text: I recently finished reading this book. This is really a great book and gave me some insight into my own behaviour. It would be fair to say that this book has great value to those who get through first 3 chapters and understand the theory behind rest of the book.
  
  Some reviewers have written about the validity of the theory iteself. While I am not qualified to comment  on these reviews, one thing I can definitely conclude is that this book provides a solid base to those who are trying to understand their own behaviour and trying to achieve improvements in it. A theory, that too developed quarter century ago, can not be expected to stand 100% vindicated today. The more importent question is what use you are trying to put it to. So may be for a psyciatrist this is not a great book but for a layman like myself this book explains most of the things. After reading this book I could find out why I behave the way I behave mostof the times. To a certain extent I learnt to control my responses. Also I have a feeling that the claims made by Dr. Harris might be quite right in 1972 in light of the knowledge, then prevalent. 
  
  Second objection seems to be dividing 5 or 6 billion population in 4 types of people. I think this conclusion is far from correct. Dr. Harris has repeated said that most of the people belong to "I am not ok and you are ok" category. Out of the remaining 3 cattttegories 2 are shared by people who have not had proper childhood and the fourth is achieved by enlightenment of an individual. The objective here is not to merely categorize, but to show that how most of us have the common position "I am not ok and you are ok". Now this should not be taken as a gross simplification of human nature, but as a fundamental problem in human psycology that prevents one from producing rational responses. 
  
  Third critisism on this book stems from the fact Dr. Harris seems to quote philosophers with whom he does not agree 100%. It seems ludicrous to suggest that one must agree 100% with somebody else to merely quote a subsection which both of them agree upon. I don't think Dr. Harris wrote this book to declare to the world that he belongs to or believes in a certain academic thought 100%. The books surely derives from various thoughts put forward by various intellectuals (with whom he does not agree 100%) for the benefit of the reader. To call this approach pretentious is pretentious iteself.
  
  I feel that reader should not by biased by comments made by reviewers. Read this book with an open mind. Read the chapeters on PAC and marriage, PAC and children, PAC and social implications, PAC and moral values. In this world that is becoming more and more crooked every other day, it tries to teach something good (and this good is not subjective or relative but absolute). Thanks
  