Kind of an interesting book that delves into how you can use a list of sixteen characteristics developed by this psychologist that helps you understand what makes you tick. The characteristics seem logically correct and if one applies them objectively to evaluating themselves it appears to have some worth. The basic problem I had with the book was after laying out these character traits in great detail the author then proceeds to fill up the majority of the book with endless application examples in many different ways. It becomes somewhat repetitious and over done. Finally at the very end of the book he has a chart you can complete of your traits and apply them to a graph picture. It was kind of fun to do that but he really does not explain how to use and evaluate how it all ties together. ( )

My reaction to this genre is often that I don't believe I fit into the model. That's certainly untrue here and, based on the methodology, I understand why. Reiss developed the 16 traits using factor analysis and has validated these factors with multiple heterogeneous populations. The basic desires are each distinct and directly reflect human needs that serve as their own end. It's even more impressive that his approach to helping one understand their own needs succeeds without the need for a full profile (which he insists should only be administered by a trained psychologist). Not only does this framework help one understand and direct their own satisfaction, comparison to a partner's ratings highlights areas that match (for which a Principle of Bonding helps them grow together) and where they don't (for which a Principle of Separation must be managed to keep them from growing apart). He also presents a deeper form of miscommunication -- "not getting it" -- which manifests itself in misunderstanding, self-hugging, and everyday tyranny. Finally he shows how his findings can be applied to achieve the right balance in the areas that are most important. This leads to value-based happiness instead of feeling-based happiness. He relies both on other studies and early philosophical works, especially Aristotle, to make his point. Perhaps the single point I found most interesting was the psychological perspective that the absolute "good" cannot be the same for everyone because of these motivators. ( )