The ideas and usefulness of the content is 4/5 stars but the writing was painful to read and is a 2/5, and so together, we’ve got a 3/5 for the book overall.
Thinking of motivation in terms of several different dimensions was useful, and the 16 dimensions discussed were interesting.
But most of the book was really repetitive. After describing each of the 16 desires, we’d get a chapter about how each and every one of the 16 desires relates to work, or family, or sports, or religion, supported by very shallow or possibly made-up real-life examples. It was pretty tedious, and at some points, the author seemed to be grasping at straws. I wish the book had not been structured this way. Instead, it would have been more useful to devote a chapter to explaining each of the 16 desires, and going more in-depth about the research behind each desire.
There’s also a lot that just doesn’t make sense, and I wish I could ask someone about it.
For example, the “power” desire is described as “desire for influence” but also “desire for achievement” and “desire for leadership.” I can see how influence and leadership are related. But I don’t see how desire for achievement is at all related to influence/leadership/power. Reiss spends a lot of time talking about how people who have a strong power desire like to work hard and have achievements.
A desire for achievement seems, to me, unrelated to a desire for power. A desire for achievement seems more related to, perhaps, curiosity, or a desire to better yourself somehow. I might want to achievement by getting better at, say, improving my ranking in chess. But desiring to do this doesn’t seem to have anything to do with wanting to have influence, or power, over others.
If I had a really strong power desire, I’d just want to be an absolute monarch. Then I can order everyone around and not achieve anything.
The “honor” desire also confuses me a lot. Reiss describes it as loyalty to one’s parents and ethnic/religious group. But sometimes he also describes it as loyalty to a moral code. So, if my parents are horrible immoral people, and I need to turn them in, what am I supposed to do if I’m an honorable person? He talks about this a little bit with Linda Tripp recording her conversation with Monica Lewinsky (yes, this is such a dated book), and framed this as Linda Tripp as having a strong “honor” desire (loyal to a moral code) but low “social contact” desire (being unloyal to a friend). But what if it’s your own parents?
The “acceptance” desire makes the least sense to me also. Reiss describes this desire as follows: “Acceptance [is] the desire for inclusion, motivates people to avoid rejection and criticism.” He also somehow equates the desire for acceptance as being the same as “low self-confidence.”
To determine if you score highly on desiring “acceptance”, Reiss provides these three statements; if any are true, then you are high on desiring acceptance:
“You usually set easy goals for yourself.”
“You are a quitter.”
“You have great difficulty coping with criticism.”
This seems...bizarre. You can want to be accepted and included in your group, without being pathologically afraid of rejection and criticism, being a quitter, etc. I suspect Reiss & Havercamp really did find something interesting here, but that naming this desire “acceptance” doesn’t really describe it accurately.
Anyway, I’d really welcome any thoughts to clarify these. Thanks!