My motley collection of thoughts upon reading this (please note that, wherever I say "you" or "your" in this post, I'm referring to the whole committee that is working on this ebook, not to you, lukeprog, in particular):
It's a difficult book to name, chiefly because the sequences themselves don't really have a narrow common thread; eliminating bias and making use of scientific advances don't qualify as narrow enough, many others are trying to do that these days. (But then again, I didn't read them in an orderly fashion, or enough times, to be able to identify the common thread if there is one more specific than that. If there is one, by all means, play on that.)
Absolutely no mention of anything such as The Less Wrong Sequences, 2006-2009. This belongs in a blurb or in an introduction to the book. You probably think that, by using that in a title, you're telling readers the following: the contents of this book were originally published as sequences of blog posts on the website lesswrong.com, from 2006 to 2009. But you're not. This information can be conveyed in a sentence such as that one, but it cannot be conveyed in a short title, given that readers are unf
Absolutely no mention of anything such as The Less Wrong Sequences, 2006-2009. This belongs in a blurb or in an introduction to the book.
Agree. Would like to emphasize even more. Taking in that title with fresh eyes, it sounds perhaps like part N of a multi-volume autobiographical series written by a musician trying to make less shitty music.
I'm not kidding.
If I imagine that I haven't spent almost a year on this website, and maybe I've even been told about it or saw the front page but didn't really dive into the community, and saw that book on a library shelf somewhere. What would happen? Or if someone told me it was a great book that I should read, but only told me the title?
Obviously, I'd think it's about something obscure, a book only for "insiders" who already know what the book is talking about. Would I want to pick it up? Not really.
Please, focus on the contents and the message, rather than the history behind the book. No one cares about the history behind a book before they've at least read it, unless it's Gandhi's secret unrevealed memoirs or something.
Why not call the e-book "The Methods of Rationality"?
Or maybe something that is clearly not HPMoR, but clearly connected to it.
I like "Methods of Rationality", it's short and to the point, and thus it makes sense for people who are unfamiliar with HPMoR.
This creates a risk of confusion if people hear about the the awesome HP fan fiction "Methods of Rationality", Google it, and come away disappointed when the first hit they run into isn't fan fiction at all. (Or vice versa.)
What happens if at the top of the book it says "If you're looking for the awesome HP fan fiction "Methods of Rationality", go HERE"? (Ditto on HPMoR chapters?) Sounds like you might get some free cross-advertising that way, as well as a common brand across products.
Assuming, of course, that you want the common branding.
Why should the term "the sequences" even be in the title? What does it tell an uninformed reader? Does it have any useful meaning for anyone who hasn't already read them? (Why are they even called that, anyway? I mean... I guess it's just that it was a sequence of blog posts?) In what way is "The Sequences" or "[Some title]: the Sequences" better than "The Blog Posts" or "The Diary Entries"?
I like the sound of it more if it doesnt include 'sequences' or anything like that at all. For example instead of:
Becoming Less Wrong: The Sequences, 2006–2009
Just have it as Becoming Less Wrong or Becoming Less Wrong: Something Catchier.
[Meta]
I don't think asking people already on LW is a good technique for getting a title that will likely attract new people. We would likely reference terms that only make sense to those who have already read them (indeed a lot of the suggestions so far are rationalist shibboleths/applause lights/puns, which are fun for us but unhelpful). And we know al the evidence about how bad people in general are at simulating other very different minds unless they have particular expertise.
Very few people here likely have the relevant expertise in marketing. Have you considered asking an outside specialist? A good title and marketing can make an orders of magnitude difference in impact (with the obvious implications for spreading ideas better).
My guess is that asking LWers actually is a good way to generate title ideas, because we already know what the book is about; then Luke can go try a bunch of them on non-LWers and figure out which ones don't turn off everyone else.
Eliezer's first post on Overcoming Bias was, as far as I know, The Martial Art of Rationality. I think that title works well to set the tone.
As everyone else says, take "Sequences" out of the title. ("The Sequences: 2006-2009" is a strong contender for Worst Book Title Ever unless you want no one other than existing LWers to read it, and anyone who has advised you otherwise should never again be asked for book-naming advice.)
"Rationality" is probably too cumbersome a word (possible exception: what if that were the whole title?); "thinking" or "thought" or "reason" might be OK.
"How to Win"? (I worry that that's dishonest; it's insufficiently well established so far that rationalists -- in the sense of people who think in the ways Eliezer advises -- do actually win in the real world.)
"Thinking: right and wrong"? (Riffing off Kahneman's title, of course. Might be mistaken for a political book -- indeed, it wouldn't be a bad title for a smug conservative/libertarian treatise.)
[EDITED to fix a typo.]
"Thinking: Wrong and Less Wrong".
... but it's a bit of an in-joke. Or an in-not-exactly-joke.
Will it contain non-Eliezer content, e.g. Diseased Thinking, or Ugh Fields? Bikeshedding, I know, but those are some mighty fine posts.
Okay, anywho, thinking hat on.
Answering Confusing Questions
Making New Mistakes
Understanding the Void
(People in this world look at things mistakenly, and think that what they do not understand must be the void. This is not the true void. It is bewilderment. - Miyamoto Musashi)
The Use of Maps
Rationality and Contentment in a Suboptimal World
Already in Reality
If Snow is White, That's Okay
The Hard Part is Actually Changing Your Mind
Will it contain non-Eliezer content, e.g. Diseased Thinking, or Ugh Fields?
No, this ebook is only Eliezer's content.
Is it helpful for the phrase "The Sequences" to appear in the title? My sense is that anyone who's already familiar enough with the Sequences to know what it means isn't going to need that phrase to be interested in the book, and that the phrase doesn't add much value for someone who's never heard of the Sequences before. It's sort of a weird word that doesn't immediately suggest anything about rationality.
The only people for whom it would add value would be those who (1) have at least sort of heard of the Sequences and are somewhat interested; (2) need to know that this ebook is about the Sequences to decide to read it; and (3) wouldn't understand that this was the Sequences ebook without that word in the title. I doubt that's a very large class, so my initial sense is that it's not necessary in the actual title. But then, that's just what occurred to me in the last 10 minutes, and the people who have thought about this more carefully may well have other reasons.
From Zombies to Artificial Intelligence: Thinking Clearly About Truth, Morality and Winning in This And Other Worlds.
Slight rework; From AI to Zombies: Thinking Clearly About Truth, Morality and Winning in This And Other Worlds.
Even slighter rework: From AI to Zombies: Thinking Clearly about Truth, Morality, and Winning in This and Other Worlds.
I have a strong preference for the serial comma.
"Becoming Less Wrong" would normally be a good title, but unfortunately, there already exists a community of people who call themselves "Less Wrong". This changes the meaning of the title from "Acquiring good critical thinking skills" to "One of us... One of us...". Thus, I'd recommend against it.
Update. My favorites from this page are:
Eliezer's two favorites of those six were "The Hard Part is Actually Changing Your Mind" and "The Art and Science of Rationality."
Untangling the Knot: A Users Guide to the Human Mind
Your Brain, an Owner's Manual
Less than One, Greater than Zero: The Sequences, 2006–2009
Approximating Omega (badly, of course)
Sharpening the Mace
Uncountable Infinite Shades of Grey (my apologies)
Stop Tripping Yourself: A Users Guide to the Human Mind
Marshaling the Mind: An Introduction to the Informed Art of Rationality
Motes and Meaning: The Less Wrong Archives
Of Motes and Meaning
Theory, in Practice
Thinking, in Practice
Thinking in Circles:Avoiding the Known Bugs in Human Reasoning.
Feels like lots of the titles people suggest here are for some sort of quirky paperback self-help bestseller. You want to be one of those weighty, widely discussed New York Times bestsellers. These seem to me like the kind of titles you want to emulate:
Titles that others have used in the past that I don't recommend:
There is disagreement about using the word "Sequences". I think it would be nice to remove it from the book's official title, but to keep it with small letters at the bottom of the cover. You know, something mysterious, something for insiders.
Some of the suggested names are great and could be successful (they should be tested on non-LW readers), but sometimes they sound too generic. I mean, anyone could (and some already did) write a book about "Thinking" or "Rationality" or "Mistakes" etc. There is nothing LW-specific about that.
But calling the ebook, for example, "The Craft of Rationality", and having the mysterious "The Sequences, 2006-2009" at the bottom of the page would allow us to refer this book to others as "The Sequences" book, which would make it different from dozens of other rationality-related books.
Modern Rationality: Dissolving Mysteries{, Mysticism,} and Mistakes
Human Rationality: How to Think Clearly and Get What You Want
I like something with 'rationality' and 'less wrong' in it. I don't think it's helpful to have 'the sequences' in the title if an aim to to have non less-wrongers pick it up.
What are the odds of a physical book? Would make a great gift, and gifting an ebook still seems weird. I'm still undecided about whether I like my books made out of dead trees or not.
I think there are vanity presses that will print on-demand as people order, without a large (or any) upfront payment. From there it's just a matter of whether people want the books enough to pay the high price.
For example, there's lulu.com. (This is not a recommendation as I have no experience publishing through them; it's just the first name that came to mind.) You can upload a PDF and cover images, choose paper size / type, binding, etc. and publish. They also offer ISBNs and publishing through Amazon.
Their pricing calculator is here. I think you can set any price you want for the book, as long as it's above the manfacturing cost (and there'll be shipping charges for customers).
Some examples I ran up:
2500 pages in 4 volumes means 625 pages/volume. (Lulu.com specifies a maximum of 740 pages per book.) I don't know the page size which comes to 2500 pages, though.
Having only read a few of The Sequences, I may not be the best suited, though I may have the perk of having an immersion level similar to those who also have not read The Sequences, and thus be able to come up with a title that more closely appeals to that mindset. Since you're going to be competing with self help gurus in a genre about better living through better thinking, how about "The Key to Success: It's not just Confidence". I wouldn't discard making reference to some mathematical concept in the title. A contrast like that is aesthetically...
I would personally prefer The Way, but it's probably too vague.
Magic Bucket Level, There is a Spoon and The Actual Park all sound too much like band names.
How about The First Virtue is Curiosity?
Becoming Less Wrong: Accurate Maps and Winning strategies
or something else that explores the dichotomy between epistemic and instrumental rationality might be a good idea. After all the distinction is quite important (arguably one of the first things that people should learn about rationality as a whole) and largely unnoticed by the general population. In fact if the title is something like Rationality: Accurate Maps and Winning strategies (or equivalent), the first lesson (that rationality is both about having accurate maps and about winning) can be learned from the title (especially perhaps if there is a brief explanation of the title in the preface).
If 'Sequences' is in the title at all it should probably be of the form "Sequences on . . ." rather than just "The Sequences".
Otherwise:
I also like (from other post...
Why not something catchy? The sequences often had extremely catchy titles (eg "An Alien God"). "Becoming Less Wrong" is pretty good, but it doesn't have enough pizzazz. How'sabout something like:
or some variety of the 'rationality is applied winning' meme:
Maybe a take on defeatin...
The Craft of Rationality: The Less Wrong Sequences, 2006–2009
The Art of Rationality: The Less Wrong Sequences, 2006–2009
Why not “The Art and Craft of”? (Too cliché-y?)
(ETA: If I had to pick only one of “craft” or “art” I'd pick the latter -- it helps counteract the Vulcanian connotations of “rationality” IMO.)
Beisutsukai
The Way of Bayes
Getting What You Want
Future Thought
Man's Final Invention
Intelligence: Evolved, Explained, Engineered
Friendly AI: Engineering God
Thinking is a Skill
The Science of Wisdom
The Art of Reason
Metapsyche
The Case for Reason
I Will Teach You to be Smart
Reason for 21st Century Humans
The Dawn Age
Is there any chance there will be a corresponding print book -- perhaps if the ebook does well? I still greatly prefer reading on dead tree.
Why You Are Wrong and What You Can Do About It.
You Are Wrong and You Can Change That
Who Is Least Wrong?
I think that a big fraction of the audience that the title can change from 'pass' to 'read' will respond with interest to a challenge, so telling them that they are wrong will get them to take second look.
Also, consider using the name of one of the sequences: Mysterious Answers to Mysterious Questions, The Map and the Territory, and Highly Advanced Epistemology 101 for Beginners are all catchy and intriguing, while indicating or alluding to the subject.
Update: The Science of Reason
[pollid:440]
You Can't Think: Debugging Your Brain
[pollid:441]
Debugging Your Brain
[pollid:448]
Debug Your Brain [pollid:450]
Debug Your Mind [pollid:451]
Brain Dynamics - Fix Your Mind
[pollid:442]
How to Think: A Primer
[pollid:443]
How to Think: A [Beginner's/Novice's] Primer
[pollid:444]
A Thinker's Book on Rationality: How to Be Less Wrong
Let's Talk about Rationality: Topics that Will Make You Less Wrong
Thinking the Right Way: How to Be Less Wrong
Being Rational: How to Think about and Win at Life
Through Rational Lens: Treatise of a Career Rationalist
Calling it the Sequences would only make Less Wrong laughable and support those who argue the people here are out of touch with reality. Do not call it the Sequences.
Hmmm...
Methods of Mastery
Reflections on Reason and Rationality
Less alliteratively...
Getting it Right on the Forty Second Try
Quantum Computing Since Democritus got me thinking that we may want a more riveting title for The Sequences, 2006-2009 ebook we're preparing for release (like the FtIE ebook). Maybe it could be something like [Really Catchy Title]: The Less Wrong Sequences, 2006-2009.
The reason for "2006–2009" is that Highly Advanced Epistemology 101 for Beginners will be its own ebook, and future Yudkowskian LW sequences (if there are any) won't be included either.
Example options: