Dani David’s Reviews > The School of Life > Status Update

The concept of humans as the "peak of evolution" is incorrect in this book. Evolution is not a straight line toward a final goal, but a branching process where all species are equally successful in their own ways. Every living species, including us, is an ongoing evolutionary success story. "Fittest" simply means being well-adapted to an environment, a quality shared by a cockroach as much as by a human.

This book's rigid "right or wrong" view of science clashes with my belief that scientific truth is a spectrum, constantly evolving. It's a thought-provoking read, but its core premise feels simplistic and misses the nuanced, continuous nature of discovery.

OPPOSITE POINT OF VIEW FROM THE BOOK - It’s time to let go of the old idea. The mind is a product of the body—and it's all part of a single, brilliant system. There are not two things mind and body, it's one.

OPPOSITE VIEW POINT FROM THE BOOK - In today's world, these instincts can get distorted. The endless cycle of industrial work can turn boredom into a rut and ambition into a "slave mentality." The real challenge is to channel these powerful, natural drives for your own purpose, not just for a paycheck.

The phrasing in the text may inadvertently lead readers to believe the prize was awarded for the book, rather than the research it encapsulates.

I’m currently reading the 6th edition, and I believe this detail could benefit from a minor correction in future prints to avoid misinterpretation. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts—have others noticed this too?

However, I encountered a point of confusion on page 84. The author refers to Daniel Kahneman receiving the Nobel Prize for Thinking, Fast and Slow. While, Kahneman was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics for his groundbreaking contributions to behavioral economics and the psychology of judgment and decision-making—not specifically for the book itself.

I’ve been reading The School of Life by Dr. K. Vasuki IAS, and while the introductory chapters felt weighed down by frequent apologetic interjections—addressed to readers and others—I found myself increasingly engaged as the narrative deepened. Her introspective honesty and philosophical reflections are compelling once you move past the initial disclaimers.