F.G. Bailey's book, "The Prevalence of Deceit," is about deception in human affairs. The book posits that "all facts are theory generated" and that "truth" depends on what people collectively believe the truth to be. The prevalence of deception in human affairs is facilitated by an innate human desire for order, predictablitiy, structure, control. It is this tendency which makes us vulnerable to accepting other peoples' "truths" (deception). Power is the principal motivation for deceiving people (that is, influencing their behavior by your version of "truth"). To persuade people by rhetoric -- i.e., perpetuating your "truth" to others -- you assert your control over them. Politicians are one good example of those who use their words more to persuade/flatter constituents to accept "truth" than to use their words to (dialectically) speak. Actually, F.G. Baileys believes that TRUE dialectics is a philosopher's dream and is virtually impossible. When people accept the "truths" of others, their freedom (to other "truth") is necessarily restricted; that is why F.G. Bailey posits that deception is so prevalent in human affairs. Unwittingly, people lock themselves into paradigms ("habitus") and collectively subscribe to "intersubjectivity." Throughout the book, he uses the terms "syntactical truth," "habitus," "truth-by-coherence," and "layman's truth" to refer to the paradigm problem. One interesting thesis in the book are the so-called "open secrets" (i.e., the so-called double standards) in society. The basis of this can be found in understanding how "truth" tends to be subsumed to the innate will for stability, structure, control. This is why, for example, apparant contradictions in reality are ignored for the sake of maintaining stability, saving face, keeping control. F.G. Bailey gives several examples from his experiences as an anthropologist in India during the 1950s to support his theses throughout the book. Overall the book posits the old epistemological quandary ("what is truth?") and finally warns us to always ask, Cui Bono? (Who benefits?) Thus the preponderance and warnings against deception. Although there is a dry spell in the book's middle on intra-Indian politics/affairs in the 1950s, the book is, overall, worth reading.