WEBVTT - Why We Hate Office Jargon So Much

0:00:00.040 --> 0:00:03.320
<v Speaker 1>I'm al Franken Center from Minnesota. The jargon word I

0:00:03.440 --> 0:00:09.240
<v Speaker 1>hate hearing in hearings is uh. It's another tool in

0:00:09.320 --> 0:00:13.520
<v Speaker 1>my tool belt. It means nothing. And that's why I

0:00:25.040 --> 0:00:27.680
<v Speaker 1>welcome to game Plan, a show about our lives at work.

0:00:28.040 --> 0:00:30.920
<v Speaker 1>I'm Rebecca Greenfield, a reporter at Bloomberg, where I cover

0:00:31.040 --> 0:00:34.520
<v Speaker 1>workplace culture, and I'm Francesco Leavie, editor of the game

0:00:34.560 --> 0:00:38.120
<v Speaker 1>Plan section of bloomberg dot com. Today we're talking about jargon,

0:00:38.360 --> 0:00:41.360
<v Speaker 1>the much hated empty phrases we're all guilty of using

0:00:41.360 --> 0:00:44.479
<v Speaker 1>when we talk to our coworkers. Later, we'll talk to

0:00:44.520 --> 0:00:47.720
<v Speaker 1>Sarah Schaeffer, a comedian who has had a variety of jobs,

0:00:47.920 --> 0:00:50.680
<v Speaker 1>including a five year stint at a law office, which

0:00:50.720 --> 0:00:53.360
<v Speaker 1>served as the inspiration for her web series Day Job.

0:00:53.720 --> 0:00:57.520
<v Speaker 1>But before we hear from her, a little background on jargon. Yeah,

0:00:57.560 --> 0:01:00.200
<v Speaker 1>so you did. You've done some research on this, and

0:01:00.280 --> 0:01:03.920
<v Speaker 1>you have actually delved into the history of some of

0:01:04.160 --> 0:01:07.399
<v Speaker 1>the earliest jargon. Yeah, I went deep on jargon. But

0:01:07.520 --> 0:01:10.840
<v Speaker 1>before getting to the way back when, let's start with

0:01:10.880 --> 0:01:15.240
<v Speaker 1>an actual definition from Oxford Dictionaries, which says jargon is

0:01:15.360 --> 0:01:18.520
<v Speaker 1>special words or expressions that are used by a particular

0:01:18.560 --> 0:01:21.919
<v Speaker 1>profession or group and are difficult for others to understand.

0:01:22.440 --> 0:01:26.080
<v Speaker 1>I thought that last caveat was really important. So that's

0:01:26.080 --> 0:01:29.240
<v Speaker 1>what makes it jargon is that it excludes people who

0:01:29.280 --> 0:01:32.160
<v Speaker 1>are outside of that industry or a group that uses

0:01:32.200 --> 0:01:35.160
<v Speaker 1>those words. Kind of Yeah, it's it's meaningless to other

0:01:35.480 --> 0:01:37.959
<v Speaker 1>people who aren't in that group, because I think every

0:01:37.959 --> 0:01:40.479
<v Speaker 1>industry has its own terms, and sometimes you really need

0:01:40.520 --> 0:01:42.520
<v Speaker 1>those terms. You can't really do your job if you

0:01:42.560 --> 0:01:44.560
<v Speaker 1>don't have special definitions for some of the things you do.

0:01:44.600 --> 0:01:47.880
<v Speaker 1>But that's not exactly jargon, right, There's another Like, the

0:01:47.920 --> 0:01:50.440
<v Speaker 1>thing when we talk about jargon that makes us really

0:01:50.520 --> 0:01:54.640
<v Speaker 1>angry is that it feels like it's words that we

0:01:54.680 --> 0:01:56.560
<v Speaker 1>don't really need to be using. We just kind of

0:01:56.600 --> 0:01:59.600
<v Speaker 1>want to. Yeah, it's words, but when you think about them,

0:01:59.760 --> 0:02:02.840
<v Speaker 1>it's like, what does that actually mean? But when you're

0:02:02.920 --> 0:02:06.520
<v Speaker 1>using them, you you think you sound pretty good. So

0:02:07.000 --> 0:02:09.440
<v Speaker 1>some of the favorites I think. I think the easiest

0:02:09.440 --> 0:02:12.080
<v Speaker 1>one to make fun of is definitely synergy, right, because

0:02:12.080 --> 0:02:15.880
<v Speaker 1>it sounds really stupid. Yeah, and it really doesn't mean

0:02:15.960 --> 0:02:18.320
<v Speaker 1>much at all. Yeah, I don't, I don't know what

0:02:18.360 --> 0:02:21.200
<v Speaker 1>it means. It's I mean, these words become like so

0:02:21.280 --> 0:02:23.919
<v Speaker 1>broad that it could have meant something at one time

0:02:24.240 --> 0:02:27.480
<v Speaker 1>in somebody's head, but the definition is not widely shared

0:02:27.480 --> 0:02:30.080
<v Speaker 1>among everybody that uses it. Yeah, if I hear someone

0:02:30.120 --> 0:02:34.400
<v Speaker 1>say the word synergy, I immediately stopped taking them seriously,

0:02:34.600 --> 0:02:37.040
<v Speaker 1>which is the opposite of what jargons should do. But

0:02:37.080 --> 0:02:40.640
<v Speaker 1>they're there are less kind of nefarious ones. I would say,

0:02:40.840 --> 0:02:44.400
<v Speaker 1>circle back, I see I just heard that yesterday, touch base.

0:02:44.520 --> 0:02:45.760
<v Speaker 1>I don't know what are some of the ones you

0:02:45.800 --> 0:02:48.640
<v Speaker 1>hear a lot. I will circle back and touch base

0:02:48.760 --> 0:02:52.800
<v Speaker 1>definitely are common. They're the I think the newer jargon

0:02:52.840 --> 0:02:55.960
<v Speaker 1>word is the more you're like, really, why am I

0:02:56.040 --> 0:03:00.480
<v Speaker 1>hearing this? Like one of the ones I hate is learnings,

0:03:01.480 --> 0:03:04.680
<v Speaker 1>which is like a word that there's already a word for,

0:03:05.080 --> 0:03:09.360
<v Speaker 1>which is lessons, And learning sounds stupid. It sounds like

0:03:09.440 --> 0:03:12.560
<v Speaker 1>you're not really grasping the English language that well. It

0:03:12.639 --> 0:03:15.840
<v Speaker 1>sounds kind of like something a preschool teacher might say,

0:03:16.160 --> 0:03:19.639
<v Speaker 1>like it's learning's time exact. But a lot of people

0:03:19.960 --> 0:03:23.720
<v Speaker 1>emerge from meetings with key learnings that they want to

0:03:23.720 --> 0:03:26.200
<v Speaker 1>share with you. And the amazing thing is that, like

0:03:26.240 --> 0:03:27.959
<v Speaker 1>among a certain set, or at least among the people

0:03:28.000 --> 0:03:29.440
<v Speaker 1>who are saying these things. They must think it makes

0:03:29.480 --> 0:03:32.760
<v Speaker 1>them sound really smart. There's a lot of sports metaphors,

0:03:32.800 --> 0:03:37.760
<v Speaker 1>like what touch base? That is a sports metaphors, ramp

0:03:37.840 --> 0:03:41.120
<v Speaker 1>up a sports medal, I think so right, like rev up,

0:03:41.200 --> 0:03:45.920
<v Speaker 1>I don't know rev up. People say let's run it

0:03:46.000 --> 0:03:48.760
<v Speaker 1>up the flagpole and see who salutes. I've never heard

0:03:48.760 --> 0:03:50.960
<v Speaker 1>the second half of that. I've heard run it up

0:03:51.000 --> 0:03:54.240
<v Speaker 1>the flagpole. Well everybody knows. Maybe you don't even need

0:03:54.280 --> 0:03:57.280
<v Speaker 1>to say the second part anymore because it's so self explanatory, right,

0:03:57.400 --> 0:04:00.480
<v Speaker 1>just running total f and then obviously someone will salute

0:04:00.600 --> 0:04:04.200
<v Speaker 1>after it's been run up. There's a formal salute remaining

0:04:04.200 --> 0:04:09.680
<v Speaker 1>where that's mentioned. But yeah, so jargon goes back way back. Um,

0:04:09.720 --> 0:04:11.440
<v Speaker 1>some of my research says it goes back to the

0:04:11.480 --> 0:04:15.080
<v Speaker 1>sixteen hundreds and you had, like you, you had an

0:04:15.080 --> 0:04:17.839
<v Speaker 1>original definition of jargon, which is pretty fitting. Oh yeah,

0:04:17.839 --> 0:04:19.880
<v Speaker 1>the word jargon, before it was used and the way

0:04:19.920 --> 0:04:23.240
<v Speaker 1>we use it now, came from the French word for

0:04:23.360 --> 0:04:26.520
<v Speaker 1>birds twittering. Do you know the French word? No, I

0:04:26.560 --> 0:04:33.640
<v Speaker 1>do not speak French. Please don't play that on the show, please. Uh.

0:04:34.760 --> 0:04:39.159
<v Speaker 1>But yeah, it started through letter writing people back in

0:04:39.160 --> 0:04:42.760
<v Speaker 1>the days when they were traveling by ship to ship things.

0:04:42.839 --> 0:04:46.320
<v Speaker 1>They would write letters to their business partners, and people

0:04:46.400 --> 0:04:50.200
<v Speaker 1>just started using jargon to sound business e and convey

0:04:50.320 --> 0:04:53.800
<v Speaker 1>certain things. And then people saw those letters and thought

0:04:53.800 --> 0:04:56.240
<v Speaker 1>that's what you had to do, and so they continued

0:04:56.360 --> 0:04:59.839
<v Speaker 1>using that jargon, which I think is how jargon gets perpetuated.

0:05:00.600 --> 0:05:03.400
<v Speaker 1>Like I see an email from a boss right saying

0:05:03.480 --> 0:05:06.000
<v Speaker 1>something and I don't. I just it makes you feel

0:05:06.000 --> 0:05:08.279
<v Speaker 1>like you should be using that word or phrase. I

0:05:08.279 --> 0:05:11.159
<v Speaker 1>think it's a little bit subconscious. It's not like, oh,

0:05:11.440 --> 0:05:14.480
<v Speaker 1>that's a smart person word, but it just gets downloaded

0:05:14.800 --> 0:05:17.400
<v Speaker 1>into my brain. Yeah. I love the idea that it's

0:05:17.400 --> 0:05:19.599
<v Speaker 1>been around for so long that like the idea of

0:05:19.640 --> 0:05:23.119
<v Speaker 1>people getting behind this veil of talking in a certain

0:05:23.160 --> 0:05:26.560
<v Speaker 1>way isn't new at all. And it isn't necessarily about

0:05:26.600 --> 0:05:28.640
<v Speaker 1>all the extra time we have at work to waste,

0:05:28.800 --> 0:05:32.680
<v Speaker 1>or you know, new technologies, or all the usual suspects

0:05:32.680 --> 0:05:35.799
<v Speaker 1>that we blame workplace culture things on like that. People

0:05:35.839 --> 0:05:38.920
<v Speaker 1>have always been doing this. Yeah, and I wonder if

0:05:39.279 --> 0:05:42.839
<v Speaker 1>email has made it slightly more prevalent, because it's kind

0:05:42.839 --> 0:05:46.240
<v Speaker 1>of like letter writing. It is letter writing, so you

0:05:46.520 --> 0:05:48.960
<v Speaker 1>see these words more often. You're using these words more often,

0:05:49.000 --> 0:05:52.880
<v Speaker 1>and I definitely see jargon a lot in emails. I

0:05:52.880 --> 0:05:56.080
<v Speaker 1>think the thing about jargon is, as you said earlier,

0:05:56.240 --> 0:05:58.800
<v Speaker 1>it's kind of a way to exclude people who aren't

0:05:58.800 --> 0:06:01.159
<v Speaker 1>a part of your group. What's interesting is that the

0:06:01.200 --> 0:06:04.039
<v Speaker 1>words we've been talking about, like circle back and touch

0:06:04.080 --> 0:06:08.080
<v Speaker 1>base are kind of generic office words, but actually every

0:06:08.120 --> 0:06:11.920
<v Speaker 1>industry has its own sub jargon, like there's it's almost

0:06:11.920 --> 0:06:15.240
<v Speaker 1>like there's languages and there's dialects. And I actually prepared

0:06:15.279 --> 0:06:18.480
<v Speaker 1>a short quiz for you, Becca, I don't worry. It's

0:06:18.560 --> 0:06:22.280
<v Speaker 1>very short. It's like winning well things right. Well, I'm

0:06:22.279 --> 0:06:24.359
<v Speaker 1>going to give you some very easy words that you

0:06:24.400 --> 0:06:29.440
<v Speaker 1>should have heard. English words. Nothing crazy. They have definitions,

0:06:29.600 --> 0:06:32.000
<v Speaker 1>so I'll just read them off and you can tell

0:06:32.000 --> 0:06:33.720
<v Speaker 1>me what they mean. Are you going to tell me

0:06:33.839 --> 0:06:37.440
<v Speaker 1>what industry they come from. I'm just going to give

0:06:37.440 --> 0:06:40.919
<v Speaker 1>you a word that I'm gonna do a word, and

0:06:41.040 --> 0:06:43.839
<v Speaker 1>you tell me what you think that word means based

0:06:43.880 --> 0:06:47.440
<v Speaker 1>on your experience as a human being living in the world. Okay,

0:06:47.520 --> 0:06:52.200
<v Speaker 1>got it? Okay, I'm ready? What Becca? Is a locust?

0:06:53.000 --> 0:06:59.640
<v Speaker 1>A locust? I mean a bug? One of the ten plagues? Good,

0:07:00.240 --> 0:07:05.360
<v Speaker 1>the passover? Later? Okay, I haven't. I mean context, right,

0:07:05.560 --> 0:07:09.720
<v Speaker 1>That's what I look locust is. I think to most people,

0:07:09.760 --> 0:07:13.120
<v Speaker 1>a locust is a type of bug. But in the

0:07:13.520 --> 0:07:19.400
<v Speaker 1>nonprofit fundraising world, locusts are charitable donors who only give

0:07:19.440 --> 0:07:24.520
<v Speaker 1>once every seven years. That is so specific and yet

0:07:24.800 --> 0:07:27.480
<v Speaker 1>so meaningless. I mean, it has a meaning, so it's

0:07:27.520 --> 0:07:31.200
<v Speaker 1>not completely meaningless. But so you know, a bunch of

0:07:31.240 --> 0:07:34.840
<v Speaker 1>fundraising folks sitting around over drinks can just laugh in

0:07:34.880 --> 0:07:36.760
<v Speaker 1>sortal about locusts, and you're going to think that they're

0:07:36.760 --> 0:07:39.240
<v Speaker 1>talking about a biblical plague. Okay, this is a word

0:07:39.280 --> 0:07:41.280
<v Speaker 1>that you might actually not use that much in normal

0:07:41.360 --> 0:07:47.560
<v Speaker 1>English language, but you've heard it. Reconstitution, free constitution. Obviously

0:07:47.600 --> 0:07:52.360
<v Speaker 1>it means to write the constitution again, and it's used

0:07:52.360 --> 0:07:56.200
<v Speaker 1>by legal scholars. Am I right? I feel like your

0:07:56.240 --> 0:07:58.320
<v Speaker 1>ambition is getting the better of you a little. I

0:07:58.400 --> 0:08:00.680
<v Speaker 1>don't really think you should try to game the quiz back,

0:08:00.800 --> 0:08:05.440
<v Speaker 1>because it's not a reconstitution. This is a word I

0:08:05.480 --> 0:08:10.280
<v Speaker 1>actually got from. This is a public education word, and

0:08:10.320 --> 0:08:12.840
<v Speaker 1>I actually got it from the Virginia Department of Ed,

0:08:12.840 --> 0:08:17.320
<v Speaker 1>which publishes an entire glossary of terms. Because education is

0:08:17.400 --> 0:08:19.640
<v Speaker 1>so thick with jargon that you know, you're in trouble

0:08:19.680 --> 0:08:22.360
<v Speaker 1>when you need a glossary. Yeah, and it is for

0:08:22.440 --> 0:08:25.400
<v Speaker 1>a school rated accreditation denied. It is a process to

0:08:25.480 --> 0:08:29.600
<v Speaker 1>initiate a range of accountability actions to improve pupil performance

0:08:29.640 --> 0:08:33.679
<v Speaker 1>and to address deficiencies and curriculum and instruction may include,

0:08:33.679 --> 0:08:38.160
<v Speaker 1>but is not limited to, restructuring a school's governance, instructional program, staff,

0:08:38.280 --> 0:08:42.120
<v Speaker 1>or student population. So that is reconstitution in the Virginia

0:08:42.160 --> 0:08:45.439
<v Speaker 1>Department of Education. That is a lot of definition. Yeah,

0:08:45.559 --> 0:08:48.320
<v Speaker 1>for one word, Yeah, I feel like if you're if

0:08:48.320 --> 0:08:50.520
<v Speaker 1>you're getting reconstituted, it's not a good thing. But I'm

0:08:50.559 --> 0:08:54.000
<v Speaker 1>not entirely sure. It does sound bad. Yeah, Okay, here's

0:08:54.000 --> 0:08:56.320
<v Speaker 1>the final one. It's a fun one. What is a

0:08:56.320 --> 0:09:03.360
<v Speaker 1>cast member? Somebuddy who as part of an ensemble? Were

0:09:03.400 --> 0:09:06.400
<v Speaker 1>you ever a cast member? No, you never did any theater,

0:09:06.480 --> 0:09:09.400
<v Speaker 1>and I was not. I was not gifted in that way.

0:09:09.800 --> 0:09:13.160
<v Speaker 1>I wasn't. I can see you in Pirates of Penn Dance.

0:09:14.080 --> 0:09:17.160
<v Speaker 1>I had some theater kid friends. I thought's as close

0:09:17.200 --> 0:09:20.160
<v Speaker 1>as I got. I was inquired. Okay, you were one

0:09:20.160 --> 0:09:23.559
<v Speaker 1>of those kids. Yeah, that's fun. I like singing. Well,

0:09:23.800 --> 0:09:26.040
<v Speaker 1>if you wanted to be a cast member, now, it

0:09:26.120 --> 0:09:29.319
<v Speaker 1>would mean that you were actually a sales employee at

0:09:29.400 --> 0:09:33.240
<v Speaker 1>the cosmetics chain Sophora. That is what they call they're

0:09:33.360 --> 0:09:37.160
<v Speaker 1>on the floor sales staff cast members. They're not salespeople,

0:09:37.760 --> 0:09:41.360
<v Speaker 1>they're not rouge hawkers. No, you are a cast member.

0:09:41.440 --> 0:09:44.080
<v Speaker 1>I think it's a foora because you are putting on

0:09:44.080 --> 0:09:48.640
<v Speaker 1>a beautiful show for the world. I guess we're acting

0:09:48.720 --> 0:09:53.880
<v Speaker 1>out the consumer's wildest makeup fantasies. The people at Separa

0:09:53.960 --> 0:09:58.559
<v Speaker 1>are very nice, so so maybe so maybe that's maybe

0:09:58.600 --> 0:10:01.000
<v Speaker 1>that's a great way to end the quiz because that

0:10:01.200 --> 0:10:04.720
<v Speaker 1>is a big thumbs up plus one for dargon. The

0:10:04.760 --> 0:10:07.600
<v Speaker 1>fact that they're called cast members makes them love their

0:10:07.679 --> 0:10:09.880
<v Speaker 1>jobs so much that they're really nice. We should ask

0:10:09.920 --> 0:10:13.920
<v Speaker 1>them about that for asserting that claim. But yeah, fair enough.

0:10:14.600 --> 0:10:16.719
<v Speaker 1>Now that we know where jargon comes from and how

0:10:16.720 --> 0:10:18.600
<v Speaker 1>it plays into office life, I think it's a good

0:10:18.640 --> 0:10:22.719
<v Speaker 1>time to introduce our guest, Sarah Schaeffer, who perfectly chronicled

0:10:22.760 --> 0:10:34.719
<v Speaker 1>office life in day Job. Hey, Fred, Sarah, Sarah the comedian,

0:10:36.080 --> 0:10:38.520
<v Speaker 1>tell me a joke. Can you even believe that? Meaning

0:10:38.720 --> 0:10:41.640
<v Speaker 1>you gotta put that in your act. You're a comedian,

0:10:42.080 --> 0:10:44.599
<v Speaker 1>Tell me one of your jokes. If you're looking for

0:10:44.679 --> 0:10:50.440
<v Speaker 1>new material. This place is a zoo. Any plans tonight?

0:10:50.760 --> 0:10:52.680
<v Speaker 1>So you got any plans this weekend? Yeah? I have

0:10:52.679 --> 0:10:56.120
<v Speaker 1>a show exciting. What do you want with that? Performing

0:10:56.120 --> 0:11:00.079
<v Speaker 1>at Carolines Where Carolines? I love Carolines. No, it's a

0:11:00.200 --> 0:11:02.600
<v Speaker 1>three minutes set in a basement underneath an adult DVD

0:11:02.679 --> 0:11:08.800
<v Speaker 1>shopping Queen's Oh similar. Sarah's a writer and comedian. She

0:11:08.840 --> 0:11:12.520
<v Speaker 1>has worked for MTV Jimmy Fallon, writing questions for Who

0:11:12.559 --> 0:11:14.760
<v Speaker 1>Wants to Be a Millionaire, and has a new comedy

0:11:14.800 --> 0:11:19.199
<v Speaker 1>album out, Chrysalis. She also spent five years calculating damages

0:11:19.280 --> 0:11:22.280
<v Speaker 1>for securities fraud cases at a law firm, which was

0:11:22.320 --> 0:11:24.760
<v Speaker 1>the inspiration for that clip you just heard and many

0:11:24.800 --> 0:11:27.360
<v Speaker 1>other funny ones just like it about the banality of

0:11:27.360 --> 0:11:30.040
<v Speaker 1>office life. Sarah, thanks so much for coming and talking

0:11:30.040 --> 0:11:33.480
<v Speaker 1>to us today. Thank you for having me So, Sarah,

0:11:33.480 --> 0:11:36.480
<v Speaker 1>what made you decide to turn your five years working

0:11:36.520 --> 0:11:39.960
<v Speaker 1>at a law firm into a web series? Um? Well,

0:11:40.000 --> 0:11:42.120
<v Speaker 1>it happened. Um you know, I made the web series

0:11:42.160 --> 0:11:45.200
<v Speaker 1>many years later, And I kind of find that to

0:11:45.280 --> 0:11:47.760
<v Speaker 1>be the case with a lot of my comedy and

0:11:47.800 --> 0:11:49.959
<v Speaker 1>stuff I write, is that it takes a long time

0:11:50.000 --> 0:11:53.200
<v Speaker 1>to incubate in my head my life experiences, and then

0:11:53.240 --> 0:11:57.000
<v Speaker 1>they come out many years later, and once I've gotten distance,

0:11:57.040 --> 0:11:59.240
<v Speaker 1>and I find I can find the funny in it.

0:11:59.760 --> 0:12:02.280
<v Speaker 1>But it I had been hosting this MTV show where

0:12:02.280 --> 0:12:05.240
<v Speaker 1>I was like doing jokes about Justin Bieber and like

0:12:05.320 --> 0:12:08.040
<v Speaker 1>really light fun stuff, and I wanted to show my

0:12:08.280 --> 0:12:12.760
<v Speaker 1>sort of darker, deeper, more subtle side, and this web series,

0:12:12.960 --> 0:12:15.959
<v Speaker 1>I just wanted to show the moments of what it's

0:12:16.000 --> 0:12:18.160
<v Speaker 1>like to have a day job when you're aspiring to

0:12:18.240 --> 0:12:22.559
<v Speaker 1>do something creative. And I think for a lot of comedians,

0:12:22.600 --> 0:12:25.920
<v Speaker 1>their story is like, oh, I couldn't keep a job,

0:12:26.000 --> 0:12:28.079
<v Speaker 1>you know, I was just such a misfit I had

0:12:28.120 --> 0:12:30.160
<v Speaker 1>to do comedy. And that wasn't the case for me.

0:12:30.240 --> 0:12:33.320
<v Speaker 1>I was actually really good at my job, and I

0:12:33.600 --> 0:12:36.040
<v Speaker 1>kept getting promotions and I was making good money and

0:12:36.080 --> 0:12:38.480
<v Speaker 1>I had stability, and it was it was a constant

0:12:38.520 --> 0:12:41.480
<v Speaker 1>battle every day to fight the urge to just settle

0:12:41.520 --> 0:12:44.840
<v Speaker 1>into my cubicle. The job I had was not creative

0:12:44.880 --> 0:12:48.959
<v Speaker 1>at all. It was numbers, it was law, legal stuff. Right.

0:12:49.000 --> 0:12:51.720
<v Speaker 1>I love the idea that you like, couldn't help but

0:12:51.840 --> 0:12:55.640
<v Speaker 1>be good at this job. Well, I'm amazing well, and

0:12:55.720 --> 0:12:58.040
<v Speaker 1>that you know, and that somehow kind of went against

0:12:58.080 --> 0:13:01.560
<v Speaker 1>your identity as a comedian or you know, a creative person.

0:13:01.880 --> 0:13:04.120
<v Speaker 1>I think you're right. People have take pride in their

0:13:04.120 --> 0:13:06.960
<v Speaker 1>war stories when they're in a creative field about just

0:13:07.000 --> 0:13:09.520
<v Speaker 1>slogging through a day job. And we've been talking about

0:13:09.520 --> 0:13:13.000
<v Speaker 1>how people use This episode is specifically about jargon. We've

0:13:13.000 --> 0:13:15.080
<v Speaker 1>been talking about how people use it as a way

0:13:15.200 --> 0:13:19.840
<v Speaker 1>to be more included or feel more part of a group.

0:13:19.960 --> 0:13:22.720
<v Speaker 1>And you working in an office and kind of wrestling

0:13:22.720 --> 0:13:27.240
<v Speaker 1>with what your identity was as a totally competent law

0:13:27.280 --> 0:13:30.880
<v Speaker 1>firm professional versus a creative person, a comedian, someone who

0:13:30.880 --> 0:13:33.559
<v Speaker 1>wants to express themselves in a totally different way. How

0:13:33.559 --> 0:13:37.600
<v Speaker 1>did you find yourself dealing with those questions about belonging

0:13:37.800 --> 0:13:39.600
<v Speaker 1>Did you want to belong to the office. Did you

0:13:39.600 --> 0:13:42.959
<v Speaker 1>find yourself kind of slipping into the lingo or the

0:13:43.080 --> 0:13:44.880
<v Speaker 1>kind of way use of the office, or did you

0:13:44.920 --> 0:13:48.280
<v Speaker 1>really resist it? The jargon there was it was very specific.

0:13:48.360 --> 0:13:50.880
<v Speaker 1>What we did was so niche. I think some of

0:13:50.920 --> 0:13:53.000
<v Speaker 1>a lot of it was like email stuff, like the

0:13:53.120 --> 0:13:56.400
<v Speaker 1>jargon and emails always like drove me crazy, Like when

0:13:56.480 --> 0:14:00.040
<v Speaker 1>someone would send an email that was passive, aggressive of

0:14:00.160 --> 0:14:03.440
<v Speaker 1>and mean scolding or something, and then sign it with

0:14:03.520 --> 0:14:12.720
<v Speaker 1>like best best uneas against best the worst and you know,

0:14:12.920 --> 0:14:15.880
<v Speaker 1>we need to drill down, like they were kind of

0:14:15.920 --> 0:14:18.360
<v Speaker 1>like we need to drill down and then we need

0:14:18.360 --> 0:14:21.080
<v Speaker 1>to have the blue sky view of this, you know,

0:14:21.120 --> 0:14:24.200
<v Speaker 1>like all those terms that are just so I felt

0:14:24.200 --> 0:14:27.040
<v Speaker 1>it came from men, mostly, like I felt that interesting

0:14:27.280 --> 0:14:29.800
<v Speaker 1>men would spout these things a lot because they would

0:14:30.360 --> 0:14:33.600
<v Speaker 1>it would make them sound like they were really knowledgeable

0:14:33.720 --> 0:14:36.160
<v Speaker 1>or you know, on top of whatever we were talking about.

0:14:36.760 --> 0:14:40.520
<v Speaker 1>But um, it all just drove me crazy, you know,

0:14:40.600 --> 0:14:43.560
<v Speaker 1>all of it. Is there any upside to jargon, like

0:14:43.840 --> 0:14:45.800
<v Speaker 1>where there are there moments where you're ever thankful for

0:14:46.000 --> 0:14:48.320
<v Speaker 1>having those words at your disposal? Or are they really

0:14:48.360 --> 0:14:50.760
<v Speaker 1>just extra words we don't need to be using. You know,

0:14:50.880 --> 0:14:54.800
<v Speaker 1>My work now, especially is writing, and I've always been

0:14:54.840 --> 0:14:58.320
<v Speaker 1>a writer, and I've always taken great care in wanting

0:14:58.360 --> 0:15:01.720
<v Speaker 1>to say things a clear really, because that's you know,

0:15:01.760 --> 0:15:04.800
<v Speaker 1>as a stand up comedian, you can say anything as

0:15:04.800 --> 0:15:07.520
<v Speaker 1>long as you're clear. The point is to make people laugh,

0:15:07.600 --> 0:15:10.200
<v Speaker 1>and the point is to make people feel good. And

0:15:10.560 --> 0:15:13.720
<v Speaker 1>there's a big debate in comedy right now about language

0:15:13.720 --> 0:15:16.840
<v Speaker 1>and about what can we say and will the outrage

0:15:16.840 --> 0:15:19.080
<v Speaker 1>machine come after you if you say the wrong thing

0:15:19.120 --> 0:15:22.480
<v Speaker 1>that's offensive and PC culture and all this stuff. You know,

0:15:22.600 --> 0:15:25.160
<v Speaker 1>you're trying to be clear and you're trying to get

0:15:25.200 --> 0:15:27.520
<v Speaker 1>everybody to get on your boat, like whatever it is

0:15:27.560 --> 0:15:30.920
<v Speaker 1>you're selling at work, like is it your status, is

0:15:30.960 --> 0:15:33.240
<v Speaker 1>it your the project you're trying to get through, or

0:15:33.320 --> 0:15:36.840
<v Speaker 1>is it the tone the environment? Like all whatever it

0:15:36.880 --> 0:15:40.880
<v Speaker 1>is you're trying to obtain in your work environment, you

0:15:40.920 --> 0:15:43.040
<v Speaker 1>have to use your language to get people on board

0:15:43.080 --> 0:15:46.000
<v Speaker 1>with you. I feel like the perfect jargon for that is, um,

0:15:46.040 --> 0:15:49.720
<v Speaker 1>what the road show? Go around the office and you

0:15:49.800 --> 0:15:51.440
<v Speaker 1>or you know, there's other ways to use it, but

0:15:51.480 --> 0:15:53.320
<v Speaker 1>the way I would always think of road show is

0:15:53.360 --> 0:15:55.960
<v Speaker 1>like you go around the office and get everybody on

0:15:56.000 --> 0:15:58.640
<v Speaker 1>board with your plan like whatever, Like here's how I

0:15:58.640 --> 0:16:01.960
<v Speaker 1>think we should tackle the jing get his cape, you know,

0:16:02.240 --> 0:16:06.600
<v Speaker 1>and then that's your road show. Um, and those jargon

0:16:06.720 --> 0:16:10.280
<v Speaker 1>E things help get there faster because it's the language

0:16:10.280 --> 0:16:14.240
<v Speaker 1>we all speak. And people don't like that in particular

0:16:14.320 --> 0:16:17.520
<v Speaker 1>because they can see through it. It seems so fake

0:16:17.560 --> 0:16:20.320
<v Speaker 1>because it's a special art. If you know, you have

0:16:20.360 --> 0:16:22.280
<v Speaker 1>to be very subtle about it, and a friend of

0:16:22.280 --> 0:16:25.920
<v Speaker 1>mine who's a linguist, said that the reason people find

0:16:26.000 --> 0:16:30.080
<v Speaker 1>jargons so grading is the same reason we find people

0:16:30.200 --> 0:16:33.080
<v Speaker 1>who come back from abroad and say where it's like

0:16:33.160 --> 0:16:39.120
<v Speaker 1>croissant grading it's croissant. Yeah, I know, Francisco pronounces it

0:16:39.440 --> 0:16:43.960
<v Speaker 1>like that. Every every time you're kind of performing this

0:16:43.960 --> 0:16:47.360
<v Speaker 1>this act and people think it's phony, Well, it's cliche,

0:16:47.440 --> 0:16:49.520
<v Speaker 1>it's unoriginal, And that's what I started to say. It

0:16:49.560 --> 0:16:52.960
<v Speaker 1>was like, in my work, it's very important to me

0:16:53.080 --> 0:16:56.280
<v Speaker 1>to say things in a way that is both clear

0:16:56.360 --> 0:16:58.600
<v Speaker 1>and unique. You know, there's always a way I whenever

0:16:58.640 --> 0:17:01.000
<v Speaker 1>I'm writing something, I mean like, there's a different way

0:17:01.000 --> 0:17:04.600
<v Speaker 1>we can say this. This is hitting me as hackey

0:17:04.880 --> 0:17:07.840
<v Speaker 1>or cliche. So for me, it's very important to be original.

0:17:07.920 --> 0:17:09.960
<v Speaker 1>So I would get very annoyed with people who are

0:17:09.960 --> 0:17:12.960
<v Speaker 1>just lazy. It felt like laziness, like I think, because

0:17:12.960 --> 0:17:17.520
<v Speaker 1>you're worrying better, you know, battle against cliches and journalism. Um,

0:17:17.880 --> 0:17:20.040
<v Speaker 1>It's it's interesting because you're talking about how comedians talk

0:17:20.080 --> 0:17:23.160
<v Speaker 1>to audiences and how you have to think about your

0:17:23.640 --> 0:17:26.520
<v Speaker 1>word choice and make it as clear and original as possible.

0:17:26.520 --> 0:17:31.720
<v Speaker 1>How do comedians talk to each other like, I'm sure

0:17:32.480 --> 0:17:34.960
<v Speaker 1>it's so annoying. I get very annoyed by it. Can

0:17:35.040 --> 0:17:38.480
<v Speaker 1>you give us some example? Yeah, Especially it's especially annoying

0:17:38.480 --> 0:17:42.080
<v Speaker 1>when you encounter I have a friend of mine who's

0:17:42.080 --> 0:17:45.880
<v Speaker 1>started stand up recently, which comedians joke like, oh, there's

0:17:45.920 --> 0:17:49.439
<v Speaker 1>nothing more annoying than a new comedian, Like when I've

0:17:49.480 --> 0:17:51.360
<v Speaker 1>been doing it for like fourteen years now, and like

0:17:51.560 --> 0:17:54.000
<v Speaker 1>there's an it's like you can't help it. It's because

0:17:54.000 --> 0:17:56.600
<v Speaker 1>they start using the jargon and it's like you're not

0:17:56.840 --> 0:17:58.800
<v Speaker 1>And it's that going back to that inclusive thing. It's

0:17:58.840 --> 0:18:00.800
<v Speaker 1>like you're not quite in with us yet because you've

0:18:00.800 --> 0:18:03.800
<v Speaker 1>only been doing this for a hot second and now

0:18:03.960 --> 0:18:07.159
<v Speaker 1>you're you know, going up, Going up is what you

0:18:07.200 --> 0:18:09.679
<v Speaker 1>say when you you're going to go up on stage

0:18:09.680 --> 0:18:12.560
<v Speaker 1>and perform, like going up tonight, I'm going up tonight.

0:18:13.240 --> 0:18:17.480
<v Speaker 1>Like there's another phrase, and this is an inside joke

0:18:17.520 --> 0:18:21.159
<v Speaker 1>with comedians, which is who books that? Which is we

0:18:21.240 --> 0:18:23.600
<v Speaker 1>joke that it's an annoying thing but everyone does it,

0:18:23.680 --> 0:18:27.760
<v Speaker 1>which is you find out, Oh, I'm going up at

0:18:27.880 --> 0:18:30.720
<v Speaker 1>the clubhouse tonight or whatever venue you might be doing.

0:18:30.920 --> 0:18:33.800
<v Speaker 1>Oh it's a good show. Oh who books that? And

0:18:33.880 --> 0:18:36.040
<v Speaker 1>it's the other comedian wanting to know who books it

0:18:36.119 --> 0:18:38.320
<v Speaker 1>so they can get on it too. And so now

0:18:38.359 --> 0:18:40.960
<v Speaker 1>it's this joke where like comedians will just post a

0:18:41.000 --> 0:18:44.560
<v Speaker 1>picture of like I recently posted a like seal beach

0:18:44.920 --> 0:18:48.480
<v Speaker 1>in Lahalla, California, Like I posted a picture of these

0:18:48.520 --> 0:18:50.680
<v Speaker 1>seals and all these people looking, and I just wrote

0:18:50.680 --> 0:18:54.200
<v Speaker 1>who books that? Because it's like everyone's always asking who

0:18:54.200 --> 0:18:55.800
<v Speaker 1>books that? How do I get ahead? How do I

0:18:55.840 --> 0:18:58.160
<v Speaker 1>get on it? And that's so funny because I would

0:18:58.200 --> 0:19:00.480
<v Speaker 1>have thought comedians just sit around, like cutting right through

0:19:01.119 --> 0:19:03.480
<v Speaker 1>the crap. Well, we use the jargon to cut through,

0:19:03.640 --> 0:19:06.960
<v Speaker 1>like you know who books that? Is a joke making

0:19:06.960 --> 0:19:09.200
<v Speaker 1>fun of comedians that do that, even though we all

0:19:09.240 --> 0:19:11.040
<v Speaker 1>know we've done that and you have to do that

0:19:11.080 --> 0:19:13.800
<v Speaker 1>otherwise you would not get ahead. You hear these words

0:19:13.800 --> 0:19:17.880
<v Speaker 1>and they sound particularly annoying, like comedian jargon sounds particularly

0:19:17.920 --> 0:19:22.680
<v Speaker 1>annoying coming from rookies, and it's that sort of phony

0:19:22.840 --> 0:19:27.679
<v Speaker 1>sounding thing hard right exactly make it all look effortless.

0:19:27.760 --> 0:19:30.800
<v Speaker 1>But at the same you need to use those words,

0:19:30.880 --> 0:19:32.720
<v Speaker 1>which is maybe a good time for me to say

0:19:32.800 --> 0:19:36.280
<v Speaker 1>that sometimes I like using jargon. I will admit it. Yeah,

0:19:36.680 --> 0:19:39.560
<v Speaker 1>Beck is a jargon fan. I'm not a fan, but

0:19:39.640 --> 0:19:42.680
<v Speaker 1>I think it can be useful and easy and like,

0:19:42.840 --> 0:19:44.480
<v Speaker 1>if you're in the club, you know what I'm saying.

0:19:45.200 --> 0:19:48.120
<v Speaker 1>So maybe I'm being a bit of like a snob. Yeah,

0:19:48.160 --> 0:19:50.600
<v Speaker 1>I mean I think we've talked about examples of totally

0:19:50.680 --> 0:19:56.400
<v Speaker 1>useless jargon and maybe slightly more useful jargon. We did,

0:19:56.440 --> 0:20:00.600
<v Speaker 1>actually we did a jargon quiz earlier that might be

0:20:00.640 --> 0:20:03.399
<v Speaker 1>fun to do with you. What do you think? So

0:20:03.440 --> 0:20:08.240
<v Speaker 1>this is like, these are just words collected from people

0:20:08.280 --> 0:20:12.439
<v Speaker 1>in various industries, resources in various industries that are English

0:20:12.480 --> 0:20:14.879
<v Speaker 1>words that you would recognize, and I just want you

0:20:14.920 --> 0:20:19.240
<v Speaker 1>to tell me what they mean. Okay, Okay, Revert I

0:20:19.280 --> 0:20:22.720
<v Speaker 1>mean go back to the original version or go backwards

0:20:23.040 --> 0:20:27.879
<v Speaker 1>various in sinct in finance, revert when used in the

0:20:27.880 --> 0:20:32.040
<v Speaker 1>phrase revert to you, it just means get back to you. Yes,

0:20:33.119 --> 0:20:38.480
<v Speaker 1>that's terrible, isn't that? There's something so skincrawlling about it? Oh,

0:20:38.680 --> 0:20:41.520
<v Speaker 1>I just I can picture the guy saying that, like

0:20:41.680 --> 0:20:46.760
<v Speaker 1>him fun of me growing up. It's designed to like

0:20:46.920 --> 0:20:54.760
<v Speaker 1>confuse you. Okay. Activation, Oh jeez, I'm already annoyed. Whatever

0:20:54.800 --> 0:21:01.959
<v Speaker 1>this is for, I'm annoyed. Activation putting a plan into action. Um,

0:21:01.960 --> 0:21:04.720
<v Speaker 1>some kind of making that sound like something that does

0:21:04.720 --> 0:21:07.480
<v Speaker 1>sound like what it should be. It's actually a noun

0:21:08.080 --> 0:21:13.560
<v Speaker 1>used in the world of museums and curator types that

0:21:13.720 --> 0:21:18.879
<v Speaker 1>means a semi educational event. Oh my god, that's bad.

0:21:19.160 --> 0:21:23.639
<v Speaker 1>You would put on an activating our brains. No, you

0:21:23.640 --> 0:21:25.960
<v Speaker 1>have to say, oh my god, did you see Lisa

0:21:26.000 --> 0:21:31.600
<v Speaker 1>at the activation? What was she wearing? Lisa is really

0:21:31.800 --> 0:21:34.639
<v Speaker 1>intent on being the organizer of this conestivation, but I

0:21:34.680 --> 0:21:36.639
<v Speaker 1>just don't think that she I think she's kind of

0:21:36.640 --> 0:21:41.120
<v Speaker 1>a bit okay, and this is the last one. Thank

0:21:41.160 --> 0:21:46.200
<v Speaker 1>you for bearing with our quiz. Cast member. Oh man,

0:21:46.560 --> 0:21:51.639
<v Speaker 1>that's somebody that works at Disney. Probably no, that is

0:21:51.680 --> 0:21:54.000
<v Speaker 1>actually what they called him. I think cast members. I

0:21:54.040 --> 0:21:57.000
<v Speaker 1>feel like that's justifiable since you since you do have

0:21:57.080 --> 0:21:58.919
<v Speaker 1>to do some acting singing a day. So when you

0:21:58.960 --> 0:22:01.159
<v Speaker 1>clean up, when you clean up a piece of paper

0:22:01.359 --> 0:22:04.560
<v Speaker 1>the moment it's dropped like you and you act like

0:22:04.600 --> 0:22:08.800
<v Speaker 1>you enjoy it. Yeah, that's a performance. It's performative. It's

0:22:08.880 --> 0:22:13.000
<v Speaker 1>also what sales people who work the floor at Sephora

0:22:13.359 --> 0:22:17.760
<v Speaker 1>the cosmetics change are referred to. You know what I

0:22:17.800 --> 0:22:21.200
<v Speaker 1>heard about made well, which I love love Made wells products.

0:22:21.760 --> 0:22:25.280
<v Speaker 1>Made well has a rule if you work their minimum

0:22:25.320 --> 0:22:29.720
<v Speaker 1>five layers. I'm not kidding. I'm not joking, my friend.

0:22:31.240 --> 0:22:32.639
<v Speaker 1>You got to work that out. It's got to be

0:22:32.680 --> 0:22:37.879
<v Speaker 1>two or three to five layers. But yeah, So basically

0:22:38.040 --> 0:22:43.040
<v Speaker 1>every single industry has its jargon. And I was thinking, like,

0:22:43.119 --> 0:22:46.000
<v Speaker 1>my family has jargon. That's amazing. Yeah, I mean you

0:22:46.040 --> 0:22:50.880
<v Speaker 1>have jargon. I think I think jargon is basically dorky

0:22:50.960 --> 0:22:54.680
<v Speaker 1>people sling, and I think we should just we should

0:22:54.680 --> 0:22:57.080
<v Speaker 1>accept it. I can accept it. I think it's if

0:22:57.119 --> 0:22:59.320
<v Speaker 1>you're using it, like you said, in a phony way,

0:23:00.280 --> 0:23:04.000
<v Speaker 1>or if you're using it before your inside the group,

0:23:04.800 --> 0:23:08.560
<v Speaker 1>it's do so at your own peril. I'm with you, Sarah.

0:23:08.600 --> 0:23:11.119
<v Speaker 1>I think we should all endeavor to be more clear

0:23:11.200 --> 0:23:15.560
<v Speaker 1>and more direct and more precise in everything that we say.

0:23:15.880 --> 0:23:20.920
<v Speaker 1>And really it's about cutting out the cliches. So if

0:23:20.960 --> 0:23:23.520
<v Speaker 1>it sounds familiar and good to you, it might be

0:23:23.560 --> 0:23:25.959
<v Speaker 1>just because you've heard it a million times before, and

0:23:26.000 --> 0:23:28.040
<v Speaker 1>not because it's actually the best way to express what

0:23:28.080 --> 0:23:32.240
<v Speaker 1>you're saying. Basically, just be cool, Just be cool, Just

0:23:32.280 --> 0:23:37.760
<v Speaker 1>be you cool. Thank thank you so much. Yeah, make

0:23:37.840 --> 0:23:40.399
<v Speaker 1>the jargon you want to see in the world. Great,

0:23:40.480 --> 0:23:42.359
<v Speaker 1>all right, well, thank you so much for coming and

0:23:42.359 --> 0:23:54.600
<v Speaker 1>talking to us about jargon. Okay, Becca, it's time for

0:23:54.680 --> 0:23:58.560
<v Speaker 1>some soul searching. Are you ready, I'm ready. Okay. So,

0:23:58.960 --> 0:24:02.280
<v Speaker 1>this whole time we've been talking about jargon and why

0:24:02.400 --> 0:24:04.359
<v Speaker 1>people may or may not like it, why people may

0:24:04.400 --> 0:24:07.240
<v Speaker 1>or may not use it, but we haven't really looked

0:24:07.240 --> 0:24:11.400
<v Speaker 1>inward and thought about how much we're part of the problem. Yeah.

0:24:11.400 --> 0:24:15.080
<v Speaker 1>I think we like to think that we are the

0:24:15.119 --> 0:24:18.960
<v Speaker 1>most direct, concise people in the workplace. Yeah, we're journalists.

0:24:19.000 --> 0:24:21.520
<v Speaker 1>There's no way we'd use any excess words, right, and

0:24:21.720 --> 0:24:24.480
<v Speaker 1>you know, we're not those other people who are being

0:24:24.520 --> 0:24:27.360
<v Speaker 1>phony in the workplace. Certainly we're not phones. So we

0:24:27.400 --> 0:24:29.600
<v Speaker 1>put that to the test and gave each other a

0:24:29.640 --> 0:24:36.000
<v Speaker 1>little assignment recalling the jargon audit. We sent each other

0:24:36.600 --> 0:24:41.600
<v Speaker 1>the last dozen to fifteen emails that we had sent

0:24:42.280 --> 0:24:45.399
<v Speaker 1>from our own emails, so emails that we originated, not

0:24:45.480 --> 0:24:48.080
<v Speaker 1>a reply to somebody else. And I think the parameters

0:24:48.119 --> 0:24:50.840
<v Speaker 1>that we set were you sent the email every basically

0:24:50.880 --> 0:24:53.240
<v Speaker 1>every email you sent, dating back from an arbitrary time

0:24:53.280 --> 0:24:56.680
<v Speaker 1>point that wasn't too sensitive to disclose. Okay, Yeah, So

0:24:56.720 --> 0:24:59.359
<v Speaker 1>we sent to each other our emails to see how

0:24:59.440 --> 0:25:03.120
<v Speaker 1>much jargon we do or don't use. So should I start? Yeah, okay,

0:25:03.160 --> 0:25:06.960
<v Speaker 1>I'm ready, great, bring it. I hope you are Rebecca

0:25:07.400 --> 0:25:10.600
<v Speaker 1>who loves jargon. Love is such a strong word. The

0:25:10.640 --> 0:25:15.840
<v Speaker 1>person who tolerates jargon is being tolerant so bad and

0:25:16.040 --> 0:25:20.120
<v Speaker 1>sees its usefulness in the world. I counted in your

0:25:20.119 --> 0:25:23.879
<v Speaker 1>fifteen or so emails about eight uses of jargon, and

0:25:24.080 --> 0:25:29.840
<v Speaker 1>I stretched the definition of jargon enough to include I

0:25:29.920 --> 0:25:34.800
<v Speaker 1>would love to. But you do have one major repeated offense,

0:25:35.480 --> 0:25:38.720
<v Speaker 1>and that is hop on, as in hop on the phone.

0:25:38.800 --> 0:25:42.280
<v Speaker 1>You asked at least four sources or people you were

0:25:42.320 --> 0:25:44.840
<v Speaker 1>emailing to hop on the phone with you, and I

0:25:44.880 --> 0:25:48.480
<v Speaker 1>just don't know how much acrobatics are expecting from each

0:25:48.600 --> 0:25:51.480
<v Speaker 1>these people. What is the nicest way to say, I

0:25:51.480 --> 0:25:53.800
<v Speaker 1>would like to set up a phone call with you? Please? THEREK,

0:25:53.880 --> 0:25:56.959
<v Speaker 1>you just did it. You use no jargon. Okay, I'm

0:25:56.960 --> 0:26:00.639
<v Speaker 1>gonna try to be more, but you know what, hop on,

0:26:00.840 --> 0:26:06.200
<v Speaker 1>jump on, jump off, circle back? Why are we athletic? Really? Yeah,

0:26:06.240 --> 0:26:09.719
<v Speaker 1>it's a really energetic world that we pretend to live

0:26:09.760 --> 0:26:11.879
<v Speaker 1>in when we're sitting at our desks sending emails. How

0:26:11.880 --> 0:26:14.000
<v Speaker 1>did I do on the jargon audit, so you had

0:26:14.040 --> 0:26:18.399
<v Speaker 1>more jargon than I did. You had fourteen jargon offenses

0:26:19.240 --> 0:26:26.040
<v Speaker 1>in that I included journalism jargon. In some emails, you

0:26:26.200 --> 0:26:31.280
<v Speaker 1>use the term pubbing, which for non journalists is kind

0:26:31.280 --> 0:26:35.880
<v Speaker 1>of shorthand for publishing. So you would say something like

0:26:36.200 --> 0:26:39.000
<v Speaker 1>where we'll be pubbing that in the morning, which is

0:26:39.080 --> 0:26:41.359
<v Speaker 1>cooler jargon I think, and I think we think that

0:26:41.440 --> 0:26:44.800
<v Speaker 1>goes inside the club than some of your other jargon.

0:26:46.600 --> 0:26:49.240
<v Speaker 1>So in one of your first emails you used next steps,

0:26:49.680 --> 0:26:53.600
<v Speaker 1>which is definitely jargon. E. I think you said ping

0:26:53.720 --> 0:26:56.800
<v Speaker 1>me I did, yeah, which I think is a pretty

0:26:56.880 --> 0:27:00.159
<v Speaker 1>big jargon offense, like can you ping me? That me?

0:27:00.400 --> 0:27:02.560
<v Speaker 1>It's just like, what is it? Let's just get at me.

0:27:03.080 --> 0:27:05.160
<v Speaker 1>Just get at me, and I lighthearted kind of way.

0:27:05.600 --> 0:27:07.320
<v Speaker 1>You don't have to, you know, it's not that serious.

0:27:07.359 --> 0:27:10.439
<v Speaker 1>Just pick me. The thing that was interesting about your

0:27:10.480 --> 0:27:13.840
<v Speaker 1>emails was that when they were emails to people within

0:27:14.119 --> 0:27:17.439
<v Speaker 1>the building, I found that there was actually less jargon,

0:27:17.680 --> 0:27:21.080
<v Speaker 1>or that's when the journalism jargon popped up. But when

0:27:21.119 --> 0:27:23.920
<v Speaker 1>it was emails to people who you're less familiar with,

0:27:23.960 --> 0:27:27.080
<v Speaker 1>the emails got more formal and then more jargon. Started

0:27:27.119 --> 0:27:30.480
<v Speaker 1>creeping into it beca I feel like we've both learned

0:27:30.560 --> 0:27:33.200
<v Speaker 1>a lot about ourselves in the last few minutes. Yeah,

0:27:33.280 --> 0:27:37.920
<v Speaker 1>I think you've learned to accept jargon. Apparently I embraced

0:27:38.000 --> 0:27:41.520
<v Speaker 1>jargon without even knowing it. And I've learned that I

0:27:41.560 --> 0:27:43.520
<v Speaker 1>don't use jargon even though I kind of like it.

0:27:43.800 --> 0:27:48.120
<v Speaker 1>But things we learned. Thanks for listening to game plan.

0:27:48.280 --> 0:27:50.679
<v Speaker 1>If you have key takeaways and would like to circle

0:27:50.720 --> 0:27:54.360
<v Speaker 1>back paying us, I'm at RZ Greenfield and I'm at

0:27:54.359 --> 0:27:59.080
<v Speaker 1>Francesco today. Our guest Sarah Schaeffer is at Sarah Schaefer one,

0:28:00.040 --> 0:28:02.600
<v Speaker 1>and I will be sure to read you in on

0:28:02.640 --> 0:28:06.800
<v Speaker 1>any pertinent action items if you get in touch. See

0:28:06.840 --> 0:28:28.000
<v Speaker 1>you next week. Guys, I feel like you're not even

0:28:28.000 --> 0:28:42.000
<v Speaker 1>listening to us. They weren't even listening to us. M