Re: Deborah Tannen's Work

[Beverly Parks <bparks -at- HUACHUCA-EMH1 -dot- ARMY -dot- MIL>]

I had the same basic thought as John. I've read both author's
books and got more out of Tannen's coverage of the subject than
I did from the other, even though they are saying basically the
same thing.

The Mars/Venus analogy was a bit too cute for me. It worked at
first, but when he kept going back to it I tired of it real
fast.

I don't know what level of research the guy did, but I would
hesitate to assume that it concentrated solely on his navel.
Surely, he had to put some effort into research...

    =*=  Beverly Parks =*= bparks -at- huachuca-emh1 -dot- army -dot- mil  =*=
   =*=  "Unless otherwise stated, all comments are my own. =*=
    =*=   I am not representing my employer in any way."  =*=

================
   John Gear <catalyst -at- PACIFIER -dot- COM> wrote...

     Geoff:  You might want to check with your sister again
     just to make sure you heard her correctly.  You've got the
     "pop" psychology tag applied to the  wrong author.
     [snip]
     But it would be wrong and a slight to her work to compare her
     to the guy who  wrote Mars/Venus.  He did no research besides
     stare at his navel and record  the stereotypes and prejudices
     that he heard in his own head.  And then he  took it on the
     road and is pulling down mega$$$ for it.  It may *sound* less
     simplistic--but then, when you aren't constrained by little
     things like  evidence and the scientific method, why it's
     amazing how subtle and delicate  the theories you can produce!
     *Not* a flame.  Just hate to see a *good* piece of social
     research (Tannen's  work) lumped in with the dreck.