I appreciate the note, but at the risk of being offensive you took something that was quite reflective of the style and content of the article and made it sound dry and academic -- almost research-y. It may have outright reduced the clicks to the article; at the very least, it probably changed the sort of person who read it.
Since several users have made a good case for the existing title, we've reverted it. If it were obviously in violation of the rules (misleading or clickbait), we wouldn't do that, but this is one at most arguable.
I think samclemens was genuinely trying to follow the guidelines, though, which is good.
Perhaps ironically, the post is at #2 anyway, which is way high for this sort of thing.
