Shallow

Ergo Christobal

Ergo Christobal

Talking Lightbulb
Donor
MBTI
INFJ
In a person, I see two sides. There is the personality, and the outward appearance. Inside and outside. For a potential relationship, my priorities are as follows: 60% personality and 40% looks. To be a "passing" relationship, I would need a total of 70%.

In other words, no matter how hot they are, they will only get to 40% of a relationship grade. This is failing. If they have at least half a good personality, it might get to 70%. This is still just a mediocre relationship:
appearance=40%(top appearance score) personality=30% (half-score) = 70% = pass (barely)

There could also be a totally interesting person with a great personality, but that needs at least 10% physical attraction for me to consider dating.
Personality=60% (perfect score) attractiveness=10% (low score) = 70% = pass


Part of me feels pretty shallow for having this conviction. I've thought it through pretty well, and I'm not really too ashamed of it. Looks matter, at least to some extent.

What would be your looks:personality ratio?
What would be your "passing" grade?
What do you think of this horrible judging of people?
 
I can completely understand where you're coming from. You have to be attracted to the person to really be with them. I don't think anyone really wants to be with someone who doesn't find them attractive. My perspective is a bit different, but I realize I'm a weird one in that respect. Personality, of course has to be a requirement, or there would be no way to build anything.
 
What if you had a really strong relationship and your partner got burnt badly in a fire and no longer had their looks, could you maintain the relationship running on 60% (assuming they had perfect personality)?
 
Quinlan said:
What if you had a really strong relationship and your partner got burnt badly in a fire and no longer had their looks, could you maintain the relationship running on 70% (assuming they had perfect personality)?
Click to expand...
even at below 70% with the extreme burns, I could probably still be in the relationship. Depends on how long the relationship was for, and how much chemistry had been built.

So I guess extra credit points are awarded with time.
 
60% personality, 40% looks sounds about right for me as well, though I am admittedly picky and so a passing grade would be more like an 80%. :tongue1:

As much as I'd like to say appearance means nothing to me in a potential partner, it would be unfair to date someone who I knew I could not feel even some sort of physical attraction for. Both emotional and physical attraction must be present for anything to work out.
 
I can't put numbers on it, but she needs to be attractive enough for me to want to have sex with and needs to be nice and smart enough for me to want to speak with. Standards are very high, I know.

I wont say personality is more or less important than looks. I think they are both different and both necessary. Knowing the social psychology behind physical attractiveness, I know that in my mind it isn't really possible to separate the two anyway. Studies have found (ask me if you want book reference/recommendation) that the single most important factor in determining whether people enjoyed a random date with someone was their physical attractiveness. We tend to assume physically attractive people will be more nice and fun.
 
To me they aren't independent factors the better their personality the more I grow to like their looks, the better their looks the more open I am to their personality.
 
Dragon said:
I can't put numbers on it, but she needs to be attractive enough for me to want to have sex with and needs to be nice and smart enough for me to want to speak with. Standards are very high, I know.

I wont say personality is more or less important than looks. I think they are both different and both necessary. Knowing the social psychology behind physical attractiveness, I know that in my mind it isn't really possible to separate the two anyway. Studies have found (ask me if you want book reference/recommendation) that the single most important factor in determining whether people enjoyed a random date with someone was their physical attractiveness. We tend to assume physically attractive people will be more nice and fun.
Click to expand...
This is interesting, as I usually assume that attractive people have lower personality scores. Not all of them, it's just in the eyes. I can usually see what people are like by looking at their eyes. Or at least, I think I can.
 
I cannot base a romantic relationship completely on looks. Neither can I base a romance purely on personality, it made me sad when I finally came to this realization but I know I require visual stimulation along with mental and emotional. While it does require a combination I cannot put a firm percentage or numeric scale to it. There is even a portion that is beyond personality and looks, how their voice sounds means alot too. Some voices are like nails on a chalkboard to me and I cannot stick around someone that agitates my auditory senses. In some ways I guess I am quite picky, but I feel that for me to be the man I can be to a potential partner I cannot with good conscience start something I know will not progress into at least a good experience for myself and the woman in question.

I'm not trying to infer any sort of negativity on your process, I feel everyone has to have their own way of deciding whom they could be with and whom they cannot. If your process requires a visualization of a numeric value I understand that some individuals think like that. I do not think that you should feel any less of yourself if you are weighing all of a human being and deciding if you like the entire package.
 
Skathac said:
I cannot base a romantic relationship completely on looks. Neither can I base a romance purely on personality, it made me sad when I finally came to this realization but I know I require visual stimulation along with mental and emotional. While it does require a combination I cannot put a firm percentage or numeric scale to it. There is even a portion that is beyond personality and looks, how their voice sounds means alot too. Some voices are like nails on a chalkboard to me and I cannot stick around someone that agitates my auditory senses. In some ways I guess I am quite picky, but I feel that for me to be the man I can be to a potential partner I cannot with good conscience start something I know will not progress into at least a good experience for myself and the woman in question.

I'm not trying to infer any sort of negativity on your process, I feel everyone has to have their own way of deciding whom they could be with and whom they cannot. If your process requires a visualization of a numeric value I understand that some individuals think like that. I do not think that you should feel any less of yourself if you are weighing all of a human being and deciding if you like the entire package.
Click to expand...
I'm just trying to assign exact values to how I important I feel looks and personality are. I was sad too when I could only get the looks down to 40%. I've not been in many relationships, so I can't really say my method works.

I brought this up because I met someone who has a great personality, but to me is unattractive. This person is interested in dating me, and now I feel like the biggest ass on earth because I can't date her simply because I'm not attracted to her, it feels very shallow indeed.

I think most people agree that looks are less important than personality, but we all hold it as more important than we would like to.
 
I agree with Dragon in that I think it works both ways. We generally assume (subconsciously) that physically attractive people are smarter, kinder, etc. In addition, often you meet someone that you do not find that attractive at first, but once you get to know their (lovely) personality, you find them much more physically attractive. I have experienced both situations.

Not everybody is attracted to everybody. I tried to explain this once to a friend who had joined a dating site. He complained that 60% of girls stopped talking to him after they saw his picture. I tried to explain that this didn't necessarily mean he was unattractive; it just meant that these particular girls didn't find him attractive. Everyone had different preferences. For example, when I see Johnny Depp, I get the same feeling in my throat as I do when eating a brussel sprout, but I know there are many, many girls who, in contrast, think that he is the hottest guy ever.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that everyone has different preferences and standards, and that doesn't necessarily make you shallow, or an ass, or anything like that. It just means that you know what you want.
 
Ergo Christobal said:
This is interesting, as I usually assume that attractive people have lower personality scores. Not all of them, it's just in the eyes. I can usually see what people are like by looking at their eyes. Or at least, I think I can.
Click to expand...

The truth is that you can't tell a person's personality just by looking at them, including their eyes. Often times you can be right, but you can be sure that you are right. Plus, there is the whole issue with people conforming to the expectations of others.
 
I look at both, I don't look at it in a percentage because I rather not complicate things.

I believe in full attraction; someone you want to rip their clothes off, pull their hair and kiss them, and someone you want to cuddle with and talk about virtually everything.

A sexy soul and look.

The best of both worlds.

That's what I'm talking about.

And I don't think anyone should ever settle in any way, shape, or form.
 
Timeless said:
I look at both, I don't look at it in a percentage because I rather not complicate things.

I believe in full attraction; someone you want to rip their clothes off, pull their hair and kiss them, and someone you want to cuddle with and talk about virtually everything.

A sexy soul and look.

The best of both worlds.

That's what I'm talking about.

And I don't think anyone should ever settle in any way, shape, or form.
Click to expand...

if you never settle in 'any way shape or form' does that mean when your lover gets sick or breaks thier arm youre out the window?
to me that sounds like a selfish thing because your partner probably settled at least a tiny bit for you
 
Dragon said:
The truth is that you can't tell a person's personality just by looking at them, including their eyes. Often times you can be right, but you can be sure that you are right. Plus, there is the whole issue with people conforming to the expectations of others.
Click to expand...
You are very right. I need to think about people more complexly. I usually dismiss people as disagreeable after talking to them for a few minuets, and their eyes are a huge factor in that time.

How often do you think people act the way we project into them?
 
denkster06 said:
if you never settle in 'any way shape or form' does that mean when your lover gets sick or breaks thier arm youre out the window?
to me that sounds like a selfish thing because your partner probably settled at least a tiny bit for you
Click to expand...
I'm not really talking about perfection of another though, I mean attraction of another.

Most people "settle down" and are really deep down not happy with their choices; in the end they cheat, throw fits, and kick and scream, either at themselves or others. I guess some people think it's okay to be in a shitty marriage then no marriage at all, people have their reasons. I just don't see reason why somebody would want to jump a sinking ship though. Why not rock the boat instead?

:wink:
 
Edited because I clearly hadn't read what I quoted well enough... lol oops.

I almost don't even notice what other people look like until their personalities catch my eye. It's actions that attract me, and hold my attention. The way someone makes me feel is huge... that is partly pure physical attraction, I suppose, but looks aren't really required for things like pheromones to work. I don't really know how exactly to put it... That's why I wasn't planning on going in to it...

I'm sure all of that sounds really strange to someone who doesn't work the same way... One of my exes caught my eye by being helpful to me when I was injured. I started to notice nice things that he did for others, that's when I actually looked at him. Otherwise, I kinda stay in my own head... With another, I found him attractive because he could command the attention of an entire room full of complete strangers, using comedy to bring them all together, into his world... That's when I noticed his eyes... (I'd already known him for 3 or 4 months, if that makes things clearer...)

After something like that draws me in, some action or mannerism, I want to know the person... As I get to know them, either I am pulled further in, or the niceties prove to be a facade (in the past, I'd stay to fix people, upon request... terrible idea) With further interactions, I start to notice little things.... things other people don't notice, maybe things not everyone would like... like crooked teeth, or something of that nature... those are the very little things that I begin to love... It's only at this point that I'm really aware of what the person looks like as a whole picture. This is when I know their face, and could probably remember it if they were gone for a few months... (after 4 or 5 months, all bets are pretty much off, unless I've got an ample supply of pictures... or we've really known each other THAT long) This is also the peak of attraction for me. It's often 6 months after I meet someone.

Like I said, I'm weird, but that's how I work.
 
Last edited:
Ergo Christobal said:
You are very right. I need to think about people more complexly. I usually dismiss people as disagreeable after talking to them for a few minuets, and their eyes are a huge factor in that time.

How often do you think people act the way we project into them?
Click to expand...

If you make it clear enough, almost always. If you are having a 5 minute conversation, it is to a much lesser degree.

I have known people who are very different from how they will come off in a 5 minute conversation though. Some girls hide their intelligence because they are too focused on being pretty and likable, and I'm sure similar things happen with guys.
 
I can't rate it but I'm very much a person that looks inside then out. Luckily for me Dove exceeds in both areas. :D
 
Ergo Christobal said:
In a person, I see two sides. There is the personality, and the outward appearance. Inside and outside. For a potential relationship, my priorities are as follows: 60% personality and 40% looks. To be a "passing" relationship, I would need a total of 70%.

In other words, no matter how hot they are, they will only get to 40% of a relationship grade. This is failing. If they have at least half a good personality, it might get to 70%. This is still just a mediocre relationship:
appearance=40%(top appearance score) personality=30% (half-score) = 70% = pass (barely)

There could also be a totally interesting person with a great personality, but that needs at least 10% physical attraction for me to consider dating.
Personality=60% (perfect score) attractiveness=10% (low score) = 70% = pass


Part of me feels pretty shallow for having this conviction. I've thought it through pretty well, and I'm not really too ashamed of it. Looks matter, at least to some extent.

What would be your looks:personality ratio?
What would be your "passing" grade?
What do you think of this horrible judging of people?
Click to expand...

What would be your looks:personality ratio?

hm.. I would think 40-60

What would be your "passing" grade?

passing grade eh.. now that ones more complicated. sometimes some people start out as a 40-20 and as i get to know her better, she becomes more attractive physically to me, moving up the scale. so it would depend

What do you think of this horrible judging of people?
depends really. personally, I dont use this though. if theres an attraction, I will weigh up how feasible and practical it is. if its feasible and practical, then i would go for it. if not, again, I'll have to see
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top