• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Off the Deep-End

nonselective vs. selective


  • Total voters
    10

thoughtlost

Honeyed Water
Joined
May 20, 2013
Messages
745
Enneagram
N/A
I think that there are people who get deep slower and people who get deep quicker.

Those that get deep quickly with others are those that purely like the exchange of thoughts/feelings/ideas/knowledge concepts. They connect with anyone who is willing to talk to them about ...whatever is interesting to them. Usually it's philosophical/sociological type stuff, but it can be more concrete too. Essentially, it's not the person that they feel "connected" to ...it's just the type of conversation/interaction that they are having together that they enjoy. It's about who they can have those conversations/interactions with?


Those that get deep slower with other people can also talk about anything. But 'depth' is not so easily translated in the same way as described above. They can go up to a random person and talk about something as personal as their sex-life or their tough family life... but still don't feel like they have made a deep, meaningful connection with that person. So it's not exactly the conversation they are having that they treasure... but something more intangible.

This is the two ways that I think people experience deepness.
Which pattern do you fall into?
If there are other ways to be "deep" with someone or want to expand/edit on what I've written, please do!!

I tagged a few people (didn't tag everyone I've wanted to ...cause i forget how to spell their names and I am lazy). Those of you who have been tagged don't feel obligated to respond. Anyone should feel free to respond, though.

Double edit: I made a poll... because it deserves one for all to have easy/broad access to how people experience deepness. Still appreciate it if you commented as that gives depth to the polls lol.

EDIT:: I was made aware that the choices were throwing people off by [MENTION=31348]RareBird[/MENTION]. Replace nonselective with conversation-based "deepness" and selective with emotional "deepness". Still do not know if these are better terms, but comment below to let me know how you understand it because people aren't getting my intended meaning.
 
Last edited:

Forever

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
8,551
MBTI Type
NiFi
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Both? I'm sorry. I don't know if I am the one to say I am one or the other. Maybe expand on your second group a bit more?
 

Yama

Permabanned
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
7,684
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
The second one... I'm pretty open with people and share all the time but it's only being "deep" if I feel some sort of connection with the person.
 

thoughtlost

Honeyed Water
Joined
May 20, 2013
Messages
745
Enneagram
N/A
Both? I'm sorry. I don't know if I am the one to say I am one or the other. Maybe expand on your second group a bit more?

I'll try to expand. Sorry for making it confusing. I've never been the best at expressing myself. It's still a fuzzy area for me (I fit into the 2nd category though... so I should be able to expand).

It's not really about being SLOW or FAST ...but I guess selective vs. non-selective. So the faster ones are more non-selective. So let's say your deep conversations/relationships are based on talking about your feelings about what's happens in society ...then anyone who you can talk to about that is what would be a deep relationship. These people can have deep relationships with more people at once, but this is JUST a potential... they don't necessarily have deep relationships with multiple people because ...if they can't talk about deep things with multiple people... then they can't have multiple deep relationships (duh lol).

Those who are more selective (the 2nd category) can talk about those things, but only want to do it with a select person/group. So the depth comes from having the right "person" to talk to rather than having the right kind of "conversation".

Of course, the word deep is subjective and varies from person to person ...so the focus is on how the deepness is expressed.
 

Forever

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
8,551
MBTI Type
NiFi
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I'll try to expand. Sorry for making it confusing. I've never been the best at expressing myself. It's still a fuzzy area for me (I fit into the 2nd category though... so I should be able to expand).

It's not really about being SLOW or FAST ...but I guess selective vs. non-selective. So the faster ones are more non-selective. So let's say your deep conversations/relationships are based on talking about your feelings about what's happens in society ...then anyone who you can talk to about that is what would be a deep relationship. These people can have deep relationships with more people at once.

Those who are more selective (the 2nd category) can talk about those things, but only want to do it with a select person/group. So the depth comes from having the right "person" to talk to rather than having the right kind of "conversation".

Of course, the word deep is subjective and varies from person to person ...so the focus is on how the deepness is expressed.

Hmm, this is going to sound weird. Ideally I should be in the first group, but realistically I am in the second group.

Basically I should be able to talk to anyone deeply, but only certain kinds of people are patient enough or have a suitable personality to handle me.
 

thoughtlost

Honeyed Water
Joined
May 20, 2013
Messages
745
Enneagram
N/A
The second one... I'm pretty open with people and share all the time but it's only being "deep" if I feel some sort of connection with the person.

me too, yo.

I feel like that connection is really ...unexplainable. I just know it when I know it. It's just a feeling that only I understand.
 

thoughtlost

Honeyed Water
Joined
May 20, 2013
Messages
745
Enneagram
N/A
Hmm, this is going to sound weird. Ideally I should be in the first group, but realistically I am in the second group.

Basically I should be able to talk to anyone deeply, but only certain kinds of people are patient enough or have a suitable personality to handle me.

No, that's makes perfect sense! I know someone just like this (they would consider herself to be in that first group ...because it's what she truly wants ...as long as that person is willing to talk about what she wants to talk about ...then that's how deep relationships form for her ...but not everyone is willing to talk about what she wants to talk about).

You really don't sound weird ...because people associate deep with rare ...so people in both groups will find those deep relationships rare.
 

VILLANELLE

New member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
731
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
261
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
I tend to get deep pretty quickly, at least I sometimes find I make fast friends and then we connect. We connect through things, interests, experiences, and the like. And sometimes it's not about having the same experiences, but it's about listening and being there for someone.
 

Peter Deadpan

phallus impudicus
Joined
Dec 14, 2016
Messages
8,883
I think the terms "selective" vs "non-selective" are throwing people off.

I am not THAT selective in who I get "deep" with. I have VERY openly discussed issues regarding my crazy ex or depression with lots of people, so in that sense I am non-selective. I will talk about it with just about anyone if it feels right. But, generally it takes a much different tone with people I am not connecting with deeply. I may be sarcastic or joke about super serious things to make it more comfortable and socially acceptable, if that makes sense. They may even respond with their own experiences, but unless the tone gets more serious, I don't really consider it "deep."

On the other hand, I have had very deep personal discussions with people I have never talked to before online because we were both open and didn't sensor our words, and the more shared the experience is, the more deep it is. It has more to do with connection and openness for me, so I am definitely in the second group, but I will talk about deep things out in the open too.
 

thoughtlost

Honeyed Water
Joined
May 20, 2013
Messages
745
Enneagram
N/A
I think the terms "selective" vs "non-selective" are throwing people off.

I am not THAT selective in who I get "deep" with. I have VERY openly discussed issues regarding my crazy ex or depression with lots of people, so in that sense I am non-selective. I will talk about it with just about anyone if it feels right. But, generally it takes a much different tone with people I am not connecting with deeply. I may be sarcastic or joke about super serious things to make it more comfortable and socially acceptable, if that makes sense. They may even respond with their own experiences, but unless the tone gets more serious, I don't really consider it "deep."

On the other hand, I have had very deep personal discussions with people I have never talked to before online because we were both open and didn't sensor our words, and the more shared the experience is, the more deep it is. It has more to do with connection and openness for me, so I am definitely in the second group, but I will talk about deep things out in the open too.

You are right. The way I mean selective is not the same way everyone else understands it. I just don't know what better words to use. I think this is why no one has checked the first option in the polls. I am like you in the sense that I can go to my roommate and start having a deep/intimate conversations ...but I don't see the connection between me and the person I've just spilled my soul to as deep, which is what really matters to me.

I mean nonselective to mean: do deep relationships form WHEN you can talk about "deep" stuff to, whatever deep means to you?
And selective to mean: do deep relationships form NOT because you've talked about "deep" stuff with someone ...but it's the connection you have with the person that you consider deep?
 

Peter Deadpan

phallus impudicus
Joined
Dec 14, 2016
Messages
8,883
You are right. The way I mean selective is not the same way everyone else understands it. I just don't know what better words to use. I think this is why no one has checked the first option in the polls. I am like you in the sense that I can go to my roommate and start having a deep/intimate conversations ...but I don't see the connection between me and the person I've just spilled my soul to as deep, which is what really matters to me.

I mean nonselective to mean: do deep relationships form WHEN you can talk about "deep" stuff to, whatever deep means to you?
And selective to mean: do deep relationships form NOT because you've talked about "deep" stuff with someone ...but it's the connection you have with the person that you consider deep?

Yes, but I can also connect with a stranger. I guess it has to with how they reciprocate. If there is a certain intangible intimacy there, then I consider it deep. They don't necessary have to agree with what I'm speaking of, but be able to sorta understand it or at least try and reciprocate, and if the conversation continues to evolve, then I consider it deep. The more we see eye to eye, the deeper it is for me. I guess it's definitely a spectrum now that I'm thinking about it.

In fact, I just had a deep conversation a total stranger the other day, and we went through similar experiences so we understood each other. It was deep to me. But if I had the same convo with someone else who maybe didn't understand to that level having not experienced similar, it wouldn't be deep. Am I talking in circles? I think I'm talking in circles.
 

thoughtlost

Honeyed Water
Joined
May 20, 2013
Messages
745
Enneagram
N/A
Yes, but I can also connect with a stranger. I guess it has to with how they reciprocate. If there is a certain intangible intimacy there, then I consider it deep. They don't necessary have to agree with what I'm speaking of, but be able to sorta understand it or at least try and reciprocate, and if the conversation continues to evolve, then I consider it deep. The more we see eye to eye, the deeper it is for me. I guess it's definitely a spectrum now that I'm thinking about it.

In fact, I just had a deep conversation a total stranger the other day, and we went through similar experiences so we understood each other. It was deep to me. But if I had the same convo with someone else who maybe didn't understand to that level having not experienced similar, it wouldn't be deep. Am I talking in circles? I think I'm talking in circles.

No that's okay! I still understand! I do think it can be more of a spectrum for some people. It's not necessarily black and white. It can be for some, maybe.

And I think I get what you're saying. For some, it's really important that they connect with someone who is similar to you in terms of experience.

For some, it's not the life experience that matters, but the kind of conversation, such as "can we talk about philosophy/societal norms and why they suck and entertain me in that way? or do we have to talk about the weather and not analysis the world?". I guess this is what I mean by the 1st option in the poll.

For me, I think it's more about the personal qualities of the person than it is about what was discussed.

This thread is created because my friend is like this. she cares more about the discussion than the intangible aspect of connection. the person is INFJ (MBTI) and she cares more about what they can talk about ...which is why the first option was created. It doesn't matter their life experience or if they have gone through similar things.

Depth is defined by topics in the 1st option.
Depth is defined by personal characteristics in the 2nd.
 

Peter Deadpan

phallus impudicus
Joined
Dec 14, 2016
Messages
8,883
No that's okay! I still understand! I do think it can be more of a spectrum for some people. It's not necessarily black and white. It can be for some, maybe.

And I think I get what you're saying. For some, it's really important that they connect with someone who is similar to you in terms of experience.

For some, it's not the life experience that matters, but the kind of conversation, such as "can we talk about philosophy/societal norms and why they suck and entertain me in that way? or do we have to talk about the weather and not analysis the world?". I guess this is what I mean by the 1st option in the poll.

For me, I think it's more about the personal qualities of the person than it is about what was discussed.

This thread is created because my friend is like this. she cares more about the discussion than the intangible aspect of connection. the person is INFJ (MBTI) and she cares more about what they can talk about ...which is why the first option was created. It doesn't matter their life experience or if they have gone through similar things.

Depth is defined by topics in the 1st option.
Depth is defined by personal characteristics in the 2nd.

Best differentiation right there. I am a bit of both, but really swoon over the second option.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
Depends on present company.

Sure I occasionally faux pas myself into a situation by letting on that I actually know things (and don't know a great deal else), but it's usually safer for me to be a fool. If someone judges me for not bringing great 'deep' thoughts into every situation then that is their problem and their preference, not that I would derail or interrupt other's conversations of that nature.

Besides very often human beings are to depth like skimmed stones across the surface of the sea.

People who obsess too much about concepts like 'depth' or 'connection' tend to be too busy with the worry of how they do or don't look like those things to actually be them, or rather just let them arise.

Our brains are working all the time and those most comfortable with the unconscious automation of this are the ones who most easily slip into meaningful conversation, because they allow themselves to do it and don't expect it at every turn.

Still, I can only say this by my ability to understand the banal & with examination of my banality comes an understanding of the banality of others. Though it doesn't help with the outliers.

I suppose I just have an issue with forcing a certain way of being, even though from time to time I can be forceful in my way of being and hypocritically (like every person) I can't avoid doing this to the world.
 

Yuurei

Noncompliant
Joined
Sep 29, 2016
Messages
4,509
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w7
Eh, I like talking to people but I can count the people I've ever felt a true connection to on one hand.
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I have been puzzled after having emotionally open conversations with some people at how we still didn't connect. I have a friend who I think is probably eSFJ e6, but depsite spending long days doing volunteer work together, we have never cliqued. We have shared lots of ideas and experiences, etc, but there's something still very shallow about our connection. I also spent several weeks travelling with an ENFJ e3 friend and I still feel this wall with her. We both have been very open about many things. I always get this feeling that both of these women are nervous with me. They don't really get me. When I sense that someone else doesn't get me and is uncomfortable because of it, then of course, I don't feel connected to them either.

So I chose the second option. There is no conversation formula for connection, it seems.
 

thoughtlost

Honeyed Water
Joined
May 20, 2013
Messages
745
Enneagram
N/A
I tend to get deep pretty quickly, at least I sometimes find I make fast friends and then we connect. We connect through things, interests, experiences, and the like. And sometimes it's not about having the same experiences, but it's about listening and being there for someone.

Yeah, I guess this is what I was striving to convey in the first option. I was not sure if anyone would get it, but you did it seems. People in the first option can connect by sharing hobbies, emotions, thoughts/opinions/perspectives and the connection really forms when the listener really listens to them is willing to be there to hear you out/be understanding and accepting of that.
 

Dreamer

Potential is My Addiction
Joined
Jul 26, 2015
Messages
4,539
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
794
At first glance, I would say I prefer to make the connection with the person, rather than share in the connection of the topic, but if I'm perfectly honest with myself, I would say I am actually more interested in the topic itself and the shared experience in that topic discussed, rather than who I am having that discussion with. I do find a genuine appeal in getting to know people and their stories, but ultimately, those stories fuel my global hunger for knowledge for people and emotions in a broader sense.
 

Dreamer

Potential is My Addiction
Joined
Jul 26, 2015
Messages
4,539
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
794
I have been puzzled after having emotionally open conversations with some people at how we still didn't connect. I have a friend who I think is probably eSFJ e6, but depsite spending long days doing volunteer work together, we have never cliqued. We have shared lots of ideas and experiences, etc, but there's something still very shallow about our connection. I also spent several weeks travelling with an ENFJ e3 friend and I still feel this wall with her. We both have been very open about many things. I always get this feeling that both of these women are nervous with me. They don't really get me. When I sense that someone else doesn't get me and is uncomfortable because of it, then of course, I don't feel connected to them either.

So I chose the second option. There is no conversation formula for connection, it seems.

I wonder what it is that would give someone the sense that they've "connected" with someone on a deeper level. As you bring up, it might not matter how many stories or incites you share with another person, it seems then, that there is something more, or something particular that would cinch the deal between two people in having a connection form. I've come across this too though, in that I could be having some, what most would call "deep" conversation, but then come away from it feeling as though no progress has been made in feeling something deeper.
 

thoughtlost

Honeyed Water
Joined
May 20, 2013
Messages
745
Enneagram
N/A
At first glance, I would say I prefer to make the connection with the person, rather than share in the connection of the topic, but if I'm perfectly honest with myself, I would say I am actually more interested in the topic itself and the shared experience in that topic discussed, rather than who I am having that discussion with. I do find a genuine appeal in getting to know people and their stories, but ultimately, those stories fuel my global hunger for knowledge for people and emotions in a broader sense.

Thank you so much for this. Honestly, I was worried that some people would be dishonest/unrealistic (intentionally or not) and pick the 2nd option more often because it seems "special snowflaky" since it has the word "selective" haha, especially since a couple of people have already told me that they weren't exactly sure what I meant in my descriptions.

It's too late to change it, but I am glad you got where I was coming from!
 
Top