Is he, really, a much more powerful communicator thanks to his use of obscenities? Would he, really, connect less with the same smaller group if he didn't? Is the price of the loss, really, lower than the value of the gain?
(ETA: Interesting, HN won't let me reply to a downvoted reply to my post.) Verbose defenders & detractors of the practice aside, methinks many who murmur support do so from social pressures, and in fact dislike the practice but won't or can't articulate their opposition.
Is the price of the loss, really, lower than the value of the gain?
That is a really interesting question.
I agreed completely with Zach's post, and I've agreed with all of @gks's comments in this thread. Zach's use of swearing increases my emotional connection to what he's saying. If Zach didn't swear, he would connect less with me.
But the plural of anecdote is not data. What proportion of people are like you, and find swearing in a talk trite and cheap? What proportion of people are comfortable with Zach's slides?
(ETA: Interesting, HN won't let me reply to a downvoted reply to my post.) Verbose defenders & detractors of the practice aside, methinks many who murmur support do so from social pressures, and in fact dislike the practice but won't or can't articulate their opposition.