WEBVTT - How Swearing at Work Works

0:00:00.280 --> 0:00:02.840
<v Speaker 1>Brought to you by the reinvented two thousand twelve camera.

0:00:03.160 --> 0:00:07.720
<v Speaker 1>It's ready. Are you welcome to stuff you should know

0:00:08.280 --> 0:00:12.000
<v Speaker 1>from house stuff works dot com? Welcome to the house

0:00:12.000 --> 0:00:15.760
<v Speaker 1>Stuff Works Podcast. I'm editor Candice Gibson, joined today by

0:00:15.800 --> 0:00:20.759
<v Speaker 1>my trustee staff writer Josh Clark. Josh are you today great? Candice?

0:00:20.800 --> 0:00:25.919
<v Speaker 1>How are you? I'm well? Well, that sounds like it

0:00:25.960 --> 0:00:29.200
<v Speaker 1>can only mean one thing. Today's topic of choice? Is

0:00:29.240 --> 0:00:32.400
<v Speaker 1>swearing at work a good thing? Josh? You seem to

0:00:32.400 --> 0:00:36.120
<v Speaker 1>be a pretty gunghir advocate of this. Why is that? Candice?

0:00:36.120 --> 0:00:40.360
<v Speaker 1>You remember my where your Hawaiian Shirt to Work? Campaign? Um?

0:00:40.560 --> 0:00:42.760
<v Speaker 1>The whole thing was just a drive to get everybody

0:00:42.840 --> 0:00:44.839
<v Speaker 1>loosen up and get to know each other. Well, it

0:00:44.920 --> 0:00:46.879
<v Speaker 1>didn't take as well as I had hoped, So now

0:00:46.880 --> 0:00:50.000
<v Speaker 1>I'm starting a swear at work campaign? Oh you can?

0:00:50.120 --> 0:00:53.720
<v Speaker 1>I know exactly where this came from. This article you're

0:00:53.720 --> 0:00:56.680
<v Speaker 1>it called is swearing at Work a good thing? Yeah? Yeah?

0:00:56.760 --> 0:00:59.120
<v Speaker 1>And this is based on an actual study. We're not

0:00:59.240 --> 0:01:01.680
<v Speaker 1>just like tossing own words for fun here. This came

0:01:01.680 --> 0:01:05.199
<v Speaker 1>out of Great Britain, the University of East Anglia, where

0:01:05.280 --> 0:01:08.560
<v Speaker 1>essentially some researchers looked at what happened to people who

0:01:08.640 --> 0:01:10.920
<v Speaker 1>swore in the workplace? Yeah, they hung around a mail

0:01:11.080 --> 0:01:13.760
<v Speaker 1>order warehouse. Yeah, and they were looking to see if

0:01:13.800 --> 0:01:17.400
<v Speaker 1>swearing at work alienated coworkers or if it actually brought

0:01:17.480 --> 0:01:20.679
<v Speaker 1>them closer together with you know, all the salty language

0:01:20.680 --> 0:01:23.160
<v Speaker 1>and people really showing their true colors. Sure, sure, I

0:01:23.160 --> 0:01:25.280
<v Speaker 1>could see a lot of cheeky Brits running around the

0:01:25.280 --> 0:01:28.120
<v Speaker 1>mail order warehouse just cursed in up the storm. You know.

0:01:28.160 --> 0:01:30.520
<v Speaker 1>It had to have been a really fun study to do,

0:01:30.640 --> 0:01:32.679
<v Speaker 1>I imagine. Well, I think so. And it was pretty

0:01:32.720 --> 0:01:36.560
<v Speaker 1>successful too, because the hypothesis was correct. It really did

0:01:36.680 --> 0:01:40.360
<v Speaker 1>establish better relationships among employees because they could feel like

0:01:40.440 --> 0:01:43.959
<v Speaker 1>they were really expressing themselves and really communicating with everyone

0:01:44.000 --> 0:01:46.600
<v Speaker 1>in an authentic way. Sure, it's a it's pretty much

0:01:46.680 --> 0:01:49.800
<v Speaker 1>basic social bonding theory. The more you share of yourself,

0:01:49.960 --> 0:01:53.800
<v Speaker 1>the more you can establish social bonds like trust. I mean,

0:01:54.000 --> 0:01:56.200
<v Speaker 1>how can you truly trust a co worker if they've

0:01:56.240 --> 0:01:58.720
<v Speaker 1>never heard you swear? I mean, think about how much

0:01:58.880 --> 0:02:01.960
<v Speaker 1>closer you and I are thanks to the word son

0:02:02.000 --> 0:02:04.640
<v Speaker 1>of you know that kind of thing. I know I

0:02:04.680 --> 0:02:06.640
<v Speaker 1>say this every time you turned an article to me.

0:02:07.040 --> 0:02:11.640
<v Speaker 1>But it's interesting, especially about this study is that the

0:02:11.639 --> 0:02:14.320
<v Speaker 1>mail room workers, like you were referring to these sort

0:02:14.320 --> 0:02:17.119
<v Speaker 1>of lower level employees. Yeah, they really let it rip

0:02:17.160 --> 0:02:20.519
<v Speaker 1>all the time. But when they examined how the executives

0:02:20.560 --> 0:02:23.560
<v Speaker 1>behaved and spoke to each other, no one really cussed

0:02:23.600 --> 0:02:27.560
<v Speaker 1>that much. It was a little bit more reserved and refined. Right. Well,

0:02:27.600 --> 0:02:31.560
<v Speaker 1>the studies authors were saying that they hope that while

0:02:31.639 --> 0:02:36.040
<v Speaker 1>management might not swear, uh, they they want to see

0:02:36.280 --> 0:02:39.160
<v Speaker 1>hr directors maybe look the other way or even encourage

0:02:39.200 --> 0:02:42.680
<v Speaker 1>it because it does develop social bonds. But you know,

0:02:42.760 --> 0:02:45.280
<v Speaker 1>the East Anglia study really didn't, you know, put the

0:02:45.280 --> 0:02:48.000
<v Speaker 1>whole thing to rest. This is a pretty whether or

0:02:48.040 --> 0:02:50.280
<v Speaker 1>not we should allow swearing in our culture, whether it

0:02:50.320 --> 0:02:53.000
<v Speaker 1>be on work or television or radio, is a pretty

0:02:53.040 --> 0:02:57.959
<v Speaker 1>big ongoing battle. It really is. And I now, for instance,

0:02:58.040 --> 0:03:00.359
<v Speaker 1>I was looking at the FCC and some of the

0:03:00.440 --> 0:03:03.480
<v Speaker 1>rules that they have about swearing and the idea of

0:03:03.680 --> 0:03:06.760
<v Speaker 1>a fleeting expletive, which is essentially when you just say

0:03:06.840 --> 0:03:12.840
<v Speaker 1>like hot pie and it's not really in context with

0:03:12.880 --> 0:03:17.480
<v Speaker 1>anything relating to sexual content or bathroom humor. Sometimes the

0:03:17.600 --> 0:03:19.760
<v Speaker 1>sec will lett networks get away with it. But when

0:03:19.760 --> 0:03:22.200
<v Speaker 1>you're talking about and there's a toilet in the same sentence.

0:03:22.360 --> 0:03:25.000
<v Speaker 1>That's not gonna fly. No, I agree. Um. And the

0:03:25.080 --> 0:03:28.079
<v Speaker 1>FCC is actually as strict as you might think their

0:03:28.120 --> 0:03:31.680
<v Speaker 1>standards are. They're not strict enough for some people. Have

0:03:31.720 --> 0:03:34.960
<v Speaker 1>you heard of the Parents Television Council? Yes? Some more? Okay,

0:03:34.960 --> 0:03:37.960
<v Speaker 1>Well they actually you may be upset about this. They

0:03:38.000 --> 0:03:40.600
<v Speaker 1>went after the producers of one of your favorite shows,

0:03:40.600 --> 0:03:45.040
<v Speaker 1>Gossip Girl, because they had a they who are you

0:03:45.160 --> 0:03:48.080
<v Speaker 1>really getting the hang of this swearing it or campaign? Well,

0:03:48.120 --> 0:03:50.120
<v Speaker 1>you know that I've had to take off my Hawaiian

0:03:50.120 --> 0:03:53.360
<v Speaker 1>sure in mine as well. Yes, I appreciate that too. Um.

0:03:53.400 --> 0:03:55.640
<v Speaker 1>So they go after Gossip Girl for this kind of

0:03:56.480 --> 0:03:59.640
<v Speaker 1>steamy ad promo campaign that they came up with, and

0:03:59.640 --> 0:04:03.080
<v Speaker 1>they all so didn't like. Um thirty rocks milf Island episode.

0:04:03.080 --> 0:04:05.320
<v Speaker 1>Did you see that one? It was a good one,

0:04:05.360 --> 0:04:08.880
<v Speaker 1>but the Parents Television Council didn't like it. Actually, these

0:04:08.880 --> 0:04:13.520
<v Speaker 1>people are pretty scientific. They've released studies of how much

0:04:13.560 --> 0:04:16.800
<v Speaker 1>of an increase in profanity there's been on television over

0:04:16.839 --> 0:04:19.600
<v Speaker 1>a set number of years. So for instance, and this

0:04:19.640 --> 0:04:23.360
<v Speaker 1>is during the Family Hour, which is eight to nine pm, Um,

0:04:23.360 --> 0:04:27.440
<v Speaker 1>there is a increase from two thousand one to two

0:04:27.440 --> 0:04:31.320
<v Speaker 1>thousand six in in Profanity Right, they found eight hundred

0:04:31.320 --> 0:04:34.120
<v Speaker 1>and fifteen foul wards in a hundred and eighty hours

0:04:34.160 --> 0:04:38.039
<v Speaker 1>of programming, which is four point five three swears an hour.

0:04:39.240 --> 0:04:42.200
<v Speaker 1>The most amazing thing is that somebody actually sat there

0:04:42.240 --> 0:04:44.800
<v Speaker 1>and watched a hundred and eighty hours of television programming

0:04:44.880 --> 0:04:47.880
<v Speaker 1>counted everyone of the swears. Well, clearly I'm in the

0:04:47.920 --> 0:04:50.080
<v Speaker 1>wrong business. But if you want to check out more

0:04:50.279 --> 0:04:53.680
<v Speaker 1>of our research, re Josh's article on is swearing at work?

0:04:53.760 --> 0:04:57.320
<v Speaker 1>A good thing? On how stuff works dot com. It's

0:04:57.520 --> 0:05:02.320
<v Speaker 1>been great. For more on this and thousands of other topics,

0:05:02.480 --> 0:05:05.560
<v Speaker 1>visit how stuff works dot com. Let us know what

0:05:05.640 --> 0:05:08.680
<v Speaker 1>you think. Send an email to podcast at how stuff

0:05:08.720 --> 0:05:14.120
<v Speaker 1>works dot com. Brought to you by the reinvented two

0:05:14.160 --> 0:05:16.640
<v Speaker 1>thousand twelve camera. It's ready, are you