14 ms·

The word "dishonest" comes with a baggage of connotations. Most people aren't going to read the book and they'll misunderstand the purpose. To give an example

by gyom 15y ago

The word "dishonest" comes with a baggage of connotations. Most people aren't going to read the book and they'll misunderstand the purpose. To give an example : as much as I think that "The Selfish Gene" is an awesome title, I feel like I have to defend the choice of words whenever I recommend the book. It doesn't really convey the meaning correctly. It means the right thing if you've read the book; otherwise it's misleading. That's what I think will happen with the term "dishonest minority".

CWuestefeld 15y ago
The problem with the Dawkins title is that there are two ways to parse it. The correct (imho) way is to read it as a declaration that genes as a class are selfish. It is easily (indeed, I'd say more easily) parsed as an introduction to a gene that codes for the trait of selfishness. Whatever faults you might have with Schneier's title, I don't think you can say that there are multiple ways to parse it.
- gyom 15y ago
  I agree that these are two ways to parse "The Selfish Gene" and the first one that you listed is more accurate, but what I don't like about the title is that is sounds a bit like an excuse that someone would use. "Hey, that's just the way my genes made me : I'm selfish, okay, but that's, like, genetics, survival of the fittest so it's all fine and I don't have to feel bad about it ..." The bad thing about the "Dishonest Minority" title is that is sounds like he's referring to a bunch of freeloaders who are abusing the system and ruining it for every honest tax-payer. From reading his excerpt, we know that it's not what he's saying at all. I like the shock value of using "Dishonest Minority", but sometimes book with titles like that nuance it by having a subtitle that goes like "How we all benefit from them" or something like that.

14 ms·

The word "dishonest" comes with a baggage of connotations. Most people aren't going to read the book and they'll misunderstand the purpose. To give an example

by gyom 15y ago

CWuestefeld 15y ago
The problem with the Dawkins title is that there are two ways to parse it. The correct (imho) way is to read it as a declaration that genes as a class are selfish. It is easily (indeed, I'd say more easily) parsed as an introduction to a gene that codes for the trait of selfishness. Whatever faults you might have with Schneier's title, I don't think you can say that there are multiple ways to parse it.
- gyom 15y ago
  I agree that these are two ways to parse "The Selfish Gene" and the first one that you listed is more accurate, but what I don't like about the title is that is sounds a bit like an excuse that someone would use. "Hey, that's just the way my genes made me : I'm selfish, okay, but that's, like, genetics, survival of the fittest so it's all fine and I don't have to feel bad about it ..." The bad thing about the "Dishonest Minority" title is that is sounds like he's referring to a bunch of freeloaders who are abusing the system and ruining it for every honest tax-payer. From reading his excerpt, we know that it's not what he's saying at all. I like the shock value of using "Dishonest Minority", but sometimes book with titles like that nuance it by having a subtitle that goes like "How we all benefit from them" or something like that.