>The great thing about that book was: once you understood the title, you didn't really need to read the book.

Seriously, it's something I've never thought about, but once you hear "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" you kinda know what the theory is and it makes sense.

The thesis seems understandable to me from the title, but I couldn’t tell you whether we should believe it or not. I assume the content of the book provides evidence and justification. I assume, because I haven’t read it either.

I did read it. Also, a recent summary of "the world since Jaynes" (forgot the link)

They did say that he had something there. AFAIK they didn't say that he spawned a whole field of research, though.

>but I couldn’t tell you whether we should believe it or not. I assume the content of the book provides evidence and justification

I assume the same. It's just that there is something nice about a theory that basically tells you the core of what you need to know from the name of it.

Hollywood dialog:

"We're making a new movie. It's called 'Snakes on a Plane' "

"Oh? What's it about?"