Psychology of “cliché speak” in sports and business

Factual Questions
1

I remember reading in my “Psychology of Personally” textbook, many years ago, about the psychology behind athletes and coaches using clichés during interviews. “We gave 110%” is an example.

My wife and I watched “The Apprentice” last week and I noticed that the contestants were doing this type of thing. They would use lines like “Bring to the table” and “Step up to bat.” repeatedly.

I then told my wife about the textbook, but I couldn’t remember why people use clichés in sports and business instead of their own unique statements. The best I could tell her was “IIRC, it had something to do with the culture.” :dubious:

My question, so I can give my wife a real answer:
What is the psychology behind this “cliché speak” behavior?

I figure that the SDMB would be the place to find people who are familiar with this subject… maybe some of you have even read the same textbook I read.

2

I dunno, perhaps great minds think alike. Cuz, you know, birds of a feather stick together.

3

I think people do this because they’re under pressure. When you’re nervous as hell, it’s a lot easier to default to the usual cliches than it is to formulate something coherent. That applies to either someone trying to cover their ass in a big business meeting or someone doing an interview in front of a zillion fans. (Athletes in particular also get media coaching, and are taught to speak in cliches in order to avoid controversy.)

I am sure you have had the experience where, in a pressure situation - especially public speaking - time seems to slow down, and you tend to speak WAY too fast. You want to blurt something out. It’s just to be expected that if you talk before engaging your brain you’re going to come out with Business War Metaphor #32 (“No plan ever survived contact with the enemy!”) rather than a thoughtful insight. It’s hard to convince yourself to slow down and really think of something useful to say.

4

Could they secretly be playing Buzzword Bingo?

5

Yes but before you can talk the talk, you have to walk the walk.

6

We can probably thank our friends over at the NLP institute for finding that this is actually incredibly efficient as a means of communication. One person says, “bring to the table” and the other’s ears perk up because this is the part that they’re interested in. If they said, “we are really good at…” it blends in with the rest of the stuff you’re not paying attention to.

7

Maybe it’s a bit simplistic, but I always assumed that it was because, in those situations, chances are good that the speaker is either an illiterate boob* or is conscious of a need to make themselves comprehensible to a collection of illiterate boobs. We’re talking business majors and sport scholarships here, right?

*Possibly a highly specialized and effective species of illiterate boob, of course.

8

Every specialised sub-group invents their own jargon out of neccesity which often seems arcane and unneccesary to outside observers. A cliche can stand in for a whole raft of unstated assumptions which greatly enhances the efficiency of communication as long as both parties have the same understanding of what the jargon term means.

Each cliche term would have a carefully tuned and very slightly different set of implications which allows you to convey subtle nuances very easily.

9

But sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Sometimes a cliche is precisely the correct means to express something. Much human communication is tokens, or cliches, that have loaded meaning that improve communication and make it less tedious to communication common meanings. For example, I find it very annoying that people have to invent new ways to say “you’re welcome” that improve not a whit on the cliche. (“no problem”).

But OTOH many people use cliches past their value, and as a substitute for a lack of original thought or because of intellectual laziness when an original description would communicate better than a cliche. “Oh, that was totally awesome” doesn’t tell me much because it is used for just about everything. Actual conversation at a Bertucci’s restaurant:

Waitress: “Can I take your plate?”
Me: “Yes.”
Waitress: “Awesome!”
Me:

10

I heard it as Bull S**t bingo :stuck_out_tongue:

11

In my experience, I’ve never encountered a “type” of people who didn’t have their own jargon. There’s black jargon, fundie jargon, lesbian jargon, social-workers’ jargon, etc. So why should sports be any different? At one point, I’m sure the phraseology was meaningful, but then lapsed into clichés. And of course anyone who doesn’t speak the speak is just not “one of the guys.” Peer pressure.

12

BTW, if you want to do more searching for info on this topic, one of the “proper” terms for people who share similar jargon is “discourse community”.

13

Jock and severe sports fan checking in here.

The idea that either group to which I belong is composed of illiterate boobs is laughable. There are intricacies to our little worlds that compare in complexity to “Crime and Punishment” (if not “Finnegan’s Wake”). The problem is, as far as players go, we’re not allowed to talk about it, and we don’t want to serve the other team the all-important bulletin-board quote that will fire them up.

If you were to ask me or any athlete how we plan on preparing for our next opponent, you’ll get the same answer.

  1. Express respect/admiration for the other team. Reference their record as either proof of how good they are, or as proof of how they can still be dangerous and have a lot to prove. Compliment their coach and star player, mention how well they are coaching/playing right now.

  2. Express confidence that the game will be difficult and that the only way your team will win against such a dangerous opponent is if you stick to your own strengths (which you describe in broad terms) and minimize your weaknesses (which you never specify).
    The reason you do this is simple. Why give away your game plan? Of course you’re going to focus on “fundamentals and defense.” But why give away the fact that you’ve been practicing a new defensive formation keyed specifically to one player on the other team who you think will be easily confused by this new look? By saying this, you have not only alerted the opposition to your plan, but you’ve fired up your target and motivated him to foil your plan. Pregame interviews are vague because they need to be.
    Postgame:

  3. Mention that it was a hard-fought game, and that you only won because some things went your way and some other things didn’t go their way. Thank God for this if you wish. Even if you blew your opponents out, express surprise at this, and note that the blowout was only possible because of the aforementioned “going” of “things.” Mention the mathematically impossible amount of effort you gave. Express respect for your opponent and the mathematically impossible amount of effort expended by your opponent.

  4. The keys to your victory were correct execution of the coach’s game plan, the intelligent and timely adjustment of the staff and players to the unexpected moves of your intelligent opponent, and attention to fundamentals. God, too, if that’s your thing. If asked to describe a good play you had, describe exactly what you see on the replay and how it keys into fundamentals, not your game plan.
    Postgame interviews are vague because, primarily, you will likely have to play your opponent again, and there’s no sense giving away more than what their own coaches will take from the film. There’s also no sense in alerting next week’s opponent to things you yourself might have picked up over the course of the game.
    When it comes to the viewing audience, the simple fact is that a guy like me will already have recognized what you were doing, why you were doing it, and all the intricate stuff, because I follow the team rabidly, so you don’t need to repeat the fundamentals of cover-2 or the neutral-zone trap for my benefit. And the channel-surfing fan doesn’t care. He just wants to hear how the sack or the goal or whatever happened.

Furthermore, if I’m an athlete, I’ve just played a full damn game. I’m happy about my goal or sack or whatever, but right now I just want to get out of my pads and ice or heat whatever hurts. So you get the fastest answer I have that won’t get me fined, whether by the coach (for giving away secrets) or the league (for any number of things). So when the reporter sticks the microphone in my face as I’m coming off the ice, I know that all I have to say is, “Yeah, Suzy, it was a tough game against a tough team, but we stuck to our game plan, which was to make accurate passes, and every member of this great team gave 110%. A couple of bounces went our way that could just as easily have gone the other way, and thanks to God, we won the game. I sure wouldn’t want to have to play them again. They’re a lot better than their record says.”

14

Who was that basketball player who, in one interview, answered every single question, one after the other, with the phrase “both teams played hard”? Funniest interview ever.

15

Very good reply. This is what I am looking for, thank you.

Thanks to everybody who replied. I knew I could count on SDMB members to “think outside of the box”. :wink:

16

I personally can’t stand all that vague sports “speak”.

“We went out there and were lucky enough to come away with a win”, etc etc.

Just once I wish someone like Jordan would have been like “Of course we’re going to win you moron, look at our record, we always win.”

17

I don’t think the business buzzwords are something you learn in school; I think they’re things you pick up by hearing others say them, or from a workshop. Some of them probably ultimately come from business magazines or newspaper articles. Before working in an office, I heard them used in a very limited sense: another student delivering a presentation (about chemistry) would often summarize by saying ‘The take-home message is’, which meant they were about to say the part that we might see on a test. In an office, I heard buzzwords all the time. The ubiquitous term ‘touch base’ was used often, and reminded me of an abusive teacher who had used the term almost 15 years ago. (If anyone knows the origin of ‘touch base’, I’d like to know.)

Buzzwords serve a few other purposes besides making the speaker sound more intelligent than they are (which is a very common reason also; many people in offices, regardless of position, got their job by knowing someone and probably feel inadequate). One is to announce the important part at a boring meeting. Another is to make it sound like they’re keeping up with the times. Note that real technical terms are not buzzwords; they’re necessary to describe the particular focus of the business, and not just ways of attracting attention. Beyond mere buzzwords, there are virulent ideas that spread through the business world rapidly once introduced. Consider “This company will never be able to focus on its goals if we don’t have a mission (or vision) statement.”

18

And what are you? A Rhodes Scholar or something?
What is amusing is when we consultant types make up words or phrases. “De-risking” or “teamin” are just a few examples. Basically take any noun and turn it into an verb or adjective.

It’s called “tact” (or “speach tacting” in consultant speak). I would love to tell our clients “we are here because you are wastefull and too stupid to figure out how to keep your suppliers from screwing you” but my firm frowns on that kind of talk.

I imagine it is a reference to touching a base in baseball. Touching the base = communicating with someone so something awful doesn’t happen (like getting tagged out).

19

Nobody says “of course we’re going to win” because there is no guarantee.

To use another cliche: “On any given day, any given team can win any given game.”

If you said, “Of course we’re going to beat the Fightin’ Pacifists. They’re 0-32 over their last two seasons. They SUCK,” well, the first thing that would happen is that your newspaper article is on the Pacifists’ bulletin board, and every member of that team is out to prove you wrong. Moreover, it is possible and almost certain that one or more members of the Pacifists will be out to do you physical harm, and will likely get away with it.

If you win, big deal. You are an ass for predicting victory over a bunch of cupcakes, and the sportswriters (who, remember, vote for- and influence others’ votes for- MVP awards and other recognition, bonus clauses for winning which are almost certainly in your contract) think that you are an airhead or an asshole or whatever, and their influence carries. Oh, and if you’re a hockey player, forget the Lady Byng.

If you lose… oh, you poor bastard. You’re the guy who fired up the lowly Fightin’ Pacifists and caused them to beat you. Your coaches had already probably marked that game in the win column. Now you’ve hurt your chances at the playoffs (especially in football, where the season is so limited). You think you’re not gonna pay for that in practice? Oh, yes you are, and so is your entire unit. You’re gonna get crucified in the papers, home of the aforementioned (important) sportswriters. Coach is gonna fine you. The locker-room “kangaroo court” is gonna fine the shit out of you. Ownership is going to take a long, hard look at the “locker-room disruption (hint: that’s you).”

You know what might happen then? You might get traded. To the Pacifists. Now you’ve got to show up every day to a locker room full of people you just got through calling losers. Now you, too, are a loser. Have a fun rest of the season, loser.
Always, always, ALWAYS make sure in pregame interviews to express respect for the competition. And the 0-32 Fightin’ Pacifists are a “dangerous opponent” because “they’re better than their record,” because “they’ve got a lot to prove,” because “they were in a lot of games they lost,” because “four plays go differently and they’re 4-2 this year,” because “no disrespect to the Pacifists, but nobody wants to be the team that ends that streak,” because “they’re one big play away from blowing a game wide open,” because the Pacifist’s star player is “an explosive talent who can change a game all by himself,” or any of a hundred thousand other cliches. But mainly because you have nothing to gain and everything to lose by running your big fat mouth.
And as to the “illiterate boob” comment, I can produce thirty pages on the fundamentals of a caucus electoral system in less time than I can produce thirty pages on why the new goaltending rules are ruining hockey. But I’d rather write the latter than the former.

20

Rasheed Wallace, while with the Trail Blazers. He was told he was obligated (whether by contract or NBA rules I don’t know) to speak with the press after the games.

So he did that and then got fined anyway. I think the league has a hard on for him or something. I don’t really like what I’ve seen of the guy as a person, but he seems to tell it like he sees it more often than not, and that’s something you don’t get from a lot of athletes.