I periodically get a question about "what does this have to do with comp?" The posts here are sometimes specific but sometimes general. I understand that there are those who struggle to see how individual's constitutional rights, government power, and the broad applications of law apply to workers' compensation. In a nutshell, all workers' compensation is about the law, particularly statutes. Statutes are exercises of government power, that is power delegated to government by the people. Finally, the constitutions that underlie and support the laws in this country supercede statutes, with constraints on powers and recognition of inherent individual rights. As a law professor once told me, "it is a seamless web."
A topic to which I return periodically is credibility. I have some natural curiosity about the topic and am called upon to make credibility determinations from time to time. While it is a natural part of the adjudicator's life, I find there are many questions from lawyers, experts, and others as to the process of determining credibility. Prior posts on this include The Chair of Truth (February 2018); Credibility - a Conversation (December 2019); Magic Words (February 2021); and Credibility Lessons (August 2021). I received good feedback on each of those. The Chair of Truth is still mentioned to me periodically, never in a good way.
Out of the blue, it occurred to me that words matter in the realm of credibility. That is, can someone express her/himself effectively? Many times, I have lectured that there is great credence to be gained in the ability to explain a conclusion. This is the old "show your work" saw that your elementary school teacher strove to convey. If you can tell someone how you got somewhere, you have a better shot at them believing in the result or outcome.
Beyond that, however, my recent revelation is that perhaps words matter. That is, the choice of words might matter. We all learn as small children that there are words that lack cultural acceptance. They are labeled as vulgar or worse, and polite society avoids them. They can shock, and perhaps in a very carefully deployed manner, they might even draw attention to a point, thus accentuating and encouraging belief or comprehension.
One of my favorite dialogues from cinema involves Archie Leach, a lawyer played by John Cleese, and Otto, played by Kevin Kline, in A Fish Called Wanda (MGM 1988). Otto is a pretender-intellectual who strives unsuccessfully to study Friedrich Nietzsche and more (in another excellent scene, Wanda Gershwitz, played by Jamie Curtis, eviscerates Otto's pseudo-intellect). In another poignant scene, Otto expresses himself insulting Archie. Archie responds "How very interesting. You're a true vulgarian, aren't you?" Otto replies with a third-grade playground retort and more vulgarity. He does not make points, persuade, or endear, but merely swears. It is funny and entertaining, but it is not persuasive. We are not laughing with Otto.
For many years, there was an argument that those who swear or use vulgarities do so because they lack the ability to communicate without them. It was labeled the "poverty of vocabulary" or "POV" theory. The use of these words, according to Scientific American, leads us to "judge vulgarians quite harshly, rating them as lower on socio-intellectual status, less effective at their jobs and less friendly." Recent research may support that these prejudices are or are not valid. It is possible that one who relies on the proverbial "f-bomb" or worse may nonetheless "also be exceptionally eloquent and intelligent." That these folks do not need to be vulgar, but merely choose to is not particularly complimentary.
In certain circles, we might hear that oft-relied upon "follow the science" refrain in this context. Some folks have striven to measure "verbal prowess" and the "verbal fluency" of people, testing both their vocabulary and recall as to words generally and vulgarities specifically. The Scientific American concludes that these studies support that those who look down upon the vulgarians have "been unfairly judging them for their linguistic abilities." They claim instead that "swearing, it seems, can be creative, smart, and even downright lyrical."
There is also the argument that "cursing is good for your health." NBC News reported in 2018 that "While we typically try to curb our 'dirty mouth' when in the presence of family or co-workers, swear words make up almost one percent of our daily vocabulary." It concludes that swearing helps with pain management, through an emotional reaction we have to using the words. They may also "improve your workout," release stress," and "make you appear more honest and authentic." Perhaps that means Otto can be accepted as honest, authentic, and yet unpersuasive and crass? In legal proceedings, which is more important? Is the potential for authenticity with a judge or jury worth the potential detriment?
Others contend that in children the use of such words may be related to her/his "response to something painful, upsetting or frustrating." They may be striving for a reaction, trying to "fit in socially," or "struggling to either understand or express their emotions." Whether the intent is to draw attention or to persuade, is it nonetheless possible that vulgarity does diminish persuasiveness? Some would say that, despite the science supporting so-called POV, the swearing merely makes one appear childish and immature.
But, can it be persuasive? A London psychologist suggests that "Light swearing at the start or end of a persuasive speech can help influence an audience." This, he argues, shows "passion . . . and people have one more emotional reason to come around to your point of view." He cites studies that conclude there is some strength in altering audience's perception of the speaker's intensity. However, in the research, "swearing did not affect how the audience perceived the speaker’s credibility." Stealing from Thoreau (paraphrasing), perhaps "It is not enough to be intense or passionate; so are the ants. What are you intense and passionate about?”
The Atlantic says there are "professional benefits of using curse words." This sites the purported benefit of swearing for pain control, emotional information conveyance, and building solidarity regarding perceived frustrations (perhaps similar to the "fit in socially" mentioned above with children). Despite the various purported benefits, the author cautions that nevertheless, "if you prefer scaling the corporate ladder to making friends, you may want to avoid colorful language." It seems, perhaps, that being a vulgarian does not build confidence. One survey demonstrated that "participants said they would perceive a co-worker who swore in a formal meeting to be incompetent." Stated, otherwise, it may draw the attention, yet not the attention one would like.
There are many suggestions regarding how you might react when children use vulgarities. Babycenter.com says you might suggest alternative words, avoid exhibiting amusement at the term(s), set limits, or invoke consequences. But, those efforts are not available to us when dealing with those who are not infants. And, it is unlikely that you will persuade an adult to forego colorful language. If that is a course elected by an adult, we are likely stuck with hearing it as much as she/he is stuck with the consequences of it ("passionate," "childish," and even perhaps "incompetent").
Perhaps for professionals, it is enough to know that there are many methods of persuasion. One studied by Cornell researchers is frankly fascinating. In a nutshell, they concluded "Successful arguers start early, stay calm, and go into detail." Calm, they say, "is more effective than swearing or using aggressive terms." There are more tips on that page, and an interesting overview on persuasion. Another one of note is to "Study the language used by your opponent to decide whether or not it's worth engaging in an argument." If you find yourself engaged with Otto, perhaps there is no convincing him of anything and a more pleasant path would be to ignore his vulgarian entreaty? We have all encountered vulgarians spewing forth on the street; have you ever engaged in conversation to pursue sharing knowledge or perspective? Or, do you just cross to the other side, ignore them, and move past as rapidly as possible?
Another interesting piece on credibility and the swear word is a thesis published by a Master's candidate at Wichita State University. This student contends that "Swearing and credibility are directly related." Some support that the use of such words is "provocative" and "a useful teaching technique to grab the attention." Some contend that swearing "makes a professor seem like 'more of a person,'” but others contend instead that there is research supporting that profanity may decrease credibility and perceptions of trustworthiness and competence. This paper, though lengthy, is an interesting read. Unfortunately, there are also some grammatical errors in the paper that are distracting (Misspelling "credibility" (sic) is not excusable in a thesis presentation).
I have spoken with judges about the issue of vulgarity. There is some inherent bias expressed by some that is intriguing. First, I have been told that whether vulgarity diminishes credibility "depends." Judges who find no offense at a particular word/phrase uttered by a laborer say they can more easily find offense if it is used by a professional. There is, one might say, a heightened burden of being able to express oneself as a professional. That this is prejudice and bias is conceded, but nonetheless real. Second, no judge has ever told me that a good swear word is effective for enhancing credibility or productive for attracting attention. It seems an unwise path for the professional, with probable detriments and no discernable benefits.
So, where do we end up? Likely, much like beauty, vulgarity is in the eye of the beholder. There may be settings in which it is acceptable or perhaps even productive as an attention draw. However, there seems to be a great risk of diminished persuasion when vulgarities are employed, particularly by professionals or those who wish to persuade (advocates). Certainly, Otto made us laugh. However, it is likely that few were laughing with Otto, compared to those who were laughing at him. The absurdity of one who reads Nietzsche and drops frequent f-bombs and more is entertaining, but Otto's credibility is not enviable. In the end, there is unlikely any appropriate setting in professional dialogue for an "f-bomb," or any other vulgarity or swear word. If you seek to convince or persuade, these are unlikely the best choice of path.
While the studies cited above may suggest a potential for drawing attention with one or two, the downsides are potentially significant for any speaker. Thus, when we speak, whether to utter obscenities and vulgarities is up to us, potentially attention-drawing for the attention seeker, and potentially detrimental to our credibility and thus success in convincing. If asked my opinion, I would urge restraint with such words, and when possible avoidance altogether. It does no one any good to be perceived as petulant, immature, or vulgar.