There’s very little substance behind your reasoning. In fact, it’s a tad offensive because you are implying that those who do outline — however little — produce dull, stale writing.

Additionally, posts that provide a list of things tend to follow an outline of sorts. In your case, it’s 5 points. 5 that you had in mind to write about and merely supplemented. Good luck to you.

Just my thoughts.

I think the inherent problem here is the article author’s conception of what an outline is. There is a strong implication here that outlining involves a strict, rigid, carved-in-stone, linear document that can only pre-exist the work it is trying to structure. If an outline were simply a written piece of dogma, to be blindly adhered to without any kind of artistic license, then I could understand the objection someone would have to it. But this is hardly ever the case.

Imagine the literal meaning of the word. The picture is that of an overall shape, like the outline of a silhouette or the light pencil lines that a painter puts down before they commit paint to canvas. In neither case does the outline strictly dictate the identity of the person or what the painting will finally look like. The details will eventually make themselves known.

What is an outline but a mind map displayed as a list? And accordingly, isn’t a mind map just an exploded outline? And when the final story or article is written, doesn’t the reader read from start to middle to finish in a linear fashion, much as an outline simply places sign posts for each section and paragraph? An article well-written already has an implied outline by default. Otherwise, it’s simply a series of disconnected points, devoid of a thread that leads the reader on a journey that enlightens progressively with each step forward on a single path from start to finish.

An outline is a plan. A structure. A direction that marks the basic path from launching point to destination. But there is no rule that says that a few detours can’t be taken along that path to make the journey more interesting. For my first ‘real’ novel, I used an outline. It was the first time I actually finished a full first draft. Every attempt before failed due to one basic reason: I had no outline. I was wandering in the wilderness without a direction. I’d hit walls, get frustrated and eventually lose interest. By contrast, a structure that indicated where the story would lead the reader was what provided the discipline to fill in the gaps between each literary milestone. I believe this applies even to essays and shorter written works.

But did I follow the strictures of my original outline? No. I embellished the details, improved the story arcs, improvised parts of the plot. What resulted was a better story that was more lush and complex than if had I just gone with what I had at the top of my head. The structure freed me rather than restrained me by allowing me to explore the possibilities and by imposing a disciplined approach, rather than running down rabbit holes that led nowhere and would discourage me from continuing.

You can stumble your way through the dark, and eventually come out the other end. But an outline is like a flashlight. It acts as a guide and exploring becomes an act of discovery. 

With an outline, there is room for compromise between planning ahead and creatively following options that stray from the original idea, yet retain relevance to the heart of the story. 

Like an artist who sketches a figure at first, they can slowly build the details, commit, erase, change, redraw and refine till the picture comes together as a whole. All great artists work this way. But no great artist sets out, paint already stroked out on canvas, not knowing if they’re painting a portrait or a landscape. 

There are happy accidents. But seldom are accidents actually happy. In my experience, most accidents are disasters. That’s just the way nature seems to work out.