I'm disinterested, and I could care less
It comes as news to most of my students, semester after semester, that disinterested can mean impartial — not having an interest, or stake, in the issue, not having a dog in the fight. They read disinterested as not caring, not concerned, not interested in the sense of having curiosity or concern.
If I were Professor (adjunct) Harumph, I could sneer at their subliteracy and parade my own vast erudition. But my job is to fit them for working effectively as writers and editors, so I explain the realities:
Basics first. Both senses of the word are in use. They are active in the language. The question is not whether one is right and the other wrong, but which is appropriate.
Levels of usage must be considered. In the conversational or colloquial level, disinterested in the sense of uninterested appears to be common, perhaps dominant. As the language of journalism has become more conversational, disinterested in this sense also appears more frequently in writing. In more formal, and perhaps I can risk saying more sophisticated, levels of writing, the sense of impartiality can often be found: academic writing, for example, or serious books.
And there is the social dimension to consider. There are people, members of a small but vocal minority, who attach class or even ethical values to word usage. These are the people who will think less of you for ignorantly using disinterested for uninterested. They are uninformed but dogmatic, and they are out there. There’s no need to pull the coverlet over your head and hide from them, but you shouldn’t be surprised if you hear from them.
I say uninformed. To become better informed, have a look at Mark Liberman’s thoughtful post at Language Log. As it turns out, disinterested/uninterested is not a case of a pristine sense corrupted by ignorance, but a much more common phenomenon in language: an incomplete differentiation emerging from a tangle of historic usages. This will frustrate the prescriptivists and copy editors who want to insist that there is always a Right and a Wrong in usage, but I can’t help them.
I can try to help my students by advising to keep in mind the basics of rhetoric: What are you trying to say? Who is in your audience? What words, tropes and strategies will convey your meaning to the reader most precisely, without misunderstanding or distraction? There are choices to be made, and editing is making choices.
Comments
"I could care less" is one of my biggest pet peeves. I'm far from perfect on grammar or punctuation, but that's a logic issue...
Posted by: Kate | August 20, 2008 12:11 PM
It's interesting you dissect the "disinterested vs. uninterested" usage while misusing the "I could care less" phrase in the title.
The correct use is "I couldn't care less." If you could care less, then you could still care a little.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2008 1:13 PM
"I could care less" is wrong...it's "I couldn't care less."
If you could care less, then you still can care a little.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2008 1:15 PM
I agree with Kate - that illogical phrase drives me nuts!
Posted by: Carol | August 20, 2008 1:30 PM
Actually, the proper -- and logical -- phrase is, "I don't give a s--t."
Posted by: boberl | August 20, 2008 3:20 PM
I'd venture to say that Mr. McIntyre's tongue was in his cheek as he wrote the title.
Posted by: Jonathon | August 20, 2008 7:23 PM
Wasn't that his point -- that if you are disinterested (not having a stake in the issue) it's still possible you could care less, whereas if you were uninterested, you couldn't.
Posted by: another carol | August 20, 2008 7:42 PM
I prefer "I could care less." If I cared enough to work out the logic of the sentence, then I might say, "I couldn't care less," but in that case obviously I could care less, since I cared enough to work out the logic. But in fact, I could care less.
Posted by: Rawley Grau | August 20, 2008 8:02 PM
I do like to preserve the distinction between "disinterested" (meaning not partial) and "uninterested" (meaning I don't give a **).
I think they are useful. The people who don't preserve the distinction will know what I mean. And the people who do preserve the distinction will ALSO know what I mean, and not junk up my comments section with post after post about my choice of prefixes.
But I am intrigued by the idea of using "disinterested" to mean "was interested once, but not anymore"--sort of like disengaging. You have to be engaged once before you can become disengaged.
Not that I have many instances in which I would use that.
Posted by: Talley Sue Hohlfeld | August 20, 2008 9:29 PM
There is a difference between the words. There is a difference between (amongst???) assure/ensure/insure, too. People who use such words interchangeably risk the failure of getting their point across. Must I now always use "impartial" because Americans are too lazy to learn/remember the distinctions? I fear so.
Posted by: mapuser | August 21, 2008 7:05 PM
Hmmm.
And those of us who studied economics realize that "indifferent" doesn't necessarily mean "uncaring" or "you go to heck."
Posted by: c o'donnell | August 22, 2008 10:42 AM
whatever
Posted by: bill pilgrim | August 28, 2008 3:16 PM
Both are correct in the sense of describing something as uninteresting or undesirable.
Whereas "I could care less" does imply a degree of caring in the first place, it is not technically wrong, as it still describes the subject as not worthy of a certain level of caring. In other words, the person is expressing regret for initially caring more than he/she should.
"I couldn't care less" is a much stronger statement. However, blatantly stating that one is wrong without any consideration of the situation in which it is used in is misconception or, even worse, bigotry.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 2, 2008 9:32 PM
Why are Americans always bashed at being lazy for not using words appropriately when we aren't alone in our ignorance? Shouldn't the English speaking society as a whole be condemned?
Posted by: Rick Janssen | January 9, 2009 4:44 PM
Hang on, wait... you're TEACHING people and you use the phrase "I could care less"!!???
For christs sake, get your act together.
To the idiot who wrote:
Both are correct in the sense of describing something as uninteresting or undesirable.
Whereas "I could care less" does imply a degree of caring in the first place, it is not technically wrong, as it still describes the subject as not worthy of a certain level of caring. In other words, the person is expressing regret for initially caring more than he/she should.
"I couldn't care less" is a much stronger statement. However, blatantly stating that one is wrong without any consideration of the situation in which it is used in is misconception or, even worse, bigotry.
.... NO you IDIOT.... if you say "I could care less" that could very well mean you care a great deal.... in fact it could very well be the thing you care most about in your life and this universe.
Sigh. Stupid people.
Posted by: Graham | February 4, 2009 7:08 PM
When you discover a a native speaker of English who misunderstands "I could care less," please introduce him.
In the meantime, you're welcome to look at this subsequent post to see who some of the other stupid people are:
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/mcintyre/blog/2008/08/still_couldnt_care_less.html
I can also recommend to you a number of reference books on English usage that you might find informative. Perhaps one on manners, too.
Posted by: John McIntyre | February 4, 2009 7:13 PM