# "I could care less" **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 27, 2014, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622 "2014-08-27T11:49:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Killing\_Time](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/76d3ee/32.png) [@Killing\_Time](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Killing_Time)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/201 "2014-08-30T20:00:27Z")
> [@Wendell\_Wagner](#): > > No, Occam’s Razor only works within a system where the rules are defined and it’s possible to say what the simplest application of those rules are. For instance, consider why people had trouble with the new astronomy and physics systems which were developed by Galileo/Kepler/Copernicus/Newton/etc. Some people today act like the fact that educated authorities didn’t instantly adopt that new system as it was proposed shows that the people of that time were hopelessly stupid or stubborn. > > On the contrary, there was a clear and useful system of physics and astronomy that was mostly filled in by 300 A.D. It worked for very well for everything that people could observe up to about 1400 A.D. The new system of astronomy was actually more complicated in some ways and only some very complicated astronomical observations showed that the old system gave slightly wrong answers for which the new system gave more accurate ones. Really, until Newton tied everything together with his system of physics which incorporated everything the others had discovered in the three hundred years before that, it was essentially impossible to show that the new physics and astronomy was, on the whole, simpler than the older system. > > Read _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions_ by Thomas S. Kuhn. I still don’t think you get Occam’s Razor. The most succinct version of it is “Don’t multiply entities beyond necessity.” The words “beyond necessity” is key. If a more complex understanding of physics is necessary to explain observed phenomena, then the Razor would not apply. Earlier, I worded it as “all other things being equal”, which is saying the same thing. So if your theory of subtle facial expressions and changes in spoken intonation indicating a brand new form of sarcasm that has never been used before, had even an iota of evidence to back it up, then it might win out. Earlier I pointed out that the usage of “O.K.” can be traced back to hard evidence, spoken and in print. “Could care less” as a form of sarcasm, is 100% pure conjecture, with no evidence whatsoever to support it. Given that, the two competing theories are equal, and we must go with the theory that _doesn’t_ invoke bizarre conjecture about sarcasm used in a strange unprecedented way, or “implied” words that are not present in the phrase. ---
**Author:** ![Killing\_Time](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/76d3ee/32.png) [@Killing\_Time](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Killing_Time)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/202 "2014-08-30T20:23:08Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > An explanation that requires that a solecism by a moron gets repeated by millions of other morons to the point where it is preferred over a clear expression in standard English without any understanding that it is wrong AND IS USED BY PROFESSIONAL WRITERS IN MAJOR EDITED PUBLICATIONS IN THE SAME WAY is clearly impossible. Why would you say that? It happens all the time. An example was already given in this thread. “Heels over head”, morphed into the nonsensical “Head over heels”, for no good reason other than people started saying it wrong, and now it has supplanted the original. > [@](#): > > If that is indeed your claim then you are required to post some evidence that language works in that fashion. Your assertion does not equal evidence. Done. > [@](#): > > As for the what would happen if you asked a user question, well, what would happen if you went up to someone who had just said “it’s as cold as hell out there” and asked, “Do you understand what you just said? Don’t you know that the standard depiction of hell is a place of extreme high temperatures and fire? How do you justify inverting that? Are you blindly repeating what some moron got wrong?” Absolutely! In fact, I will admit I am guilty of that one myself. I have blindly repeated what some moron got wrong. These “incorrect” phrases have become an inextricable part of the lexicon, but I imagine when they were new, the same type of objections were raised as are now being raised over “could care less”. I see examples almost every day of “some moron getting it wrong”, and then I see other people imitating the person who got it wrong. Some day I should compile a book, but here are a few that I can recall right now: “There’s something wrong with the breaks on my car”. “This house has cooper plumbing.” “You should get a 30-year fix rate loan.” “Mortgage back securities.” “My house needs cleaned.” “For all intensive purposes…” “The fat of the matter is…” “That’s just a mix mash of words.” “Get use to the idea.” “I was blind sighted.” “I play the coronet.” (Really? I didn’t know a crown was a musical instrument.) Honestly, you would be amazed how often mistakes like this get repeated by others, especially now that one person’s writing is instantly visible to the entire world via the internet. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/203 "2014-08-30T20:32:47Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > By having to insert “literally speaking” in each instance you are exactly proving my point. Then your point must be that “could care less,” without modifiers, means you don’t care about something. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/204 "2014-08-30T20:53:18Z")
> [@Killing\_Time](#): > > “Heels over head”, morphed into the nonsensical “Head over heels”, for no good reason other than people started saying it wrong, and now it has supplanted the original… > > … These “incorrect” phrases have become an inextricable part of the lexicon, but I imagine when they were new, the same type of objections were raised as are now being raised over “could care less”. Exactly, and hence my rhetorical question to **Exapno** , “So no incorrect usage has ever made its way into the accepted mainstream in the entire history of language?”. And to the obvious response that “if it’s in the accepted mainstream then it’s not wrong” – or to its weaker and utterly absurd counterpart “it’s not wrong if it can be understood” – I reply that “could care less” is in a kind of etymological transition stage where it co-exists with its correct counterpart, which I suspect is used a lot more frequently, though that’s beside the point. So we have two variants of an expression, one of which has a clear meaning, and the other is an obfuscated mutant that apparently means the opposite of what it says. Rather than engage in more semantic quibbling about the meaning of the word “wrong”, I’ll just say that it should be obvious which one should be preferred. ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/205 "2014-08-30T21:05:28Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I’ll just say that it should be obvious which one should be preferred. Yes, the much richer and engaging ‘could care less’ beats the other one hands down. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/206 "2014-08-30T21:08:44Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Then your point must be that “could care less,” without modifiers, means you don’t care about something. No, my point was that the meaning of the phrase has been undermined by incorrect usage, so that it’s not possible to use it to express the condition that it literally describes without creating confusing ambiguity. You claimed that you could. No, throwing in “hey, in this particular instance these words should be understood to mean what they really mean” doesn’t cut it! ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/207 "2014-08-30T21:09:31Z")
> [@srzss05](#): > > You forgot: > I’m a moron and can’t speak English properly. Again with the ‘morons’. Is there some American class prejudice thing going on here that I’m not getting? ---
**Author:** ![srzss05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@srzss05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/srzss05)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/208 "2014-08-30T21:13:14Z")
> [@eburacum45](#): > > Again with the ‘morons’. Is there some American class prejudice thing going on here that I’m not getting? Interestingly, this was posted long before I read the other posts. It is still the “simplest” explanation. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/209 "2014-08-30T21:18:46Z")
> [@eburacum45](#): > > Yes, the much richer and engaging ‘could care less’ beats the other one hands down. Yes, because clarity in writing is always such a handicap. Or perhaps you agree with me and are just expressing it in a rich and engaging fashion? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/210 "2014-08-30T21:57:50Z")
> [@srzss05](#): > > Interestingly, this was posted long before I read the other posts. It is still the “simplest” explanation. Yes, and the most ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/211 "2014-08-30T22:13:29Z")
> [@Killing\_Time](#): > > I see examples almost every day of “some moron getting it wrong”, and then I see other people imitating the person who got it wrong. Some day I should compile a book, but here are a few that I can recall right now: > > “There’s something wrong with the breaks on my car”. > > “This house has cooper plumbing.” > > “You should get a 30-year fix rate loan.” > > “Mortgage back securities.” > > “My house needs cleaned.” > > “For all intensive purposes…” > > “The fat of the matter is…” > > “That’s just a mix mash of words.” > > “Get use to the idea.” > > “I was blind sighted.” > > “I play the coronet.” (Really? I didn’t know a crown was a musical instrument.) > Honestly, you would be amazed how often mistakes like this get repeated by others, especially now that one person’s writing is instantly visible to the entire world via the internet. > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > AND IS USED BY PROFESSIONAL WRITERS IN MAJOR EDITED PUBLICATIONS IN THE SAME WAY You actually quoted this and then ignored it all in one post. Amazing. > [@wolfpup](#): > > Exactly, and hence my rhetorical question to **Exapno** , “So no incorrect usage has ever made its way into the accepted mainstream in the entire history of language?”. Of course incorrect usage makes its way into the language. What’s interesting about those solecisms is that they are distinct, and don’t fall into patterns for the simple reason (Hiya, Occam!) that mistakes are individualistic. When you see patterns, then you need to toss out the supposition that a mistake can account for them. The seeming semantic reversal of a common phrase that yet retains its meaning is seen frequently, as has been cited numerous times in this thread. That is not accidental, not mistaken. It is deliberate. No communication has been lost, because the very intention is that the meaning remains unchanged. I cited evidence even from a doubter that the deliberate intonation is heard in real world speech. Every piece of actual evidence points in the same direction. No one on your side has posted any evidence against it, merely assertions and digressions about irrelevancies. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/212 "2014-08-30T22:48:25Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > No, my point was that the meaning of the phrase has been undermined by incorrect usage Can you cite any use of the phrase that both predates its current meaning and means what the words literally and individually mean? If not, speaking of how the phrase has been undermined is nonsensical, since it didn’t exist prior to its current meaning. > [@](#): > > so that it’s not possible to use it to express the condition that it literally describes without creating confusing ambiguity. You claimed that you could. I claimed no such thing. I claimed that I could express the condition that it literally describes in clear language, not that I could use it for such an expression. Please read more carefully. > [@](#): > > No, throwing in “hey, in this particular instance these words should be understood to mean what they really mean” doesn’t cut it! It’s an excellent thing I never said that, innit? ---
**Author:** ![Killing\_Time](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/76d3ee/32.png) [@Killing\_Time](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Killing_Time)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/213 "2014-08-30T23:13:21Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > You actually quoted this and then ignored it all in one post. Amazing. Um, what are you talking about? “Head over heels” originated as a misstatement of “Heels over head”. It is now used by professional writers. What part of that are you having trouble understanding? You do get that a thing having _happened_ would tend to nullify your hypothesis that it is “impossible”, don’t you? ---
**Author:** ![srzss05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@srzss05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/srzss05)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/214 "2014-08-30T23:19:54Z")
> [@eburacum45](#): > > Yes, and the most ridiculous. In your opinion. But none of the “explanations” for the contrary are even close to be convincing. They are just rationalizations trying to apologize for what is most likely a mistake. I’m surprised this thread has not been moved yet. It is quite obvious there is no “correct” answer. ---
**Author:** ![DingoelGringo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@DingoelGringo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DingoelGringo)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/215 "2014-08-30T23:23:38Z")
Cecil dealt with the subject once a few years ago. Growing up I always heard I couldn’t care less, but when I went to Chicago I heard the idiot version. ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/216 "2014-08-30T23:28:41Z")
> [@Killing\_Time](#): > > Um, what are you talking about? > > “Head over heels” originated as a misstatement of “Heels over head”. It is now used by professional writers. From here [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/head\_over\_heels](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/head_over_heels) > [@](#): > > “Heels over head” evolved into “head over heels” in common use departing its literal meaning, probably for reasons of phrasal elegance. This is not a misstatement, but an improvement. Language sometimes/often evolves into better forms. I beseech you, think it possible that you are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/217 "2014-08-30T23:55:06Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Of course incorrect usage makes its way into the language. What’s interesting about those solecisms is that they are distinct, and don’t fall into patterns for the simple reason (Hiya, Occam!) that mistakes are individualistic. > > When you see patterns, then you need to toss out the supposition that a mistake can account for them … That is not accidental, not mistaken. It is deliberate. You say it’s deliberate, yet a debate has been raging for some five pages now quoting a variety of authorities **contradicting each other** trying to come up with theories about just exactly what the “deliberate” intent of this nonsense actually was, because it sure isn’t obvious. And among them is the theory that it’s simply a [corruption of the original expression](http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/could-care-less-versus-couldnt-care-less) due to some combination of sloppy speech or mishearing – certainly as plausible a theory as any of the others, and to my mind, a great deal more plausible. If solecisms didn’t fall into patterns, they wouldn’t make it into the language. The assertion that systematic patterns of misuse don’t occur as a result of ignorant mistakes (and the promulgation thereof), but only through deliberate creativity, is just absolute nonsense, and if you believe it [then you must not do a lot of reading on the Internet](http://www.copyblogger.com/grammar-goofs/). ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/218 "2014-08-31T00:15:07Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > You say it’s deliberate, yet a debate has been raging for some five pages now quoting a variety of authorities **contradicting each other** trying to come up with theories about just exactly what the “deliberate” intent of this nonsense actually was, because it sure isn’t obvious. And among them is the theory that it’s simply a [corruption of the original expression](http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/could-care-less-versus-couldnt-care-less) due to some combination of sloppy speech or mishearing – certainly as plausible a theory as any of the others, and to my mind, a great deal more plausible. Which has already been suggested here. Personally, if I found myself resorting to Grammar Girl over Arnold Zwicky I’d concede my case. > [@](#): > > If solecisms didn’t fall into patterns, they wouldn’t make it into the language. The assertion that systematic patterns of misuse don’t occur as a result of ignorant mistakes (and the promulgation thereof), but only through deliberate creativity, is just absolute nonsense, and if you believe it [then you must not do a lot of reading on the Internet](http://www.copyblogger.com/grammar-goofs/). I have no idea what point you think you’re making with that cite. I see 15 different types of mistakes, with no common pattern among them. You’re making _my point_ that mistakes are individual with a cite that shows that to be true. How can you possibly think that helps your case? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/219 "2014-08-31T00:56:40Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Personally, if I found myself resorting to Grammar Girl over Arnold Zwicky I’d concede my case. I’m not “resorting” to anything, and your _ad hominem_ doesn’t really help your argument. I’m just pointing out a perfectly plausible hypothesis for how this confusingly illogical expression may have come into use. > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I have no idea what point you think you’re making with that cite. I see 15 different types of mistakes, with no common pattern among them. Well, what you **should** be seeing is 15 different examples of mistakes arising out of ignorance that are being systematically promulgated, **exactly** as “could care less” may have been promulgated through persistent repetition of the same mistake. I’m not saying that the above hypothesis is necessarily correct, only that it’s a very plausible explanation for the corruption of – or variance from, if you prefer – the clarity of the original. You’re the one claiming absolute authority about how it must have **really** originated despite the fact that clearly no one really knows. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622/220 "2014-08-31T01:43:15Z")
We are still, for some unfathomable reason, in GQ, where it is legitimate not merely to demand cites but to scrutinize the quality of those cites. Hey, I’ve even heard that the rest of the Board may work the same way. A cite that offers secondhand information from better sites is better than nothing, I suppose, but I continue to suspect that the reason no proper cites have been given is that none exist. Outside the one that I gave. The one that nonetheless admits the possibility of sarcasm as an original source. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-could-care-less/696622.md?page=12)