# What is more shallow?



## TPower (Feb 3, 2011)

Picking partners based on their looks

or

Picking partners based on their social status (popularity among peers, fame, etc)?

Surprisingly (as far as I'm concerned), opinions vary, I find the latter to be the definite answer.


----------



## youngloc (Dec 23, 2009)

I would say picking partners based on their social status, just picking a friend for that reason is shallow to me. 

Can you imaginate that convo:

baby why do you love me? is it because of my looks?
no
because of my personality?
no
Then why?
because you have 1000 friends on facebook which means you are popular. I find popularity hot sexy. OMG you got a new friend request ... do me now... DO ME NOW!


----------



## elvin jones (Dec 12, 2011)

Hey this thread was inspired by what I said a few days ago! Like you said in that thread it is way more shallow to overlook repulsive looks just for their money.


----------



## Invisiblehandicap (Jul 31, 2011)

a) its worse to pick partners based on looks.

People EARN social status( idk how that is attractive but whatever)

If you like someone only for their looks, you like nothing about them. Because their looks are not part of who they are. Its not part of what makes them different from everybody else. What would stop you from dumping this girl for another more attractive one the second you see them?


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

As someone who is on a social anxiety forum, among others, I suspect that most people here are not that social, or don't have great social statuses.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

Well said, joinmartin. It is more shallow to judge someone on looks.

Status is an aspect of someone's personality as well, which means that it isn't shallow at all to like someone for their personality.


----------



## theseventhkey (Jul 22, 2012)

I'd say looks, because you can't do anything about it, unless you get surgery. You earn/win your social status. For instance, maybe your good at what you do, and that attracts people to you or you win the lottery, we all have opportunities to come up socially, but looks wise you are pretty much stuck.


----------



## orbero (Jul 20, 2012)

Picking a partner based on looks is not shallow. Status will only get you a ons, not a relationship.


----------



## huh (Mar 19, 2007)

Invisiblehandicap said:


> a) its worse to pick partners based on looks.
> 
> People EARN social status( idk how that is attractive but whatever)


Most people do not earn their social status, they are typically born into it. Wealth and status is generally passed down. But I suppose it depends exactly what kind of social status we are talking about. At this view, they no more earned their social status than someone earned their looks.


----------



## Dissonance (Dec 27, 2011)

both are superficial but it's how it works.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

It's about the same. Beauty digging is just as bad as gold digging.


----------



## hrnmhmm (Feb 23, 2012)

^ Gold digging implies manipulation. They both mean you're setting hard requirements. What does beauty digging imply that gold digging does not?

Choosing for wealth is more advantageous. Does that make it any less superficial? What motivates a person to choose for beauty? For wealth?


----------



## TPower (Feb 3, 2011)

Status = / = wealth


----------



## jungleboy (Aug 19, 2012)

Both looks and personality are important to me when picking a partner. Although, if I had to pick one over the other, it would have to be personality. I have experienced both situations, where I have entered a relationship because I found a girl really attractive, pretty much for lustful reasons. But, it didn't end up lasting long because I found her personality to be repulsive. On the flip side, I have befriended a girl whom at first I didnt find that attractive. But once i got to know her I really found myself chasing after her and found her to be very very attractive. So, at the end of the day I would say it's a mixture of both looks and personality that matters when picking a partner. I do realize that the original post asked for looks vs social status, but I don't believe that social status should matter. Of course, then I would state that picking a partner based on looks would be more shallow.


----------



## lyric (Aug 21, 2011)

Gold digging is pretty shallow. But at least when going after a rich person, you're bound to get more out of it. People lose their looks once they hit a certain age so it's silly to invest in looks alone when in a relationship.


----------



## low (Sep 27, 2009)

TPower said:


> Picking partners based on their looks
> 
> or
> 
> ...


The latter is more superficial. The first one is at least more biologically honest. The second set of traits are more social aspect based (and what you can get from them) and so are more superficial.


----------



## theseventhkey (Jul 22, 2012)

huh said:


> Most people do not earn their social status, they are typically born into it. Wealth and status is generally passed down. But I suppose it depends exactly what kind of social status we are talking about. At this view, they no more earned their social status than someone earned their looks.


I feel there are ways you can be proactive to raise your status such as finding a hustle that your good at and making tons of dough and friends knowing how to do it, looks there is nothing...absolutely nothing you can (facewise) do. There are countless examples of how people came from nothing to be something.


----------



## huh (Mar 19, 2007)

theseventhkey said:


> I feel there are ways you can be proactive to raise your status such as finding a hustle that your good at and making tons of dough and friends knowing how to do it, looks there is nothing...absolutely nothing you can (facewise) do. There are countless examples of how people came from nothing to be something.


In the same way, you can be proactive with your looks by eating healthy, exercising, practicing good hygiene, dressing well, etc. There's obviously a cut off point where you are either considered conventionally good looking or not, but those things do add up to help.

But when you think about looks and how lots of it is a genetic lottery, I'd argue that social status can be the same way in a certain sense. It comes down to genes + family + upbringing + your location + luck. The factors involved may be more complex and varied than looks, but that doesn't make it any less deterministic. People, especially here in the United States, like to talk about their individually hard fought efforts to obtain something like a college education, a well paying job, or all their money well at the same time ignoring all the factors that made it obtainable for them in the first place.


----------



## hrnmhmm (Feb 23, 2012)

joinmartin said:


> Status (though there is a certain type of inherited status) is usually built and created by the person. Personality informs status. Technically speaking, personality also informs looks because the happier people tend not to abuse their bodies but that's another story. *Point is: status is something that has been constructed by the person. It is not automatically something some was given through their genes.*





theseventhkey said:


> I'd say looks, because you can't do anything about it, unless you get surgery. You earn/win your social status. For instance, maybe your good at what you do, and that attracts people to you or you win the lottery, *we all have opportunities to come up socially,* but looks wise you are pretty much stuck.


I don't think success entirely qualifies as something we construct on our own. I get how it's useful to call social status a 'choice'. For the infrastructure; allowing us to differentiate between classes of power and influence in society. But we're products of circumstance. No one on SAS asked for a disability. No one unsuccessful wanted to be that way.

So while social status may imply health, selecting for it is not above selecting for attractiveness, which may imply the same.


----------



## theseventhkey (Jul 22, 2012)

huh said:


> In the same way, you can be proactive with your looks by eating healthy, exercising, practicing good hygiene, dressing well, etc. There's obviously a cut off point where you are either considered conventionally good looking or not, but those things do add up to help.
> 
> But when you think about looks and how lots of it is a genetic lottery, I'd argue that social status can be the same way in a certain sense. It comes down to genes + family + upbringing + your location + luck. The factors involved may be more complex and varied than looks, but that doesn't make it any less deterministic. People, especially here in the United States, like to talk about their individually hard fought efforts to obtain something like a college education, a well paying job, or all their money well at the same time ignoring all the factors that made it obtainable for them in the first place.


I said "facewise", I know you can get a six pack, but if you look like a science experiment in the face, biceps and abs won't cut it. Okay there is basically 2 ways to "up" your social status the easy way(born into it) or the hard way(finding your own path). Honestly either way both of them are pretty sh#tty it's not a day goes by that I can't come up with a reason not to like people.


----------



## Furious Ming (Dec 13, 2011)

Both are bad, but picking someone based on their status just seems parasitic.


----------



## huh (Mar 19, 2007)

theseventhkey said:


> I said "facewise", I know you can get a six pack, but if you look like a science experiment in the face, biceps and abs won't cut it. Okay there is basically 2 ways to "up" your social status the easy way(born into it) or the hard way(finding your own path). Honestly either way both of them are pretty sh#tty it's not a day goes by that I can't come up with a reason not to like people.


I know what you said, I was making the point that the same way some people seem to work their way up in social status it is also possible to make yourself more appealing physically. There are limits to the extent you can change either, it's just that one is more obvious to pin down the causes and where they stem from. Changing social status the hard way, as you put it, is still dependent on factors out of your control.


----------



## little toaster (Jul 5, 2012)

I'm not sure about the social status, since she could be faking it when she has an audience and not that nice or caring when we talk alone.


----------



## Thinkerbell (Jul 8, 2012)

All the men will say status, but obviously "looks" is more shallow.


----------



## calichick (Jul 30, 2010)

The secret is to make it seem like you "like" them for their "heart" and "personality" when in reality it's their looks and wallet which make you go wild.

Way of the world..

He is the nicest most normal down to earth guy I've ever met= he's tall, young, has a good head of hair

I have "chemistry" with this guy= I want to see what he's packing

I see a "future" with this man=his paycheck meets my standards

He's a "family-oriented" man= I want his genetics for my future babies

He's "edgy" and "different"= I haven't met a guy hotter than him

Personality doesn't exist, just a set of predefined standards lmao


----------



## TPower (Feb 3, 2011)

Thinkerbell said:


> All the men will say status, but obviously "looks" is more shallow.


Really?

You think choosing a man in function of other people's opinions isn't shallow? In that very situation, you are caring about nothing else but your reputation.

A full grown adult does what he wants, when he wants it, and allows no one to dictate what he should, or shouldn't do.

Assuming you are attracted to a man by his status, we could naturally assume that you would be turned off by low-status men. But what if the said guy was nice and caring, and even cute? Wouldn't that be incredibly stupid to reject him because other people don't value him?


----------



## RelinquishedHell (Apr 10, 2012)

They are both equally shallow. But it is the natural order of things.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

I don't think either are shallow necessarily, but both _can _be shallow. Let me explain.

*If you pick someone who's good looking, but you like their personality, that isn't shallow.

If you pick someone who has a good career, but you love their personality, that isn't shallow.*

However, picking someone _just because_ they are good looking, or _just because _they have a good career, does make you shallow.


----------



## mdiada (Jun 18, 2012)

youngloc said:


> I would say picking partners based on their social status, just picking a friend for that reason is shallow to me.
> 
> Can you imaginate that convo:
> 
> ...


:haha


----------



## Invisiblehandicap (Jul 31, 2011)

huh said:


> Most people do not earn their social status, they are typically born into it. Wealth and status is generally passed down. But I suppose it depends exactly what kind of social status we are talking about. At this view, they no more earned their social status than someone earned their looks.


Yes it really does depend on the type.


----------



## lyric (Aug 21, 2011)

calichick said:


> The secret is to make it seem like you "like" them for their "heart" and "personality" when in reality it's their looks and wallet which make you go wild.
> 
> Way of the world..
> 
> ...


:lol


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

I don't get you people who say picking partners based on looks is shallow. What the hell are you supposed to do? Do you pick the most rotten worm infested apple from the tree and pretend it's sweet and juicy!? If physical attraction doesn't factor into the relationships you like, make sure i never date you. I wouldn't enjoy you placing a bag over my head and you acting like you enjoy it! WTF
But yea, nobody should care about social status, that WOULD be shallow, i think.


----------



## srschirm (Jun 25, 2006)

SomebodyWakeME said:


> I don't get you people who say picking partners based on looks is shallow. What the hell are you supposed to do? Do you pick the most rotten worm infested apple from the tree and pretend it's sweet and juicy!? If physical attraction doesn't factor into the relationships you like, make sure i never date you. I wouldn't enjoy you placing a bag over my head and you acting like you enjoy it! WTF
> But yea, nobody should care about social status, that WOULD be shallow, i think.


I pretty much agree with this.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

If you're basing what is more shallow based upon two shallow things already then I would say they are equally shallow


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

Well, technically, they are all fair game. I don't know if they are really shallow or not given that everyone is attracted to different things. All I'm saying is that if the person thinks two things are shallow and he/she tries to compare them, then no matter what they will both be shallow answers. I think this answer is subjective. Either "shallow" answer could be more shallow depending on the person. I think in general they both disregard total personality.

I can't really answer it better than that atm. If you have a better perspective, by all means, share.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

joinmartin said:


> People rarely pick partners based on one variable alone (despite the thoughts of those who isolate and worship one particular variable involved in the creation of attraction and act as if that one variable is the be all and end all).
> 
> But what I understand to be the point of this thread is you're only given two variables to use to pick partners (looks and status) and the question is: which of those two variables is more shallow?
> 
> ...


I think this is a pretty just assessment. However, I would simply like to add that status can also be seen as a person of high self-control or stature (like confidence), not only outside materials or influences. People assume confident people are likely of high status. Does this make sense? But then again, your explanation falls into the same both categories.

W/E!


----------



## hrnmhmm (Feb 23, 2012)

joinmartin said:


> On the subject of status I'd argue that it can be inherited and determined by factors outside of a person's control but observable truths in the real world show that the majority of status is constructed/forged by the individual themselves. Even those "born into status" need to actually work at it to get the best results from their gift.


You'd be arguing that status informs of more relevant factors than appearance, and therefore appearance is more shallow. This is a good point, but it's not without problems: You'd be rewarding the successful with respect for their actions, while ignoring both their good fortune and the hardships of the less fortunate.

It's not hard to see how a lower class, mentally handicapped person with drug-abusing parents, could have trouble competing, out in the real world, against a healthy person of modest upbringing, from an upper-middle class family; by no fault of the former. Similarly, given two people of identical class and upbringing, one will most likely be more successful than the other in adulthood. Their fate will be determined by their experiences and opportunities.

As convenient as it is to ignore the fact, even our motivation to succeed is not entirely within our control. We're products of circumstance. Nothing has changed in that respect since the dawn of life.

So which is more shallow?

The relevant differences between status and appearance can be reduced into one superseding category - attractive factors outside of our control - thereby eliminating the difference between them. One isn't worse than the other.

But, when a person decides to date someone based on their appearance, is their decision based on attraction, or self-interest? I would say on average it's based more on raw physiological attraction than self-interest.

When the decision is based on status, is it based on attraction, or self-interest? I would say on average it's based on self-interest more than raw attraction.

I would also say basing the decision on self-interest is more superficial than basing it on attraction, because interpersonal attraction is what drives romantic relationships.

However, different people are attracted to different things, so I don't know. This all sort of boils down to a gender war.

Edit: Never mind. Interpersonal attraction is hard to define; it might include self-interest, so. They're both shallow, I'll leave it at that.


----------



## huh (Mar 19, 2007)

Invisiblehandicap said:


> Yes it really does depend on the type.


Actually, the more I think about it the more I'm not so sure it does. What can we really say that we "earned" in life? I'm not too sure how to go about defining that. As I mentioned in a previous post...



huh said:


> But when you think about looks and how lots of it is a genetic lottery, I'd argue that social status can be the same way in a certain sense. It comes down to genes + family + upbringing + your location + luck. The factors involved may be more complex and varied than looks, but that doesn't make it any less deterministic. People, especially here in the United States, like to talk about their individually hard fought efforts to obtain something like a college education, a well paying job, or all their money well at the same time ignoring all the factors that made it obtainable for them in the first place.


Anyways, for the record, I think basing your decision solely on looks or status is rather shallow.


----------



## pita (Jan 17, 2004)

Ignoring everything else about the person is shallow. Incorporating looks/status into your overall equation = not that bad.


----------



## hrnmhmm (Feb 23, 2012)

huh said:


> But when you think about looks and how lots of it is a genetic lottery, I'd argue that social status can be the same way in a certain sense. It comes down to genes + family + upbringing + your location + luck. The factors involved may be more complex and varied than looks, but that doesn't make it any less deterministic. People, especially here in the United States, like to talk about their individually hard fought efforts to obtain something like a college education, a well paying job, or all their money well at the same time ignoring all the factors that made it obtainable for them in the first place.


You're way more articulate than me. :teeth


----------



## Thinkerbell (Jul 8, 2012)

SomebodyWakeME said:


> I don't get you people who say picking partners based on looks is shallow. What the hell are you supposed to do? Do you pick the most rotten worm infested apple from the tree and pretend it's sweet and juicy!? If physical attraction doesn't factor into the relationships you like, make sure i never date you. I wouldn't enjoy you placing a bag over my head and you acting like you enjoy it! WTF
> But yea, nobody should care about social status, that WOULD be shallow, i think.


Are you comparing human beings to ****ing apples? You're shallow.



joinmartin said:


> Interesting perspective.
> 
> Could you explain in your view how looks and status are equally shallow? Would love to hear more of your thoughts on this.


Shallow is shallow is shallow. Men try to justify their lustful shallowness by any means. These same men will ***** about being rejected by a shallow women. I don't feelsorry for 'em.


----------



## Thinkerbell (Jul 8, 2012)

Besides, in many societies social status is gained. Choosing a man based on earned "social status" (where do you guys come up with this stuff lol) seems rational.


----------



## To22 (Apr 6, 2012)

Shallow is a lack of depth. Someone is only shallow when many things aren't taken into consideration when judging others.

Either of the 2 mentioned would be shallow. If you date someone for just one of these reasons and everything else is just a bonus you are a shallow person.

We each were given a scenario. Putting more emphasis on the scenario rather than the person seems shallow to me.


----------



## Ape in space (May 31, 2010)

I should write this up somewhere because I've said this a million times and I'm always having to refer to it:

- Shallowness means reducing a person to only one or a few traits.
- Judging someone based on a personality trait is just as shallow as judging someone based on looks. Either way, you're reducing the person to one characteristic. Unfortunately the person judging on the personality trait is given a free pass and praised as being noble, while the person judging on looks is lambasted.
- The same applies to judging someone by social status.

Anyway, what is social status? What virtue does it have? Bullies are popular. Lying, manipulative politicians are popular. All kinds of idiots are popular. If you are judging purely on status without considering all that, that IS shallow. And if you ARE taking into consideration the stuff that produced their status, then you're not judging on social status any more. You're judging other things. So of what relevance is social status?


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

Thinkerbell said:


> Are you comparing human beings to ****ing apples? You're shallow.
> 
> Shallow is shallow is shallow. Men try to justify their lustful shallowness by any means. These same men will ***** about being rejected by a shallow women. I don't feelsorry for 'em.


Worm infested apples! 
It's only human nature to form relationships with people you are attracted to. To think otherwise seems a little nutty to me. Using my apple analogy to call me shallow? That's kinda ironic isn't it? It has to do with selection. Picking something appealing to you. Now don't be silly.


----------



## Thinkerbell (Jul 8, 2012)

Be a man and own up. Or shut up. "Nutty" you say? Is that what you call everything you're incapable of comprehending. Must be a nutty nutty world.


----------



## John316C (May 1, 2011)

popularity is more shallow. looks are not shallow unless thats all you see. popularity is not innate. its not native to the person therefor not personal. genetic makeup is a personal thing.


----------



## SoWrongItsRight (May 9, 2012)

Do people typically start a conversation hoping for something more when they don't even find the person attractive? That doesn't make sense to me. I'm talking about irl not through the Internet. How would you have a relationship if you aren't even physically attracted to someone. That's not being shallow to me.


----------



## huh (Mar 19, 2007)

I find it amusing how both guys and girls justify and rationalize why their decision is not shallow while the other is. Such is human nature.


----------



## T-Bone (Oct 1, 2010)

Thinkerbell said:


> Be a man and own up. Or shut up. "Nutty" you say? Is that what you call everything you're incapable of comprehending. Must be a nutty nutty world.


Well i can see why you didn't quote me lmao. 
Be a man and own up to what? My Opinion that people should not get involved when they're not physically attracted to one another? That is indeed my opinion. There, i owned up to it. 
Are you in dire need of an argument or something? It helps to have one first, just for future reference. The topic is not argument worthy to begin with.


----------



## To22 (Apr 6, 2012)

Ape in space said:


> I should write this up somewhere because I've said this a million times and I'm always having to refer to it:
> 
> - Shallowness means reducing a person to only one or a few traits.
> - Judging someone based on a personality trait is just as shallow as judging someone based on looks. Either way, you're reducing the person to one characteristic. Unfortunately the person judging on the personality trait is given a free pass and praised as being noble, while the person judging on looks is lambasted.
> ...


Very well put. I completely agree. I believe that like you said, reducing a person's value to few traits is the true definition of shallowness. Neither of the two (looks or status) weigh differently on the scale. The value of each trait is bound to differ from person to person but shallow is a matter of both quality & quantity.

Also, I see your point about social status too. I have thought similar things. Social status is just as superficial as looks. Social status is merely a point in time. A point in time that has an infinite amount of reasons as to why a person got to that point. Status, power, & respect is much more easily earned when someone has little restrictions.


----------



## dh94 (Jul 19, 2013)

komorikun said:


> It's about the same. Beauty digging is just as bad as gold digging.


This is true.
I hate it when guys act like beauty digging is fine but gold digging isnt. Guys should stop being two-faced people by acting like when a guy and a girl do similar things, the girl is bad but the guy isnt bad or less bad than the girl.


----------



## dh94 (Jul 19, 2013)

Thinkerbell said:


> All the men will say status, but obviously "looks" is more shallow.


This.


----------



## aaaa1111bbbb2222cccc3333 (May 10, 2015)

Both of course, but judging someone on looks is influenced by our biology so it's hardly escapable, everyone would prefer a partner they find at least moderately attractive to their taste, and that's regardless of gender. Judging on status however is completely, 100% shallow. Only scum judge others on the money they make. So i would vote for the latter as being slightly worse.


----------



## Whatev (Feb 6, 2012)

Dang a TPower thread. 

R.I.P.

Someone bump afff's now.


----------



## nubly (Nov 2, 2006)

dh94 said:


> This is true.
> I hate it when guys act like beauty digging is fine but gold digging isnt. Guys should stop being two-faced people by acting like when a guy and a girl do similar things, the girl is bad but the guy isnt bad or less bad than the girl.


Guys will drop their standards for sex though.


----------



## dh94 (Jul 19, 2013)

nubly said:


> Guys will drop their standards for sex though.


This doesnt mean anything. Guys do this out of desperation.


----------



## dh94 (Jul 19, 2013)

thedevilsblood said:


> Both of course, but judging someone on looks is influenced by our biology so it's hardly escapable, everyone would prefer a partner they find at least moderately attractive to their taste, and that's regardless of gender. Judging on status however is completely, 100% shallow. Only scum judge others on the money they make. So i would vote for the latter as being slightly worse.


Well, liking someone for the resources they have is just as biological as liking someone for their beauty. But guys will only focus on how liking someone for their beauty is biological. Because they want to rationalize their behavior and act like women are bad.


----------



## truant (Jul 4, 2014)

Dating someone because you're lonely. Just as shallow.

Dating someone because they'll never challenge you or push you out of your comfort zone. Just as shallow.

Dating anyone because you hope they'll give you something you want is shallow, regardless of what it is. Who cares if the particular sensory stimuli you desire come from their appearance or their money or their social status or their sense of humor or their intelligence or their sense of adventure? It's all the same: I want to date you because you make me feel good.

Men and women, still both equally shallow, just like they've always been.


----------



## DistraughtOwl (Mar 1, 2014)

Being attracted to your partner is way more important than their social status so yes I think it's way more shallow and awful. Although ONLY being with someone because of their looks is kind of ****ty too.

Honestly I don't understand how anyone could be in a relationship with someone based only one or two qualities. I'll only date someone if we can connect on multiple levels. Sexually, physically, personality, hobbies, etc.


----------



## Ntln (Apr 27, 2012)

truant said:


> Dating someone because you're lonely. Just as shallow.
> 
> Dating someone because they'll never challenge you or push you out of your comfort zone. Just as shallow.
> 
> ...


Good answer, sums it up well.

Though, I will say to me picking a partner based on wealth, social status etc is more shallow to me than picking a partner based on looks. Looks are still a part of the general attraction you feel towards a person. Dating someone for wealth or status is just cold gain and using someone.


----------



## livetolovetolive (Jun 11, 2015)

I cant distinguish between them all that well. They seem like one and the same


----------



## HelpfulHero (Aug 14, 2013)

Invisiblehandicap said:


> a) its worse to pick partners based on looks.
> 
> People EARN social status( idk how that is attractive but whatever)
> 
> If you like someone only for their looks, you like nothing about them. Because their looks are not part of who they are. Its not part of what makes them different from everybody else. What would stop you from dumping this girl for another more attractive one the second you see them?


People have to earn attractiveness as well by working out, etc. Sometimes social status is influenced by factors outside your control such as being born in a very poor country or being molested as a child. Looks are also possible indicators of genetic fitness/fertility whereas social status is influenced more by wealth than genes.


----------



## AussiePea (Mar 27, 2007)

To me the latter is less "shallow" since it also says a lot more about them as a person as they're more likely to be goal driven and ambitious people.


----------



## Ape in space (May 31, 2010)

There is nothing wrong with being shallow. People throw that word around without even thinking about what it means. It doesn't matter if you like someone for only one thing. There's no moral imperative to be all into someone's deep thoughts and feelings and hopes and dreams and all that. Am I shallow because I don't care about the hopes and dreams of every human I pass on the street every day? Well in the strict sense, yes. But no one would consider that wrong in any way. The only thing that's wrong is when you deliberately mislead someone into believing that you like other things about them when you actually only like that one thing.

And I'll reiterate my previous post in this thread that there's no reason to single out looks as being more shallow than anything else, including personality traits. "Shallowness" happens whenever you reduce someone to only one or a small number of qualities. That can include social status as well as looks, or even things like sense of humour, IQ, ability to defeat predators, etc. (And again, there's nothing wrong with doing that in itself.)

And finally, why on earth would you bump this thread?? But thanks for the TPower nostalgia in any case.


----------

