How can I reconcile my views on inquiry learning and memory systems?

I seem to have contradictory instincts. I’m enormously sympathetic to Inquiry-based learning and Athlete musician scale framing origin timeline, yet I also find myself quite persuaded by the undeniable effects of more instructionalist methods: I like textbooks; I use a Spaced repetition memory system; I’m excited about the Mnemonic medium; I believe in problem-solving practice. But I find Programmed instruction and Direct Instruction repulsive. These preferences seem, on their surface, to be at odds.

How can I square all this? Why is it that I sometimes find myself really believing in highly linear, structured learning methods, and other times I just want a playground?

See some relevant notes in Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86

Related: Some activities (piano, cooking) offer a situated venue for targeted practice activities

https://x.com/mbateman/status/1683487946131795970?s=20

Many of the components of education thought to be low agency are actually perfectly suited for high agency education.

Practice. Repetition. Memorization. These are good methods by which to intentionally shape your own soul.
(Matt Bateman on agency)