Giving my lambdas names is exactly what I don't want to do - the syntactic overhead is what kills the style, makes it an exercise in boilerplate. It's like Java closures before Java 1.8 - anonymous inner classes implementing interfaces are technically just about enough, but in practice entirely deficient, because the style is entirely unidiomatic.
The way my brain works (at this point in my career, 25 years of programming) is just against the Python grain. I think in terms of data flow graphs. Python wants me to think in terms of procedures and loops.
There are very good reason for naming functions (and ideally dangling them from the class rather than making them inner functions) - this encourages you to separate the 'what' from the 'how' and tends to result in code that is self-documenting. When you inline all your functions the person reading the code is forced to build and maintain multiple abstractions at one time to follow execution flow. Additionally, you are conflating the 'what' and the 'how' which forces the reader to context shift. If you replace the function with a well-thought-out name, code becomes much easier to read.
The way my brain works (at this point in my career, 25 years of programming) is just against the Python grain. I think in terms of data flow graphs. Python wants me to think in terms of procedures and loops.