Time Revisited-Najarian's letter to Time Inc.

"Tower Of Psychobabble": TheTime Article Revisited

June 14, 1997 (68-73)

You know, we never hear enough from the opposing gender camp (i.e, Gray and his cronies). We received a pretty lame response almost one year ago from Michael Najarian when, if you'll remember, I was told that if I adopted a "more respectful" tone then he would talk to me. Ducking my questions with such a patronizing manner, I felt like my overall argument about Gray's treatment of women had been bolstered quite nicely. Of course just a few weeks later that page was pulled off the web faster than a prom dress!

Then came Gray's Yahoo! interview and Najarian, predictably, claimed the "out of context" argument to some of the most vile statements that I have ever read from the self-touted professional. The entire interview left me--and my fellow Rebuttalists--disgusted and ever committed to carrying on the deconstruction of Gray's pitiful universe here in The Rebuttal. To this day I read his words with my mouth frozen wide in amazement. I still can't quite believe that after reading that, Gray still has people to defend him. It's stupefying.

Finally, however, the June 14 Time included a realistic article about John Gray. Although the author, Elizabeth Gleick, concentrated on the financial empire erected by Gray on his lack of credible education (as opposed to his sexism), I was pleased that--for once--a major magazine article stood on its own refusing to grovel to Gray's lemming-like following. Although a bit overdone here and there, the essence of the article was sound.

Imagine my pleasure when a heretofore casual reader of The Rebuttal emailed me this past week and told me of Najarian's response to Time. Since the magazine itself did not print the letter, Najarian saw a need to post it on Gray's Q&A page. Length alone would preclude the printing of the letter in Time (Najarian says it is "six pages" in length), but it is so interesting I thought I would post it for you to read. I suppose Najarian wouldn't mind if you all had a read since he seems disappointed that Time's readership didn't have the chance. You should read the Time interview first, of course, and make up your own mind about these things. I suppose I should just provide a link to the Q&A page, but instead I will just provide links to my comments. If you're interested you can link to them. (By the way, the numbers following hyperlinks are not, of course, part of Najarian's letter; these refer to my comments in the event these pesky bookmarks fail to work on your browser.)

I found this letter to be quite instructive for those who may be pondering writing a letter to a national magazine. First, always remember that the possessive form of "it" is "its" without the apostrophe. In effect, Najarian is saying "it is" throughout the letter. Second, always remember (while there is an exception) to include the period before the closing quote (the exception doesn't apply here). Third, keep the parties you're addressing to a bare minimum (like, one). Najarian, in effect, addresses three people: Time's editor-in-chief, Elizabeth Gleick, and Deborah Tannen. Fourth, separate your writing into concise paragraphs (although I won't be too hard on Najarian for this one. I am hoping that it was software limitations that led to this one-paragraph letter).

Overall, I really like the letter. I wish Time had printed it. After all, it speaks for itself!

From: John Gray Q&A Page
http://marsvenus.com/raphtmlm4.htm
[Note: The only enchancements made to this letter have been hypertext links and numbers in parenthesis referring to the associated comment.]

Monday, July 14, 1997

What did you think of the TIME magazine article?

Quite a bit actually - here's the letter I wrote in response. Unfortunately, TIME chose not to print it - It was six pages though. Norman Pearlstone - Editor in Chief Time Inc. Time & Life Building Rockefeller Center New York, New York 10020-1393 Mr. Pearlstone, I am writing in regards to the June 16, 1997 article on John Gray and his work in the field of relationships and communication. I was pleased to receive a phone call from Time asking about Dr. Gray’s work and suggested an appropriate setting for the writer’s research. I arranged for Elizabeth Gleick to experience an intimate view of Gray’s work in action so that she could accurately assess it’s impact. Gleick had seen John on Broadway where she observed the positive response, love and support of sell-out crowds but I encouraged her to attend and participate in one of our smaller community based Mars/Venus workshops. I believed that a hands-on experience would assist her in understanding why John Gray’s work is so popular. I was surprised and disappointed by both the article’s content and the reporting that was surprisingly omitted. The results of the workshop were typical with predominantly couples and a few singles all leaving evaluations that praised the impact of the new insights and awareness they gained about communication and relationships. In a single day the participants had learned new fundamentals for overcoming differences in communication styles, how to rekindle the romance of a relationship, how to avoid arguing, how their past affects their present day relationships and the essentials for maintaining passionate monogamy. Ms. Gleick committed a full day of her research to the workshop and yet failed to provide her readers with any comments on the many positive and dramatic benefits heralded by her fellow attendees. Perhaps a review of the day will help us understand what happened. In the first hour of the seminar Ms. Gleick observed women, much like herself, that felt an initial resistance to John’s work. Understanding and accepting gender differences is a sometimes difficult and demanding task. (1) Unlike Gleick, however, her peers remained in the seminar room so they could at least make a fair assessment of what was presented. Not so for Ms. Gleick, however. She made numerous trips in and out of the room for phone calls and other assorted distractions and never did fully engage in the day. I was somewhat taken aback by her behavior, as prior to the seminar, I had requested that she participate in the workshop to avoid a situation where the attendees would feel "observed." While others accommodated her presence, (a reporter at a relationship seminar), and enjoyed an informative and inspiring experience, Gleick failed to observe and later report what had happened right before her eyes. She chose instead to write about her subject with an obviously prejudiced point of view, a perspective she brought in advance to the journalistic table. By her omissions and other transgressions, Ms. Gleick discredits her very profession. (Let’s call it, "IJ", for Irresponsible Journalism). We are all painfully aware of the staggering divorce rate and growing incidents of emotional and physical violence between men and women. The Mars/Venus Workshops are designed to help us overcome common misunderstandings and conflicts as well as these more dramatic consequences of deficient communication and relationship skills. Participants range between those in happy relationships seeking to learn more about living and growing together to others who are currently experiencing more difficult times. No, everyone does not resonate with every piece of information presented within John’s theories, but then again this is not expected. We are, after all, each very different and unique beings regardless of our gender. Ultimately, however, it is the people who judge such things as the aesthetic appeal of a work of art, the allure of a new melody, or in this case, a resonance and identification with a written work. In a voice that spans culture, race, ethnicity and gender, the people have voiced overwhelming support of the concepts presented in Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus - and if for no other reason, the people’s voice demands our respect and attention. (2) "Tower of Psychobabble," - the title alone insults the intelligence and voices of millions of readers and hundreds of thousands of seminar attendees spread across the planet. For purposes of discussion let’s define Psychobabble as carefully crafted and combined psychological terms that in essence have no real meaning or impact and are presented with the intent of deception. (3) Dr. Gray’s writing, by design, avoids the use of psychological terms. His writing is in common language and his book sales indicate the consumers penchant for not only understanding but also recognizing the truth, wisdom and value in what he has written. Does this constitute Psychobabble? I think not! The article’s title is, on it’s own, "IJ". Perhaps Gleick claims Psychobabble because she suspects covert sources or questions his open use of generalized conclusions. Deceit might be construed if John did not so clearly explain his method. In the introduction to Men Are From Mars, Gray is very clear about the source of his conclusions, (personal experience and self-evident truths). (4) He also clearly states that he offers generalized conclusions. It just so happens that millions of readers have found relevance in his findings which supports the very legitimate and useful nature of his work. Gray even supports his detractors by suggesting that readers absorb and utilize that which they find useful and discard the rest. He is not trying to fool anyone into anything. Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, is the largest selling non-fiction hardback in history. Now why do you suppose that is? Are 10 million readers fooled and Gleick’s catchy little criticisms appropriate? (5) Doesn’t a writer owe more to their readers than to merely speculate about what they should already know. Gleick asks, "did you need a book to tell you how to mix those adverbs and adjectives so very creatively?" The common response is apparently "YES!" Gleick intimates that John’s advice is somehow so obvious that anyone could have put it in writing. The fact is that no one had ever written a book that so precisely identified the emotions and responses of men and women as they struggled with relationships. We should be grateful that someone in our lifetime was blessed with the ability. Part of John’s genius is that he has the gift of describing phenomena to us in a comprehensible manner. As a writer, I would hope that Ms. Gleick would be sensitive to and appreciative of such qualities but perhaps this is just another case of "IJ". Gleick asks, "Huckster or Healer?" I can only answer with my own question, Time Magazine - Fact or Fantasy? I’ve known John Gray for over 10 years now and have been privileged to most every aspect of the sales and marketing of his books and seminars. Making money has never been the motivation for any decision I have ever seen John make in regards to his work. I have more often witnessed him making decisions that defied fiscal sense in favor of maintaining the integrity of his work. No Ms. Gleick, not a huckster? As you reported John did pray to God for, "something I could teach that . . . would help the quality of life for those who came." He sought the knowledge to heal. "Healer" Ms. Gleick, "Healer!" (6) Gray honestly shares his motivation only to have Ms. Gleick place his words between her flippant and capricious remarks creating a context that betrays the intent of his statement. More "IJ". John Gray’s motivation for his various business endeavors is not driven by a potential for income but rather as a response to his public’s service requests. (7) Mars/Venus Institute, the entity that administers the workshops described above does not operate at a profit and John knew this would be the case from start-up. Hopefully that will change one day so that John can do what he has done in the past with seminar profits - donate significant portions to family service agencies, churches or other local organizations. The Institute is John’s response to the hundreds of seminar requests we were turning down because he could not travel enough to satisfy the public’s demand and still maintain his priority to be a loving husband and father. We used video technology and a considerable investment in research, development and training so that when a local church or community group contacts us we can say yes to their educational requests. And let’s not leave out Mars/Venus Counseling Centers - the company that offers education for professionals interested in using John’s work in their practices. (8) This company is currently operating in the red because of our stringent selection criterion and the severe limitations John has placed on marketing to ensure the integrity of the company. (9) This company was founded due to the thousands of calls and letters we have received asking for professional recommendations - recommendations we could not in good faith deliver without first developing a comprehensive training program. Sure, John has done quite well financially with his book sales and deservedly so. John openly shared his personal pain and successes in his personal growth seminars for years prior to the publication of Men Are From Mars and the international recognition he now enjoys. During that time his honesty stimulated others to share the ups and downs of their growth process and he gained tremendous insights into communication and relationships. He paid his dues with a commitment to the truth and his reward was the inspiration to write, Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus . His prayer was answered. The success of Men Are From Mars is exclusively from the favorable word of mouth that families around the world have shared with each other. His success is not due to a marketing strategy. (10) If John were the huckster, he would be better off making a few investments and relaxing at home. His desire to help has exposed him to unwarranted exploitation’s, such as that exhibited in Gleick’s article, and this is a genuine travesty. I know that John truly wants to make a positive difference in our world and he should be acknowledged for his success in this endeavor and not so callously questioned. (11) He has earned our recognition as a healer and suggesting that he is anything other than that is just more "IJ". It’s understandable to reference Deborah Tannen’s work when discussing gender differences but I fail to see Gleick’s point in including it in this article. My guess is Gleick is trying in some unsubstantiated fashion to say that John’s ideas were founded in Tannen’s work. Tannen’s work, You Just Don’t Understand Me and Gray’s work in Men, Women And Relationships were both published in 1990 with both books sharing the common thread of discussing gender differences. Neither author, for that matter was the first to identify and write about problems associated with gender differences. There is a significant difference, however, between Gray and his predecessors. No writer or researcher was able to describe the gender difference phenomena in such a way that it was understandable and accessible to the average person. Additionally, while Tannen et. all were adept at recognizing gender differences they had very little if anything to say, in practical terms, about how to recognize and manage these differences. Obviously, Gray was able to present his ideas in a fashion that was comprehensible to the masses and the public response and support is indicative of this incredible achievement. (12) Failure to account for the very obvious distinction of Gray’s work is just another example of "IJ". (13) Deborah Tannen, if you should see this letter, rest assured that John didn’t set out to "build an empire" either . . . he prayed for a message he could successfully communicate and his prayers were answered. Additionally, as students of Psychology both John and I definitely support and encourage your work.. Moving on, let’s examine the quote by Anna Beth Benningfield, American Asscociation of Family Therapy, "To tell a couple to go read this book and do this one thing and you’ll be fine is misleading." Time adds an editorial slap in the face by putting this quote in bold letters in a separate box in the middle of the page so it has absolutely no context. (14) This is editorial irresponsibility taken to it’s extreme. Does Ms. Gleick imagine that Gray started Mars/Venus Counseling Centers because he doesn’t recognize the value of professional therapy. Give me a break - never, anywhere does John say that reading his books, taking his workshops or acknowledging the content of his work is a substitute for counseling. In his introduction to Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, Gray clearly states his position, "this book does not replace the need for therapy and counseling for troubled relationships . . . Even healthy individuals may need therapy or counseling." This is not just an oversight, it’s another glaring case of "IJ". The quote from Dorothy Cantor commenting on "the ethics of essentially franchising a form of therapeutic practice," (Gleick’s words by the way, not Cantor’s) are yet another example of "IJ". (15) In painstaking detail, on more than one occasion and from more than one John Gray staff member the purpose and intent of the Counseling Centers - to provide education - was explained to Ms. Gleick. If she hadn’t ask the question so many times, I may have attributed this unfair characterization to a misunderstanding. This section of the article is clearly not an accident but a careless misrepresentation of the facts. Gleick obtained a quote based on her inaccurate description of the Counseling Program and then conveniently pasted it in where she felt it would have the most sensational effect. The facts about the counselor training program are that there are many schools of therapy that hold seminars on their disciplines. (16) The training rooms, materials and instructor costs are commonly paid for by registration fees. This is not a unique concept or a tradition foreign to the field. John’s information is available in the public domain perhaps even more so than Skinner’s, whose work is referenced in the article. Unless someone chooses to pay for our in-depth training, they have very easy access to a number of tools to enhance their knowledge. We regularly donate materials - audio and video tapes and books to schools, churches, professional organizations and community libraries so that the information is free and available to those who wish to use it. More "IJ". I do wish to thank Ms. Gleick for acknowledging that as a student of John’s work, I have been so close to him that I might occasionally imitate his mannerisms. If I can help John share his work and remain true to his message, I’ll be extremely proud of my professional accomplishment. Speaking of professional accomplishment Ms. Gleick, you’d think as a writer for Time your vocabulary might include something a notch above the word "creepily." (17) (My spell checker and thesaurus are amused). I do sympathize however, that you ended up in a workshop that stimulates self-reflection, much as you sought to avoid it. I supposed that could be unnerving. Perhaps this might explain the true source of your "creepily" discomfort. (18) By all means readers, if you are looking for someone who can accurately and sincerely deliver John’s message with passion, enthusiasm and authenticity - I am definitely your guy. And those mannerisms, by the way, really add to the humor - I suggest we keep them in. And now Gleick for your crowing achievement . . . mentioning Marshall Applewhite. IJ, IJ, IJ, IJ. So John says this guy went into his mother’s bookstore and that consequently she knew him - SO WHAT??? What’s the point Betsy? Are you picking on the man’s mother now? (19) A sweet and gentle soul that you don’t even know just to make some way out of context, sensationalized remark? Just in case there was some remote point you were attempting to make, John has always discouraged anything that even resembles acknowledging him as any sort of guru. If you wish to be critical, Elizabeth Gleick, address the work.. Tell us how or what John Gray says does not work in your home. but please don’t stoop to such unprofessional tactics as dropping names inappropriately. IJ, IJ, IJ!!!! This was truly a cheap trick . (20) By the sheer magnitude of his accomplishments, John Gray is entitled to respect as a gifted teacher, healer and writer. He is a good man with honest intentions that has done a world of good with his work.. John asks that men learn to be more caring, understanding and respectful of women and that women learn to be more trusting, accepting and appreciative of men. He asks that we recognize and adjust to our complimentary differences so that we can enjoy happier, healthier relationships without sacrificing who we are. He tells us not to argue and provides an incredible technique for us to communicate difficult feelings without raising our voices or resorting to abusive forms of behavior. He supports the concept of passionate monogamy and offers ideas to build relationships that provide lasting intimacy and fulfillment. Is there some downside here I don’t see that has motivated this writer to completely ignore the value of this work that she observed first hand? Elizabeth Gleick, spent a day with thirty people that all related a positive experience. They gracefully accommodated a reporter’s presence and the presence of a photographer because they all perceived a value that went beyond their individual needs and concerns. Ms Gleick betrayed all of them by failing to report what she observed. (21) Did this writer think so little of the broken homes that children have to grow up in due to lack of communication and relationships skills that she writes an article that portrays this valuable work as some sort of scam? Can Time magazine ignore the radical effects of gender based violence that fills jails and hospitals with victims of physical and emotional abuse so that you they can unfairly and inaccurately criticize Gray’s work based on their writer’s individual prejudice? When one writes for a national magazine they assume a responsibility that supersedes personal opinion and at very minimum brings with it a responsibility to fairly and accurately report what has been have witnessed. The utter disregard for accuracy, the penchant for sensationalism and the totally irresponsible nature of the journalism in this article is a shameful display of fantasy vs. fact. Elizabeth Gleick, you and your editors owe Dr. Gray and all of us an apology. (21) I trust that someday you will make amends. You deserve a better world Ms. Gleick - we all do. Sincerely, Michael Najarian