On the weekend of the book's publication,
The New York Times Book Review published a review written by philosophy and law professor
Thomas Nagel. Nagel criticized Brooks's use of fictional characters in pursuit of his central thesis, writing, {{quote|The book is really a moral and social tract, but Brooks has hung it on the life stories of two imaginary people, Harold and Erica, who are used to illustrate his theory in detail and to provide the occasion for countless references to the psychological literature and frequent disquisitions on human nature and society... This device is supposed to relieve the tedium of what would otherwise be like skimming through 10 years' worth of the Tuesday Science Times. But fiction is not Brooks's métier, and he lacks the ability to create characters that compel belief.
Newsweek ran a review by James Atlas praising the book as "authoritative, impressively learned, and vast in scope", and he also remarked:
Alan Wolfe wrote a mixed review in
The New Republic. He stated that Brooks is a "skillful popularizer of academic research in a wide variety of fields" and that Brooks "has a knack... to find experiments that, in his view, are chock full of revelations about the ways we live now." Wolfe also accused Brooks of cherry-picking facts to suit a given narrative about human nature. Wolf described
The Social Animal as "a book by a conservative in which science is being used to buttress a prior point of view."
Walter Isaacson, author and CEO of the
Aspen Institute, praised the book as "an absolutely fascinating book about how we form our emotions and character."
Kirkus Reviews referred to it as "An uncommonly brilliant blend of sociology, intellect and allegory."
Tony Schwartz praised
The Social Animal in the
Harvard Business Review, finding in it "a path to a more meaningful life—one that balances action with introspection, confidence with restraint." ==Reception==