So much of discovery is a search for patterns. What links to what? Which variables are related? But patterns aren’t always signs of connection or influence. They can be causal or merely coincidental. And they are seldom universal.Which is exactly why such a high percentage of scientific discovery turns out to be incorrect, or at least not complete. There is a pattern, but it’s not THE pattern – or at least not the only pattern. And, of course, patterns tend to change over time for a nearly infinite number of reasons.And that’s the way I felt about the “laws” articulated in this book. I just never got the impression that they were a complete or universal explanation. I could see the pattern. It wasn’t just pulled out of thin air. But it struck me as presumptuous to assume that the “law” was in any way complete or permanent. It might be complete some of the time in some instances. But is it really the final answer that being called a “law of human nature” clearly suggests.The problem is that laws require generalizations in order to be articulated and applied. And that might work reasonably well in defining traffic laws. Human nature, however, is far more complex and variable. Saying, therefore, that “Introverts are more sensitive and easily exhausted by too much outward activity,” or that, “To the extrovert, the introvert has no fun, is stubborn, even antisocial,” strikes me as applying two-dimensional generalizations to issues and traits that are far more complex than they can accommodate. Isn’t that, after all, part of the explanation for the rancor we currently see in our politics?I really wanted to like this book. Who doesn’t want to know the laws of nature? Particularly now. To the point that throughout the book I went back to the marketing materials to see what I was missing. And in the “About the Author” section it describes the author as a “renowned expert on power strategies.” And that makes sense to me. And if power strategies is what you’re looking for, and you can buy into the advice - “Take notice of people who praise or flatter you without their eyes lighting up,” as opposed to recognizing they may have just stepped off the red eye, then you will probably like this book very much.My interests, on the other hand, tend more to philosophy than psychology and I do tend to believe that the Daoists make a very good point – reality is just too nuanced and complicated for our human brains to understand at the level we would need to lay out the laws of human nature.But if the subject sounds interesting to you, it sounds feasible that one book and one author can lay it all out, or you just like this author, please don’t let me discourage you. (I will admit that I have not read any of the author’s other works.)He’s obviously accomplished. And if you enjoy the history of psychology you’ll find a lot of gems here. For me, however, the author’s theories are just a little too assertive and built on dangerous generalizations to live by 24/7. But I’m not much on “power strategies,” either, so take that advice for what it is.