Personality Cafe banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
163 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
There is a difference between being shallow and being selective. Selective is having standards which everyone should have. Shallow is when you dismiss a large percentage of men or women as not being worthy of dating because they aren’t good enough. I am selective and have standards. My standards are a woman who takes care of herself doesn’t look like she just got out of bed not overweight well spoken etc. A shallow person will be like I won’t dare someone if they don’t look like a cover model have an ounce of fat. Or anybody who doesn’t have six pack abs isn’t good enough or they don’t drive a Mercedes make six figures etc. So selective and shallow are similar but shallow people have impossible standards and are impossible to please.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,409 Posts
Gonna have to disagree with you somewhat.
There is a difference between being shallow and being selective.
Well at the risk of being seen as pedantic...preferences that are considered shallow or also a type of selectiveness. Shallowness is just a less socially accepted selectiveness.

Selective is having standards which everyone should have.
Since people have different wants/needs, selectiveness must involve a rather small collection of standards then, if it include standards that everyone should have.

Shallow is when you dismiss a large percentage of men or women as not being worthy of dating because they aren’t good enough. I am selective and have standards. My standards are a woman who takes care of herself doesn’t look like she just got out of bed not overweight well spoken etc.
Aren't you "dismissing" overweight women and linguistically challenged women because "they aren't good enough" for you? What's the difference between dismissing people because "they aren't good enough" and dismissing people because they don't fit your standards?

A shallow person will be like I won’t dare someone if they don’t look like a cover model have an ounce of fat. Or anybody who doesn’t have six pack abs isn’t good enough or they don’t drive a Mercedes make six figures etc. So selective and shallow are similar but shallow people have impossible standards and are impossible to please.
Hmm, I don't think what's called shallowness is typically that extreme. Someone could be unwilling to date anyone who's not a slim blue-eyed blonde (which is more common than supermodel looks), and still be seen as shallow.

And earning a six-figure salary or having visible abs isn't terribly uncommon (not in the U.S. anyhow), certainly far from "impossible." I could think of far less common traits that wouldn't be seen as shallow dating standards—wanting to share a minority religion, for example. It seems that the kind of dating standards (not the number of people who fit those standards) is what people judge as shallow.

Since people have somewhat different ideas of what shallowness is, I think a better definition of shallow sex/relationship standards is this:

Shallowness is a judgment applied to someone who requires or strongly desires in a mate one or more personal traits that the judger sees as tangential or irrelevant to what the judger considers to be a good, healthy, or desirable relationship.
 

·
Registered
INFP
Joined
·
92 Posts
[snipped...] selective and shallow are similar but shallow people have impossible standards and are impossible to please.
Selective vs shallow: Those two terms don't have any particular connection. Shallow people can be selective or unselective. And selective people can be shallow or deep.

So as I see it, they're not related.

If you want proper dichotomies (opposites), then I would suggest looking at Shallow-vs-deep as one dichotomy (opposite); and then Selective-vs-undemanding as a separate and unrelated dichotomy (opposite).

Taking each dichotomy, one at a time:

Shallow = Black-and-white thinking, narcissistic, simplistic
Deep = Nuanced thinking, empathetic, thoughtful

And then:

Selective = Picky, critical, analytical, prioritizing
Undemanding = Easy-going, indulgent, tolerant

So, just to illustrate the relationship between Shallow-vs-deep and Selective-vs-undemanding:

I like to think I'm deep. Maybe even a little too deep. (Sometimes I overthink things.) In the meantime, I've definitely been too undemanding in the past when choosing partners. When you're too undemanding, you run the risk of ending up with a partner who has a lot of faults, or someone incompatible, or even an abuser. Based on my own mistakes, I've learned that when you're evaluating a potential partner it's good to have some personal boundaries, some preferences, some priorities, and some limits. Not every partner is a good match. So in the future I personally would aim to be more selective in choosing partners.

Tl;dr version: In the past, I've erred on the side of deep and unselective. In the future I would try to be perhaps a little less deep and definitely way more selective.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,570 Posts
You can be selective using "shallow criteria" or "deep criteria"..... and at the opposite end you can be indiscriminate for shallow reasons or deep reasons so this thread is kind of making a false dichotomy.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
13,853 Posts
I tend to think of "shallow" as meaning something very similar as "superficial."

Superficial just means--"on the surface" or skin deep--so things that are material (looks, wealth, youth etc.) Like things that are physical reality (such as bodyfat, hair color, face shape--"worldly" things) or have the capacity to directly and near immediately affect physical reality (money and wealth).

Shallow just has negative connotations, but I tend to think of it as "surface level."

People are selective for superficial qualities like appearance, body, wealth etc. all the time. It's not some weird thing.

I disagree with you about what standards are too, and what "selective" means. I think standards are just expectations that one holds for dating--personal expectations and dealbreakers.

If your standard is that your partner is 6 feet tall, that's "superficial" because height is y'know about your physical body and not some abstract aspect like thoughts or beliefs or values, but that's your standard. Same thing if you are heterosexual imo--you are only interested in people of a certain gender or sex. That is a superficial quality (a person's gender), but there is nothing wrong with preferring one gender or biological sex over the other. People do it all the time.

It doesn't have to be universal. Just because Judy expects her partner to be 6 feet tall or something--maybe she believes it means he has "good genes", doesn't mean that everyone will expect that or should expect that (unless Judy wants to push her values and standards onto everyone else and claim that they should all have the same interests as her, which would suck for anyone under 6ft if she succeeded, and they wanted to be in a relationship with someone).

Does it make her "shallow"? I don't think so--that's her deal--she values the superficial highly, and especially that particular superficial quality. She can be selective about superficial things.

Sure--it doesn't feel great to be excluded from someone's selection, but it's normal and people do it all the time. Just because you are excluded or someone else is doesn't have anything to do with their inherent value (that they are somehow "below standard" or whatever). It has to do with the selection process that the other person is using to evaluate them (give them value for relationship preference).

People seem to be very insecure about their own preferences, it seems--and they try to project them onto everyone in order to justify them as "objective" or something, rather than a reflection of their, personal, values and preferences. I guess maybe this is part of not really knowing what your preferences are--needing validation from others even by trying to force your values or preferences onto other people to claim they are universal or objective. People do it a lot--so idk maybe that's why.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
163 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Selective people tend to be more open minded to whom they will or will not date compared to a shallow person. And not liking overweight women is a personal preference, some men love them to each their own.
 

·
Registered
INFP
Joined
·
92 Posts
Selective people tend to be more open minded to whom they will or will not date compared to a shallow person. And not liking overweight women is a personal preference, some men love them to each their own.
"Selective" can mean different things to different people.

If a guy is shallow, he can be selective in terms of lots of physical demands: "My future girlfriend has to be tall, blonde, blue-eyed, slender, have a big rack, be sweet-natured, be a real freak in the bedroom, etc."

If a person is deep, they can be selective in terms of lots of other demands: "My future partner has to have the same taste in art and culture as me, support the same causes, believe the same spiritual beliefs, have the same politics, read the same literature, enjoy the same movies, etc."

Both shallow and deep people can be control freaks (that is, excessively selective) when it comes to evaluating partners. In some ways, deep people can be the worst. They are empathetic and thoughtful in how they relate to the world, but they can be brutal and unforgiving in their relations with their partners and family. It's kind of a trope: The SJW or other do-gooder who fights for justice and does a lot of charity in the world, but also ignores or bullies their partner at home because their partner can't live up to all their high standards.

Anyways, I'm just sayin'. Selectivity is a double-edged sword, and it can be good or bad, deep or shallow. A certain amount of selectivity is necessary for purposes of self-protection, but too much will ruin a relationship.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
Selective is aiming correctly at that which is worthy and good.
Shallow is aiming incorrectly at that which is not worthy and not good.

If you have a huge list of criteria one must meet to be considered, then the focus is not on the purpose of a relationship (A good life, children, marriage, etc.), but rather of selfish arrogance.
If you have criteria, and that criteria is held with the right purpose, then it is selective, not shallow.

It is not the physical that is shallow, it is the improper mindset that creates shallowness. The body can be beautiful and that is good and it is not shallow to see, appreciate, and value that beauty in others. Beauty is inspiring. Beauty is valuable. Cultivate beauty!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,409 Posts
Selective people tend to be more open minded to whom they will or will not date compared to a shallow person.
[/QUOTE]
Well what's the point of calling them "selective" if they are less selective than "shallow people"?
And not liking overweight women is a personal preference, some men love them to each their own.
Is personal preference different from the "standards" you posted about earlier in the OP? And are having either of those different from "dismissing" people?

It seems like you're just throwing around terms without thinking about their actual meaning or implications.
 

·
Beer Guardian
ENTP 5w6 So/Sx 584 ILE Honorary INTJ
Joined
·
15,819 Posts
There is a difference between being shallow and being selective. Selective is having standards which everyone should have. Shallow is when you dismiss a large percentage of men or women as not being worthy of dating because they aren’t good enough. I am selective and have standards. My standards are a woman who takes care of herself doesn’t look like she just got out of bed not overweight well spoken etc. A shallow person will be like I won’t dare someone if they don’t look like a cover model have an ounce of fat. Or anybody who doesn’t have six pack abs isn’t good enough or they don’t drive a Mercedes make six figures etc. So selective and shallow are similar but shallow people have impossible standards and are impossible to please.
Perhaps "Shallow vs Persnickety"?
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
13,853 Posts
Selective is aiming correctly at that which is worthy and good.
Shallow is aiming incorrectly at that which is not worthy and not good.

If you have a huge list of criteria one must meet to be considered, then the focus is not on the purpose of a relationship (A good life, children, marriage, etc.), but rather of selfish arrogance.
If you have criteria, and that criteria is held with the right purpose, then it is selective, not shallow.

It is not the physical that is shallow, it is the improper mindset that creates shallowness. The body can be beautiful and that is good and it is not shallow to see, appreciate, and value that beauty in others. Beauty is inspiring. Beauty is valuable. Cultivate beauty!
Here's some criticism--the "you" is more general here. I don't know you, but this is how your comment comes off to me, and the faults I find in it.

You're basically just saying "selective=good/shallow=bad."

Then defining whatever you think as "good" (and likely personally identify with ("valuing beauty" or whatever) as "selective," while defining everything you don't like (likely criticism or selectivity that would disqualify you--that you don't identify with) as bad.

Vague words like "improper mindset" --I'm going to take this to mean "anything I don't 'prefer' is 'shallow' and anything I do prefer is 'selective'"

So preferring big tits and a tiny ass isn't "shallow" for a man, but if a woman prefers a tall man with a big wallet, she is "shallow" because she has the "improper mindset," whereas the man (or you--whoever wants to define their preferences as "the right ones") is just being "selective."

Or at least--I can see anyone taking your argument and making more like above with it.

I could say that I'm not being "shallow" because I want a tall man with ripped abs, a big dick, who's a billionaire. I'm just being selective because I have the "proper mindset." Whereas if said man were to not prefer me because he is selective about my superficial qualities, I could just assume he was being "shallow" because of some vague "improper mindset" that I assume he has (because he doesn't agree with me or my wants).

Just saying--that's how I read your argument, even if that's not how you meant it.

A woman might prefer a billionaire because he's going to make "the best father" and a big dick because "it will help make reproduction more pleasant." Since she has the "proper mindset."

I just think that this way of defining things is really vague and leaves a lot open to just validating your own preferences and calling them "good" while invalidating others that disagree with yours, and calling them "bad."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
Just saying--that's how I read your argument, even if that's not how you meant it.
The man and woman who lusts after the material and is solely pulled by the flesh is cursed.

The improper mindset is that mindset which values above all else, the lusts of the flesh and the material over the good and the spiritual good. Yet, do not be deceived for the flesh and the physical is not in itself evil. Beauty is valuable, but it must not be valued above the moral good. Let man and woman desire a good life in accordance with moral good. Let them seek genuine loving human connection with one another and let this desire be motivated from the good, not the lusts of the flesh.

Shallow is valuing that which is not valuable over that which is. Need I truly explain more? Shall I state that the man who lusts after a woman for her physical appearance only is just as bad as the woman who lusts after the height of a man or his material wealth? No. We know this is wrong.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
13,853 Posts
The man and woman who lusts after the material and is solely pulled by the flesh is cursed.

The improper mindset is that mindset which values above all else, the lusts of the flesh and the material over the good and the spiritual good. Yet, do not be deceived for the flesh and the physical is not in itself evil. Beauty is valuable, but it must not be valued above the moral good. Let man and woman desire a good life in accordance with moral good. Let them seek genuine loving human connection with one another and let this desire be motivated from the good, not the lusts of the flesh.

Shallow is valuing that which is not valuable over that which is. Need I truly explain more? Shall I state that the man who lusts after a woman for her physical appearance only is just as bad as the woman who lusts after the height of a man or his material wealth? No. We know this is wrong.
Okay so expecting/wanting a six foot tall billionaire with chiseled features and a giant cock isn't shallow so long as he also donates a small portion of his disposable income to charity?

🤷‍♀️

I don't really care, but it's interesting to hear what the stipulations are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,988 Posts
I'm shallow; I'll take what I get. The alternative is an eternal loneliness. Yes, even ISTPs can get "too lonely"... but most are too dumb to admit it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
Okay so expecting/wanting a six foot tall billionaire with chiseled features and a giant cock isn't shallow so long as he also donates a small portion of his disposable income to charity?

🤷‍♀️

I don't really care, but it's interesting to hear what the stipulations are.
No, if one's mindset is correct, then there are a million things more important about a potential husband than his height and wealth such that those shallow considerations are no longer an expectation/desire.

It's not a good habit to speak lies even if it wasn't your initial intention ( If you didn't care you wouldn't have responded ).
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
13,853 Posts
No, if one's mindset is correct, then there are a million things more important about a potential husband than his height and wealth such that those shallow considerations are no longer an expectation/desire.

It's not a good habit to speak lies even if it wasn't your initial intention ( If you didn't care you wouldn't have responded ).
Ok--so this thread is called "shallow vs. selective." You claimed that selecting for beauty is not "shallow." Right?

Now what you are saying here is that selecting for shallow considerations such as physical appearance, is shallow and that it is not part of a "proper mindset."

I honestly do not care as that's all your problem--but I was just pointing out that your statement that it is not shallow to select for beauty sounded pretty vulnerable to a double standard, which is itself a type of dishonesty, even if you do not intend it.

If there are a billion things that are more important about a person (so long as you have the "proper mindset") than physical appearance, then it sounds like selecting for beauty should make you just as shallow as selecting for dick and wallet size. Period. Not because it's "the only important thing" but because it's important enough to be part of the selection process. (Also--btw, you originally said that "long lists" of criteria made one shallow--so I would be pretty worried about leaving "beauty" on that list? Wouldn't it make the list longer to have beauty and goodness?)

Again--I don't care, but it's good not to lie--especially to yourself.

Also--if your answer is that one should not "select" for beauty, but one should still value it--well that sounds really interesting regarding honesty and lying to one's self--I suppose no man could ever fool himself into believing that he was selecting for goodness but he "just happened" to value superficial/shallow qualities too. It's probably better to figure that out before pointing fingers at women who happen to value big dicked billionaires but are only selecting for their moral character.

Anyway--again. This is no skin off my nose. It's your beliefs.

Personally, I do think people who select for shallow qualities are shallow, but I also think most people are mixed in what they value--and most people value superficial things as well as more abstract things, and so long as they both agree to it and share those values, it is fine. To each their own, so long as they aren't hurting someone. Which means the relationship must be consensual and honest.

And that's more what I care about--because people who project double standards tend to harm innocent other people when they don't look at their own inconsistencies and they instead project them onto others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
Ok--so this thread is called "shallow vs. selective." You claimed that selecting for beauty is not "shallow." Right?

Now what you are saying here is that selecting for shallow considerations such as physical appearance, is shallow and that it is not part of a "proper mindset."

I honestly do not care as that's all your problem--but I was just pointing out that your statement that it is not shallow to select for beauty sounded pretty vulnerable to a double standard, which is itself a type of dishonesty, even if you do not intend it.

If there are a billion things that are more important about a person (so long as you have the "proper mindset") than physical appearance, then it sounds like selecting for beauty should make you just as shallow as selecting for dick and wallet size. Period. Not because it's "the only important thing" but because it's important enough to be part of the selection process. (Also--btw, you originally said that "long lists" of criteria made one shallow--so I would be pretty worried about leaving "beauty" on that list? Wouldn't it make the list longer to have beauty and goodness?)

Again--I don't care, but it's good not to lie--especially to yourself.

Also--if your answer is that one should not "select" for beauty, but one should still value it--well that sounds really interesting regarding honesty and lying to one's self--I suppose no man could ever fool himself into believing that he was selecting for goodness but he "just happened" to value superficial/shallow qualities too. It's probably better to figure that out before pointing fingers at women who happen to value big dicked billionaires but are only selecting for their moral character.

Anyway--again. This is no skin off my nose. It's your beliefs.

Personally, I do think people who select for shallow qualities are shallow, but I also think most people are mixed in what they value--and most people value superficial things as well as more abstract things, and so long as they both agree to it and share those values, it is fine. To each their own, so long as they aren't hurting someone. Which means the relationship must be consensual and honest.

And that's more what I care about--because people who project double standards tend to harm innocent other people when they don't look at their own inconsistencies and they instead project them onto others.
You're over-complicating the discussion, inserting doubt where there is none, and contradicting yourself. You DO care, which is why you respond and why you clearly state you care in your last sentence. Feigning apathy takes away from your clearly empathetic character.

There is a difference between beauty and lusting after one's physical appearance. The first is inspiring and valuable, the second is dangerous and immoral.

I completely disagree. Consensuality does not in itself make a relationship morally good.

There is no double-standard, which is made clear by your statement that my words are vulnerable, but are not exhibiting one.
 
Joined
·
384 Posts
When I look at a person of personal intrest, I try to imagine them a child, and adult and an old person. If there is no gigantic impact of that in as how much value they add in my moments, then Id say the shallowness is gone.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top