However, there's nothing intellectually dishonest about saying that, for instance, One Dimensional Man and Guns, Germs, and Steel are very different types of books. As the essay said, one is a book filled with ideas, and the other is a book about an idea. They're both good books, but there's a big difference in range, depth, nuance, scope, and insight. One Dimensional Man takes the ideas of institutional agenda-setting, commodity fetishism, hierarchical organization, mass-media influence, the concentration of resources, the sociological need to fit in, the profit motive, industrialization, false consciousness, and social marginalization and weaves them into an insightful description of a society which appears to offer freedom, but really exercises an almost totalitarian amount of control over it members, their lives, and even their thoughts. It's generally seen as a seminal text in Critical Theory, or the Frankfurt school of philosophy, and it sparked and guided the counter-cultural movement of the 60s. Guns, Germs, and Steel posits that material wealth is the end result of living on a continent that is oriented horizontally, giving the people who inhabited its biomes a greater number of resources to make use of. It's generally seen as an interesting essay, that attempted to revive the debunked theory of geographical determinism, which was unnecessarily expanded into a book. Again, they're both good books, but there's nothing remotely dishonest about saying that they're different types of books. One weaves together many ideas, the other (over) explains only one idea.