ScienceOfSuccess's Reviews > The Laws of Human Nature

The Laws of Human Nature by Robert Greene
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
67326390
's review

did not like it
bookshelves: waiting

Robert Greene again looks at everything from distance. He mentions a lot of names, so his story can hold to something, but in fact, his research is awful.

When he mentions Disney park in Paris, he mentions that the park wasn't a success because people in France "don't like to stay in lanes. They also expect beer and wine in theme parks, and there was a lack of such a beverage.

I recently read another book, also mentioning this park. The author saw that Paris Disneyland was set up the same way USA park was. Planned for a 3day stay, with hotels and everything visitors may need. They only forgot one thing - in Paris, there are 15 attractions. Disneylands in the USA have 3times more. They had the number of visitors right (22thousand/year if I remember right), but they have them for only one day - this was enough to ride every rollercoaster, and people had no reason to stay in hotels they build.

Of course its easier to say that people in France hate queues and love alcohol. Well written Robert.

This raises a question, what would happen if we would spend 10 minutes researching every single "fact" he serves?

The whole book would be 4/5 for me, but not I'm not sure how other stories go. If he sees them in black and white, chose color fitting his idea, and present this way? Are all those "facts" flat manipulated one-side and cursory? What would happen if we spend 10 minutes researching every single "fact" he serves? Is it different from the lowest scums of BuzzFeed journalism?

I understand why so many people love his books. He uses archaic language, mention all those names, places, and stories we heard about before. This creates the illusion of mystic knowledge and mystery hidden in every word.

TL;DR: If someone would re-write this book with the language we use in everyday life, without weird sentence constructions and without the approach of intern journalists (one side story,no real research) this book wouldn't be read by anyone.

This is honestly the worst book of almost 100 I've read this year.
24 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read The Laws of Human Nature.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

November 13, 2018 – Shelved
November 13, 2018 – Shelved as: to-read
November 14, 2018 – Shelved as: waiting
November 26, 2018 – Started Reading
December 15, 2018 – Finished Reading

Comments Showing 1-3 of 3 (3 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by David (new)

David Ripke Now I want to look at every fact lol. I am listening to the audio book that I borrowed from my library and I got to the part about the South Sea Trading Company and the guys nephew committing suicide after finding out it was a scam. I could not find anything on the internet about this particular nephew although it may not be on Google so that is a possibility. I have read other conflicting information about some of his other books research and this seems to be a common theme with him. The consensus seems to be that while his laws are accurate some of the information he presents to support them is fabricated.


John Blackman I think you're missing the point. The stories are just frameworks for the deconstruction of the human nature behind those decisions. The point of the book wasn't to be accurate about Euro-Disney, but rather to understand the mechanisms behind the CEO of Disney at the time and how the laws of human nature could be used to predict or at least understand how we as humans make decisions or are influenced which is the real gem of this book.


message 3: by Colin (new) - added it

Colin Greene's prose is highly adept and engaging. However, you're totally right about the questionable research to support his claims. Also, there's an air of hypocrisy with what he spouts on the quality of nature. For example, he argues that rationality should be an ideal goal and emotion only serves to cloud perfect thinking, yet he clearly is a victim of confirmation bias at best and haughty conjecture at worse.


back to top