A couple of good books on gender communication
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> Some people have a good instinct on how to communicate with the opposite
> sex effectively, and some do not. Those who do not often do not get
> their fair share of partners. They think that all women are bad, but
> may in fact miss the good ones due to their inability to tell the good
> ones from the bad ones. But some of them can learn, if they do not get
> stuck in the denial mentality.
>
> A good book about it, written by a linguist, is called _You Just Do
> Not Understand_, by Deborah Tannen. It is not a "how to get laid in
> 10 days" book, actually, and is a popular version of her research in
> linguistics. It does not contain many cookie cutter recipes, but for
> smart enough people it has enough insight to become useful. It explains how
> people communicate and create relations of power and control, the feelings
> that words create, and so on. And besides, it makes a fascinating
> reading too. You can discover how much power -- or lack thereof --
> can be created by innocent words. Many things fall well in place then.
Excellant book. Read it back in 1990. Tannen is dead on.
The reason the women here don't like me is that I make not the slightest
effort to talk "to" them. My messages in these groups are for the guys,
and the guys ONLY
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
James L. King III
to this comment:
> * David Keirsey is a research psychologist and wrote this book
> * after observing 1,500 people.
> *
> * <--------Gee, and I only observed about 20,000 or so. Guess my sample
> * sucks.
Liar. But it will take the courts to have you produce that raw data of
20,000 observations and 10,000 interviews when you sue me for libel.
After all, you're going to have to produce the truth to defend yourself
against my claims.
Ray, I believe you are completely, utterly, totally lying about your
"research." You are completely misleading people into thinking that
you've done scientific research when in fact you have done nothing of
the sort. I have asked you repeatedly for access to your raw data,
(heck, I'll even accept verifiable proof that the raw data exists) but
you refuse, saying that you will produce the data only upon receiving a
Ph.D from an accredited university. (Give me the degree and THEN I'll
write the dissertation ... it doesn't work that way, Ray.)
Ray, you are a liar who probably NEVER did ANY research whatsoever. In
any case, I certainly believe your "research," if you did any at all,
would not pass any applicable scientific standards.
Ah, who am I kidding? ... You haven't done any research. You're just
claiming to because it gives your book the appearance of being based on
scientific evidence and data. In truth, it is based merely on your
opinions, some of which may be valuable, but your constant lying
destroys any trust others have in you.
I checked your order page again. It must feel horrible to know that
you've sold so few books when you claimed you'd have a best seller and
be on Oprah by now. But then again, given the false claims you've made
about your book in an attempt to scam people out of their money, I'm
not surprised that your internet-only attempt at marketing has failed
miserably.
Unless you consider sales of 500 books or so in 9 months a success. And
it's likely that you've sold far, far fewer than that.
James King
P.S. Don't bother responding to me except to serve me the lawsuit
you've been threatening for almost a year now, or to show me your raw
research data. Giganews cancels your posts now, so I don't see what you
write unless someone replies to you and posts your comments.
--
The days of old time radio drama come alive at http://www.shadowradio.org ...
As featured in Yahoo! Internet Life magazine August 1999.
suba...@voyager.net
>Some people have a good instinct on how to communicate with the opposite
>sex effectively, and some do not. Those who do not often do not get
>their fair share of partners. They think that all women are bad, but
>may in fact miss the good ones due to their inability to tell the good
>ones from the bad ones. But some of them can learn, if they do not get
>stuck in the denial mentality.
>
>A good book about it, written by a linguist, is called _You Just Do
>Not Understand_, by Deborah Tannen. It is not a "how to get laid in
>10 days" book, actually, and is a popular version of her research in
>linguistics. It does not contain many cookie cutter recipes, but for
>smart enough people it has enough insight to become useful. It explains how
>people communicate and create relations of power and control, the feelings
>that words create, and so on. And besides, it makes a fascinating
>reading too. You can discover how much power -- or lack thereof --
>can be created by innocent words. Many things fall well in place then.
>
>To those who suffer from poor understanding of their fellow human beings:
>try reading David Keirsey's _Please Understand Me II_ (note the II). This
>book is one of the most fascinating books I ever read in my life. It
>demonstrates how people are fundamentally different. Now, whenever I hear
>generalizations about "women", I know that the writer has not read the
>book. Its main point is that certain traits go together, and that you can
>predict/understand certain behaviors by observing other behaviors. It
>introduces 16 personality types who "have a lot in common" within every
>type.
for those with an interest, there are a couple of character and
temperament sorter tests available at http://www.keirsey.com/ to give
you an idea of what yours might be.
The people of each type are not same, of course, but they often
>share certain predispositions. That's how they got into these types
>after all. David Keirsey is a research psychologist and wrote this book
>after observing 1,500 people.
>
>It may be useful for Ray "Outfoxing" Gordon and help him improve his
>CUPID rating system, which is rather naive as it stands.
>
>Neither of these books tells you what to do; you are presumed to have
>brains to figure it out yourself. If you do not have brains, go on with
>cookie cutter recipes. But both books give you a very concentrated
>experience.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
> http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov
>