I think that’s not a very catchy title; it’s decent for a second line perhaps, same way that “Freakonomics” had “A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything” as a second line.
“How to Be Wrong: A Guide to Changing Your Mind”. Or some variation. I wonder if this is one of those things where a title he sees suggested publicly is one he can’t use.
That’s just because most people don’t understand the transhuman paradigm. All one does is claim to have T.I.G.E.R. blood and AdONIS DNA and people look at you like you’re on something.
I think that’s not a very catchy title; it’s decent for a second line perhaps, same way that “Freakonomics” had “A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything” as a second line.
Is it helpful I suggest that I do prefer the title?
This is where agree/disagree buttons would be useful.
It is good to know that it doesn’t work for everyone though.
“How to Be Wrong: A Guide to Changing Your Mind”. Or some variation. I wonder if this is one of those things where a title he sees suggested publicly is one he can’t use.
Proposal for first line: Stop Being Wrong!
Or: “Being Less Wrong”.
Or: “Becoming Less Wrong”.
how about “WINNING”?
eye catching and actually appropriate.
Too vague. Also suggests instrumental rationality, whereas “How to Actually Change Your Mind” suggests epistemic.
Actually, right now it suggests conspicuous insanity.
That’s just because most people don’t understand the transhuman paradigm. All one does is claim to have T.I.G.E.R. blood and AdONIS DNA and people look at you like you’re on something.
Seriously, that guy is way closer to what I consider rationality than anyone on LW.
Amusingly he would be downvoted here for what he is saying...yet he got like 500 million upvotes on YouTube...talk about CEV.
Winning! Duh!