For him, there IS an objectively real world out there. People's reality, on the other hand, includes both their physical presence AND their mental processes. The point of the book is to set this argument out, suggest why it is controversial to many other philosophers, and explain its implications for a better understanding of our selves and our individual and collective efforts. My reservation is a small one, and not at all contrary to Searle's main argument. I don't know which brand of pragmatism he shuns, but what he says is entirely consistent with the version of pragmatism I subscribe to.
Conceptual pragmatism implies that ideas are only as good as the value they provide to their users.
This pragmatic attitude helps us avoid compulsive over-commitment to particular concepts on the one hand, or a lazy disregard for the employment of appropriate conceptual tools on the other. So regardless of his differences with latter-day pragmatists like Rorty and Putnam, he does actually employ Conceptual Pragmatism in his philosophyzing. The reason O'Connell's book is such a good read after Searle's, is that she really applies the theory of mind to actual experience. Searle's sub-title is Philosophy in the Real World , but he deals in ideal types rather than case studies. O'Connell has done a Ph.D. on Theory of Mind in chimpanzees, and she subsequently expanded her research to primates in general, and humanity in particular for this book.