Yes, the title is rather wordy. Once you’ve read the book it’s obvious what the title means and the title becomes an effective way to convey the principal thesis of the book, but it’s not exactly the most approachable title. It’s not the most approachable thesis either. Jaynes’ argument is extraordinarily counterintuitive and provides a rather significant challenge to the naïve philosophy of mind. The fact that I don’t entirely buy the arguments of the book is actually largely unrelated to this, though. The counterintuitive claims and the significant reframing of ancient peoples’ theories of minds are something I am willing to accept, but I’m just not convinced on the basis of the evidence he provides. He makes a relatively compelling case that his thesis is true specifically for people in the first millenium B.C. in the near east but presents virtually no evidence for the universality of his thesis. I feel that this significantly undermines the scope of his claims given that writing was independently developed at least twice (probably three or more times). For me to buy his claims more wholesale, he would have to devote at least several chapters to each of China and Mesoamerica (which would likely extend the books’ length by 1.5-2x).

Why, if I’m so skeptical, do I frame this as an endorsement? Simply put, it’s fascinating reading. I think it’s important for people to challenge themselves epistemologically and this book does a wonderful job of that. Even if I come away from it believing exactly what I believed before about the nature of consciousness and the mind, those beliefs are more developed and less naïve. This is the kind of book from the reading of which everyone would benefit, even if they don’t care at all about the specific arguments or points of evidence outlined. If you’ve never seriously read philosophy before, this is a great book to start with to get you thinking like a philosopher — how do we really know what other people are like, and how did we come to that conclusion? How did we develop our senses of self and how might different people have developed those differently? I think it is impossible to seriously engage with this book and not come away with a slate of questions to ponder whether or not you are in the slightest convinced by Jaynes’ writing.