Science of People, founded by Vanessa Van Edwards, is a popular platform for improving social skills and understanding human behavior.

With over 1,000 articles, hundreds of videos, and courses like People School, it targets professionals, daters, and ‘socially awkward’ individuals.

But is its warm, accessible style the best fit for everyone?

As social dynamics experts, we explore her strengths, limitations, and how our power-focused approach compares.

Science of People Is Perfect For… 👍🏼

1. Women

Science of People’s writing team is more than 80% women, and their course’s accountability coach is also a woman.

Add to that Vanessa’s own feminine energy, and the website leans more towards women’s point of view.

That’s a plus though as we believe it’s better to niche down and deliver value to a core audience, than trying to appeal to everyone.

Science of People’s advice on connection-building and influence offers a softer yet effective approach ideal for female audiences seeking to enhance interpersonal skills.

Also read:

• How to be feminine

2. Socialites & Party Hosts

The platform excels in explaining small talk, group dynamics, and making others feel comfortable.

It offers actionable advice for networking events or social gatherings, which makes it great for socialites and hostesses.

3. Female Leaders Who Embrace High Femininity

As a role model balancing warmth and leadership, Vanessa demonstrates how to lead with both power and femininity, inspiring women in leadership roles to leverage emotional intelligence for success.

Also read the guide:

• How to combine power and femininity

4. Recovering Awkward Women

Vanessa, identifying as “recovering awkward,” offers hope and practical guidance through her personal transformation.

Men recovering from social awkwardness can also learn a great deal from Science of People, of course.
And that will prepare them to eventually tackle more male-relevant challenges like status, respect, and attraction.

5. High Neurotic Women

Vanessa is open about her neuroticism.

Neuroticism correlates with emotional sensitivity and anxiety, making social skills harder for highly neurotic people.
Vanessa’s successful handling of this trait makes her advice credible and aspirational, showing confidence is achievable for anyone with similar traits.

6. Women Looking to Date

Science of People provides insights into attraction and compatibility, encouraging women to make it easy for men to approach.

This also aligns with our dating advice for women.
See for example:

• Common mistakes women make in dating
• How to get a boyfriend… Fast
• How to slow down sex… And get a relationship

Science of People Is Less Ideal For… 👎🏼

1. Men

Especially those seeking a strong masculine presence.

Science of People’s warm, expressive style and more approachable content may not fully equip men with the edge they need to succeed.

2. Ambitious Men

The platform’s approachable style focuses less on complex social dynamics like manipulation or power plays.

Ambitious men might find these skills necessary in business and high-stakes environments where other competitive men are ready to do whatever it takes to win.

3. Men Looking For High-Status Networking

Some of Science of People’s most popular articles, such as those on ‘conversation starters,’ are engaging and fun.

However, they may not cover the needs of people seeking high-power networking.

Recommended questions, like “Who is your celebrity crush?” suit casual interactions but may subcommunicate lower ambition and poise.
And that kills your chances of networking with high-achievers.

For a power-aware approach to introductions and first impressions, see:

• How to make great first impressions

4. Busy Men, Needing High ROI Learning & Socializing

Science of People publishes numerous articles each month, likely to enhance visibility and SEO (an understandable strategy we have nothing against).

That can make it hard to tell apart foundational content with foundational skills, from more surface-level or entertaining articles.

The advice also leans more for highly engaged relationships with frequent texting and in-person meetings.

This approach is thoughtful, but may not be efficient for men who prioritize goals.
These men benefit most from an approach that allows them to maintain relationships and friends, without constant meetings and texts.

5. Men Who Need To Master A Powerful Presence

Science of People tends to espouse:

• Approach-first attitude to socializing
• Strong signals of interest in dating
• High-energy socializing, including high expressiveness

While all of these have a place, men often benefit from a grounded, powerful presence.
Also, men who reach the top aren’t meant to approach first or send obvious signals of interest since others are going to do that for them.

6. Kind, Unassertive Men

These men might need clearer, more direct advice on assertiveness and how to gain respect.

While Science of People deals with power as well, we find that sometimes it leans towards more warmth.
Or not tailored to what men need not just to be likable, but to gain status and respect.

Also read:

• How to be assertive
• Learn assertiveness with a brief ‘good jerk phase’

7. Men Looking To Date

Science of People’s “PG” approach might overlook key dating dynamics for men, including leadership, positive dominance, and high-value communication.

These are crucial skills since women are most attracted to men they feel are ‘above them’.
Also see more about hypergamy, and mate value.

Take Vanessa’s take in her book Captivate.
Asking her “if she can give you her number” subcommunicates lower status.
It’s not something a top catch—or a skilled dater—would say. And it would make men less attractive.

You can get a taste of our different takes in this video review:

Vanessa: She should show more signs
Lucio: Her signs were obvious, he had to lead more

Is Science of People ‘Science Backed’?

Science of People quotes many studies in its articles and videos.

We like that, and we’d suggest looking less at individual studies, and more at the full literature.

Lets dig deeper:

Science is one of three TPM pillars that support solid strategies and techniques, flanked by experience, and critical thinking skills.

The pillars work in synchrony, including by addressing each other’s limitations.

Science alone is not enough.
It takes experience and critical thinking skills to make sense of studies and translate them into effective strategies.

Common issues of ‘science-backed’ approaches include:

• Over-Reliance on Individual Studies

Single studies, especially with low statistical power, are less reliable and often fail to detect true effects.
When measuring small effect sizes, low-powered studies are more likely to produce unreliable or inconsistent results due to statistical noise.

This applies to many studies conducted before the replication crisis and those not pre-registered.

And with bad data in, poorer strategies come out.

This is why at TPM we go for literature overviews, preferring handbooks by accredited researchers who also understand how to interpret studies.

• Hyped Studies That Don’t Always Hold Up

The catchier a study is, the more likely it is to grab attention (and end up in an article).

However, as Steven Pinker explains in Rationality, the more surprising a study is, the more likely it is to be wrong.

This comes down to psychology and statistics.
While surprising equals attention-grabbing, surprising is also, by definition, exceptional.
And exceptions are more likely to be flukes.

Consider, for example, the past craze surrounding power poses, which claimed that certain postures boost confidence.
Science popularizers embraced it, and may not have been as quick to move to more effective strategies.

Power posing in a lab coat

• Effect Sizes and External Validity Aren’t Fully Appreciated

Many studies show small effect sizes that may not translate well to real-world applications.

Good examples are smiling to be happier—if there is any effect, it’s tiny, and priming.

Priming effects have been observed in controlled laboratory settings designed to detect subtle behavioral changes under isolated conditions.

But they may not make a difference for real-world influence—so skip that warm cup to bond with others, and learn how to actually bond with others.

Say the Routledge Persuasion Handbook:

Although priming has been demonstrated in controlled laboratory settings, we wish to emphasize the practical limitations of this technique (…) “the short-lived nature of the influence of subliminal information casts serious doubt on its effectiveness in everyday life (…) We are aware of no studies demonstrating any commercial success at using subliminal priming.

And, we can probably add ‘no studies demonstrating a major effect in real-life encounters’.

Science of People VS The Power Moves

What if you’ve read this Science of People review and are not yet sure if it helps you with your social skills?

Here’s a quick table to help you decide which platform better suits your needs:

Or see picture here.
If Science of People is better for you, you’re in good and capable hands with them.

FAQ

Science of People Review

Science of People is a top-notch resource for improving social skills, particularly for women and recovering awkward individuals.

Its accessible, engaging content empowers users in business, life, and love.

If you appreciate Vanessa’s accessible style, you’ll enjoy Science of People articles and courses.

However, ambitious men or those in high-stakes environments may need more assertive, power-driven strategies, as the platform’s approach may not fully address their needs.

To navigate complex social dynamics, outmaneuver manipulators, and command respect with proven frameworks, check out Power University.

Learn More

• Socially confident behavior
• High-power speaking
• Power University, for the full one-stop course