that the ABT narrative template seems too simple, you’re not alone, and you'd be forgiven for thinking so. After all, that’s precisely why there are so many competing and more complicated storytelling models out there. But simplicity, when grounded in deep structure, is not a weakness - it’s a strength.
Simplicity is the Ultimate Sophistication: The Evolutionary Origins of the ABT
As Leonardo da Vinci said, “simplicity is the ultimate sophistication”, [iii] and that’s an apt way to think about the ABT. While it may sound simple, when fully understood, it reveals itself as the ultimate sophistication in narrative structure.
This principle of sophisticated simplicity has deep roots in the philosophy of science. [iv] The idea that simplicity of explanation is important in science is as old as science itself and is often reflected in the principle of parsimony: the notion that, all else being equal, the best explanation is the simplest one.[v]
The ABT was first introduced by Randy Olson,[vi] an evolutionary biologist-turned-filmmaker, to bring the core structure of story to science communication. Olson observed that, much like lawyers, scientists often suffer from “And-itis.” Like lawyers and other subject matter experts, scientists tend to “pile one moment and one detail atop another moment and another detail - a stultifying procession of ‘and… and… and.” [vii] The result is a stream of information that overwhelms rather than engages, lacking the connective tissue our brains instinctively crave.
But just as a biologist dissects an organism to investigate and discover how its parts work together to sustain life, Olson dissected narrative to investigate and discover how its elements combine to sustain compelling storytelling. In doing so, he discovered that our brains require a narrative spine, a clear sense of beginning, conflict, and resolution, to process meaning, remain engaged and solve problems.
From this investigation, the ABT was born. In evolutionary terms, it is a meme selected for optimal survival, not because of its complexity, but because it embodies the parsimony principle: achieving maximal communicative impact through minimal narrative structure. Its power lies in this disciplined simplicity, offering a framework that is both universally adaptable and precisely tailored to enhance clarity and persuasion.
Therefore, Olson wrote his first book [viii] which was aimed primarily at research scientists. Later, Olson partnered with subject-matter experts like Doug Passon for law [ix] and Park Howell for business, [x] adapting the ABT framework for different professional audiences. Through his collaborations and consulting work with dozens of corporations, government agencies, and organizations, Olson is helping to transform how experts communicate across disciplines.
Hidden in Plain Sight
While Olson is credited with developing the ABT, his true genius was “discovering” what was already there, hidden in plain sight. The ABT structure is everywhere once you start looking. Martin Luther King Jr.’s I Have a Dream speech, for example, first paints a vision of racial harmony and freedom (And), then highlights the continuing injustice and broken promises faced by Black Americans (But) and finally calls for urgent action to realize the dream of equality (Therefore).
Likewise, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address offers another masterclass in the ABT. It begins by affirming the founding principles of liberty and equality (And), acknowledges the great civil war testing whether a nation so conceived can endure (But), the offering the call to action - as a nation we must reinvigorate our devotion to ensure that our democracy endures. (Therefore),
One of the most compelling contemporary explorations of narrative structure comes from John Yorke, whose work offers a powerful, though indirect, affirmation of the ABT model. While written primarily for screenwriters and novelists, Yorke’s nonfiction study goes well beyond a simple guide to plotting drama; it’s a deep investigation into why stories work and how they mirror the structure of human thought.
While Yorke never explicitly references the ABT (And-But-Therefore) structure, his argument reinforces it at every level. He contends that beneath every story lies a universal pattern: equilibrium, disruption, and resolution. This tripartite rhythm, the essential grammar of transformation, can be traced back to Aristotle’s Poetics and finds philosophical expression in Hegel’s dialectic: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. [xi] The structure endures because it mirrors how humans instinctively make sense of change.
Perhaps most compellingly, Yorke includes a chart [xii] that compiles 11 different storytelling models, including the Hero’s Journey, and shows how they are all different ways of trying to express the same basic concept.
Yorke’s analysis affirms what the ABT framework encapsulates with elegant brevity: that all meaningful stories, regardless of form or genre, follow the same fundamental arc. ABT, far from being a modern simplification, is a distilled expression of a narrative pattern as old as myth and as persistent as language itself.
The best way to understand the power of well-structured narrative is by way of example. What follows are several real-world examples show how traditional "fact-dump" advocacy can be transformed by ABT into clear, powerful storytelling.
Miranda Rights Reenvisioned
As we’ve established, the AAA structure is weak and uncompelling. In contrast, the ABT structure maximizes the power of your communication. An example of how mind-numbing AAA communication is, consider something we are all familiar with - the Miranda rights. While there are many versions used across the country that differ in length and complexity, [xiii] the following is a relatively straightforward example:
|
You have the right to remains silent, and anything you say can be used against you in court, and you have the right to talk to a lawyer before we ask you any questions and to have him with you during questions and if you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before questioning and if you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you still have the right to stop answering questions at any time until you talk to a lawyer. [xiv]
|
Is it no surprise that 80% of the subjects given these warnings waive their right to a lawyer [xv] and talk to the police, most often incriminating themselves in the process? Now consider this, what would happen, as Doug Passon suggests, [xvi] if the Miranda warnings were placed into ABT narrative format:
|
You have the right to remain silent AND the right to a lawyer, BUT if you do choose to speak to the police, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law,
THEREFORE you should not speak to law enforcement without first talking to a lawyer. |
A simple rearrangement of the rights creates a much more compelling warning. If Miranda warnings were consistently delivered in ABT format, the rights they convey would be clearer and more compelling, resulting in fewer clients waving them and fewer confessions made without fully understanding the consequences.
This is just one example of how the ABT structure can dramatically improve communication; let’s now look at how it applies in other critical contexts.
A Typical Closing Argument: Field Sobriety Testing –
AAA Before (And-Heavy, Fact Dump):
|
The officer failed to follow her SFST training. For example, she gave verbal instructions to the defendant on the Walk and Turn test, but her instructions were not the standardized instructions. And she also failed to tell the defendant to count out loud, and told the defendant to “turn around,” which is wrong, and she should have told him to use a series of small steps, and she never asked the defendant if he understood the instructions before telling him to begin, and she never demonstrated the WAT, she only gave verbal instructions, which is also a violation of her training.
|
And it’s the same for the HGN. For this task, the officer held the stimulus about six inches from the defendant’s eyes (and) not at the required 12 to 15 inches. And the officer also did not check for equal tracking before beginning the HGN test and she moved the stimulus too quickly during each pass. The officer positioned the defendant facing flashing patrol car lights and oncoming traffic during the tests and did not move him to a neutral background. She also never asked him about medications or eye problems.
Because of all these mistakes, the HGN and the WAT are both unreliable and you should disregard them. And the officer performed just as badly when she administered the One Leg Stand. In this case, the sidewalk was uneven, the defendant was old and overweight, and had back problems, and the officer failed to ask about any pre-existing medical conditions. And she told him to stop after he put his foot down just one time. He never had a chance to pick his foot back up to try again. Because the officer did everything wrong, the field sobriety tests are as good as meaningless.
A New Closing Argument: Field Sobriety Testing –
After (Using the Proper ABT Structure):
Field sobriety tests are meant to help officers fairly and reliably distinguish impaired drivers from innocent citizens. And if they are administered correctly, using standardized instructions, validated procedures, and neutral environments, then they can guide jurors toward just outcomes. That’s what Officer Smith was trained to do.
But she deviated from her training at nearly every turn. For the Walk and Turn, she gave only verbal instructions and never demonstrated the test. She skipped key parts of the script—failing to tell the defendant to count out loud, using incorrect language like “turn around,” and neglecting to ask if he understood before beginning. For the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, she held the stimulus only six inches from the defendant’s eyes, rushed through the passes, skipped the required equal tracking check, and ignored his medical history. Worse still, she conducted the test while the defendant faced flashing lights and oncoming traffic, conditions known to skew results. Her administration of the One Leg Stand was equally flawed: the defendant, older and overweight with back problems, was tested on an uneven sidewalk, and was stopped after a single misstep without being given a fair chance to recover.
Therefore, these tests, which should be standardized and scientific, became chaotic, biased and wholly unreliable. You must reject their results. Because when a test is this compromised, it doesn’t reveal impairment, it manufactures it.
Trial Tips:
In the "before," all mistakes are dumped without hierarchy or emotional pull. In the "after," facts are marshaled into a clear "ideal-betrayal" story, with pain amplified (“chaos injected”) and the jury empowered to fix it.
Slaying the Dragon: Toward Deeper Narrative Mastery
Harkening back to Part One, we now understand that the ABT structure endures not merely because it is useful, but because it reflects something fundamental about the way the human mind evolved. Storytelling conferred a survival advantage: it allowed early humans to encode knowledge, transmit warnings, and bind communities through shared meaning. The ABT, beginning with an ideal, disrupted by a threat, and resolved through action, mirrors how we instinctively perceive the world. Its parts are more than narrative components; they reflect the archetypal logic of human experience etched into our oldest myths and encoded in our neural architecture.
In Part Two, we built upon that evolutionary foundation by exploring how the ABT structure continues to shape persuasion in modern legal practice. We began with great speeches, from Aristotle to the Gettysburg Address, showing how the most enduring rhetoric follows the same ancient arc: establishing a shared ideal, confronting a disruption, and calling for resolution. These weren’t just artful compositions; they were instinctively structured to resonate with minds wired for story.
From there, we turned to legal applications, reframing familiar tools like Miranda warnings and closing arguments through the lens of ABT. In each case, the structure helped clarify what’s at stake, where the tension lies, and how resolution is imagined. What emerged was a deeper truth: the ABT isn’t just a storytelling tool, but a universal pattern of sense-making, one that lawyers ignore at their peril.
But lawyers are a stiff-necked group, and clarity alone is often not enough to move them. Therefore, in the next section, we’ll explore two more practical applications of ABT and begin to introduce that deeper layer, a concept akin to dark matter in the universe. Invisible yet essential, it’s the single idea - the one word, that binds a case together and gives it coherence. It’s difficult to find, but indispensable to those who seek not merely to argue, but to lead.
Coming in Part 3:
In Part Three, we will continue our exploration by applying the ABT structure to two additional domains of legal advocacy, sentencing mitigation and forensic reliability, while introducing a new layer of narrative coherence. Because in the end, lawyers who want to persuade must learn to lead - and those who seek to lead must master not only the structure of story, but the meaning that binds it.
Return to the Mastery Skills II Table of Contents
Or, go to the next article in the Mastery Skills II course
Send me your questions or comments:
Comments and questions will be posted here with their responses:
Comments and questions will be posted here with their responses:
For further study:
[i] Joseph Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces (Princeton University Press 1949).
[ii] Gustav Freytag, Die Technik des Dramas (Hirzel 1863) (translated as Freytag’s Technique of the Drama).
[iii] P. Glasgow, Simplicity: The Ultimate Sophistication, 48 Br. J. Sports Med. 345 (2014), https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/48/5/345.
[iv] Simplicity, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://iep.utm.edu/simplici/ (last visited May 7, 2025).
[v] Marcel Cardoso Coelho, José Alexandre Felizola Diniz-Filho & Thiago Fernando Rangel, A Parsimonious View of the Parsimony Principle in Ecology and Evolution, Ecography, https://doi.org/10.1111/ECOG.04228 (2019).
[vi] Randy Olson, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Olson.
[vii] Randy Olson, Houston, We Have a Narrative: Why Science Needs Story Univ. of Chi. Press (2015).
[viii] Id.
[ix] Doug Passon and Randy Olson, The Narrative Gym for Law: Introducing the ABT Framework for Persuasive Advocacy (2020).
[x] Randy Olson & Park Howell, The Narrative Gym for Business: Introducing the ABT Framework for Business Communication and Messaging(Independently published 2021).
[xi] See, Stephen Houlgate, An Introduction to Hegel: Freedom, Truth and History (2d ed. 2005) at 92–96. (Although Hegel himself did not formally codify this model, it has been widely attributed to his method of dialectical reasoning by later interpreters).
[xii] See, Brian A. Klems, The Five-Act Structure: The Foundation of an Engaging Story, Freelance Writing Gigs (Nov. 14, 2022), https://freelancewritinggigs.com/five-act-structure-stories/#gsc.tab=0.
[xiii] Michael D. Cicchini, The New Miranda Warning, 65 SMU L. Rev. 911 (2012).
[xiv] Oberlander, Lois B., & Goldstein, Naomi E. A Review and Update on the Practice of Evaluating Miranda Comprehension, 19 Behav. Sci. & L. 453 (2001).
[xv] Mark A. Godsey, Reformulating the Miranda Warnings in Light of Contemporary Law and Understandings, 90 Minn. L. Rev. 781 (2006).
[xvi] Id. note 6.
[ii] Gustav Freytag, Die Technik des Dramas (Hirzel 1863) (translated as Freytag’s Technique of the Drama).
[iii] P. Glasgow, Simplicity: The Ultimate Sophistication, 48 Br. J. Sports Med. 345 (2014), https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/48/5/345.
[iv] Simplicity, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://iep.utm.edu/simplici/ (last visited May 7, 2025).
[v] Marcel Cardoso Coelho, José Alexandre Felizola Diniz-Filho & Thiago Fernando Rangel, A Parsimonious View of the Parsimony Principle in Ecology and Evolution, Ecography, https://doi.org/10.1111/ECOG.04228 (2019).
[vi] Randy Olson, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Olson.
[vii] Randy Olson, Houston, We Have a Narrative: Why Science Needs Story Univ. of Chi. Press (2015).
[viii] Id.
[ix] Doug Passon and Randy Olson, The Narrative Gym for Law: Introducing the ABT Framework for Persuasive Advocacy (2020).
[x] Randy Olson & Park Howell, The Narrative Gym for Business: Introducing the ABT Framework for Business Communication and Messaging(Independently published 2021).
[xi] See, Stephen Houlgate, An Introduction to Hegel: Freedom, Truth and History (2d ed. 2005) at 92–96. (Although Hegel himself did not formally codify this model, it has been widely attributed to his method of dialectical reasoning by later interpreters).
[xii] See, Brian A. Klems, The Five-Act Structure: The Foundation of an Engaging Story, Freelance Writing Gigs (Nov. 14, 2022), https://freelancewritinggigs.com/five-act-structure-stories/#gsc.tab=0.
[xiii] Michael D. Cicchini, The New Miranda Warning, 65 SMU L. Rev. 911 (2012).
[xiv] Oberlander, Lois B., & Goldstein, Naomi E. A Review and Update on the Practice of Evaluating Miranda Comprehension, 19 Behav. Sci. & L. 453 (2001).
[xv] Mark A. Godsey, Reformulating the Miranda Warnings in Light of Contemporary Law and Understandings, 90 Minn. L. Rev. 781 (2006).
[xvi] Id. note 6.
