My personal approach to fairly rating books out of five. Note that these ratings are based entirely on the standard of what the book and its creator promise it will do, not any other arbitrary standard a reader might spontaneously decide the book *should have* adhered to. Personal preferences are always subjective and arbitrary. There is no law of nature requiring any given reader to subjectively enjoy an objectively great book. One Star: There is virtually nothing of value in the book. It utterly fails at its stated mission. There is no conceivable reason for the type of reader it is advertised to attempt to consume it. Two Stars: The book contains some value but is so sparse or poorly organized that it's not worth the trouble of trying to filter through the whole of the book to extract it. At best, it's a smattering of decent ingredients and ideas that never quite took on an appropriate form. Three Stars: The book has reached the equitability threshold. It is now conceivably worth the reader's time to attempt to read the book (or at least skim parts of it) in order to accomplish what its creators promise for them. Still, there is much wasted space, time, and effort in the process of value transferrence from writer to reader. Four Stars: The book largely does what it promises, albeit in a still sub-optimal manner. The reader overall receives what the author of the book intends to send to them but can't help but notice ways the message could have accomplished its function better. Still, recommendations are in order. Five Stars: The book is exactly what it promises to be and does what it is meant to do. Nitpicks aside, it is not realistic to envision a way it could have accomplished its stated function better. The reader got exactly what value they were supposed to get in an optimized manner. Read this book to enhance and expand the way you think about something important.