I’ve always hated the word impact when it’s used as a substitute for affect, influence, alter, or change. It’s one of those Big Swinging Cock Words that is supposed to make the speaker sound more manly (and possibly ‘pro-active’–another despicable word). It does have some usefulness though: in conjunction with other evidence, it helps establish that someone is an asshole.
Anyway, that’s a long way of saying that this bit in a post by Paul Krugman about tribal authority (we only listen to people we consider to be authorities*) very funny:
I suppose that in my quest to improve policy and understanding I should be trying to fit in better – lose the beard, learn to play golf, start using “impact” as a verb. But I probably couldn’t pull it off even if I tried. And as a result there will always be a large group of people who will never be moved by any evidence I present.
Heh.
*I actually think it’s the converse: there are people we won’t listen to ever, although I think in a fair number of cases, that’s actually the right thing to do.
mikethemadbiologist
I like that phrase: “Big Swinging Cock Words”. It very clear who would use them.
Honestly, impact as a verb has roughly 2 users that I’ll give passes to:
– People who study crater formation or other space sciency types. Example: “That meteorite impacted at 37 degrees.”
– Over-exuberant sportscasters. Example: “That linebacker impacted at 37 degrees.”
If Krugman learned to play golf, he could impact the ball. 🙂
You just hate it used as a verb, though, right? Are you fine with the word itself when used as a noun?
Impact should only be used the aftermath of two objects (or more) colliding. Thus sayeth the Mad Biologist. Amen selah.
If it truly is one of those BSCW’s, my imagination runs wild with NSF’s “Broader Impacts.” Bow-chick-a-bow-bow. Unless we’re talking about an enormous meteorite or a baseball bat to the unadorned dome.