My Biggest Red Flag: On Being Intolerant of Superficiality, a Confession and a Defense

I have a problem.

When a conversation stays on the surface, when it skims and performs and borrows the vocabulary of depth without any of the substance, something in me closes. It isn’t rude, and it usually isn’t even visible. But something withdraws. I get polite where I should be present, courteous where I should be curious, and I keep going through the motions of engagement long after the essential part of me has left the room.

I am intolerant of superficiality.

I have been told this is a flaw, that it makes me difficult, that I expect too much, that not everyone thinks the way I do and I should learn to meet people where they are. All of that is true, and I have tried.

What I want to do here is make a different argument, not against that criticism but alongside it: that the intolerance is also, in its way, right. That it can be a form of respect, and that the refusal to pretend is its own kind of honesty. And that living in the space between the demand for depth and a world that mostly does not supply it is not a pathology. It is a condition.

I. What Superficiality Is, Precisely

I should be careful, because the accusation of superficiality is very often superficial itself, a way of dismissing people for being different, or less educated, or less verbal, or simply interested in other things. That is not what I mean at all.

Think of a farmer who knows the land with a knowledge that has no words, who reads weather and soil and season through decades of it living in his hands. Or a carpenter who understands wood the way a philosopher understands an argument, feeling the grain, anticipating the split, knowing exactly what the material will and will not allow. Or a grandmother who has lived through enough loss to know, without ever once theorizing it, what matters and what does not. None of these people is superficial, and not one of them needs a single abstract word to prove it.

So superficiality is not a lack of vocabulary, or credentials, or cultural consumption. It is the refusal of depth: the active choice to stay on the surface, to be satisfied with appearances, to perform engagement while carefully avoiding any actual encounter.

It can wear the most sophisticated clothes. The reader who has gone through all the right books and used all the right words and never once let any of it disturb a single assumption. The person who treats philosophy as a social credential instead of a live question. The one with confident opinions about everything who has risked nothing on any of them. That is what I mean by superficiality. It is the armor, not the absence of it: the performance of knowing that defends against the vulnerability of not knowing.

II. The Philosophical Pedigree

This intolerance has a long pedigree, and it starts, of course, with Socrates.

His whole method, the elenchus, the cross-examination, the endless questioning, was an intolerance for superficiality turned into a technique. He would not take the first answer, or the comfortable one, and he would not let a conversation settle where it wanted to settle. He pushed, relentlessly, until the person across from him had to admit: I do not actually know what I claimed to know.

It made him deeply unpopular. The people he questioned felt he was making them look stupid, that he was being aggressive, that he was breaking the ordinary rules of polite Athenian conversation. Eventually they executed him for it.

But his intolerance was never contempt for people. It was closer to the opposite. He thought the unexamined life was not worth living, and he meant it less as a judgment of others than as a claim about what a life is for. To live without examination, in his view, was to miss the thing itself, not so much to fail at life as to not quite be living it. His refusal to let people rest in their comfortable unexamination was a kind of love, an unwillingness to leave them asleep.

III. Pascal’s Diversion, Again

We have met Pascal before. His famous observation was that human beings cannot bear to sit quietly alone in a room, and so they reach for diversion, divertissement, anything that lets them escape the confrontation with themselves.

Superficiality is diversion turned into a social institution. The small talk, the performance, the careful steering away from anything that might demand a genuine response, all of it does exactly what Pascal’s hunting and gaming did. It keeps the self from meeting itself, fills the silence before the silence can say anything, and keeps us busy enough that we never quite have to be present.

The person who cannot tolerate superficiality is the one who notices the diversion happening and cannot unsee it. This is uncomfortable for everyone in the room. The one performing the diversion feels seen, and not in a flattering way, while the intolerant one cannot relax into the pretense that would make the whole thing easy. Both end up a little uneasy. Pascal would say the uneasy one is simply closer to the truth, awake to something the comfortable one has decided not to feel.

I should be honest about what this costs.

The first cost is loneliness. The intolerance narrows the field considerably, because plenty of people do not want depth, or do not have the energy for it, or were never trained toward it, or simply do not think it is worth the trouble, and all of those are perfectly legitimate positions. What it leaves you with, though, is the experience of being alone in rooms full of people. Not alone physically, but conversationally, psychologically: present without being encountered, talking without quite speaking, connected to everyone by proximity and separated from them by depth. It is a strange kind of loneliness, more disorienting than ordinary solitude, because it happens in company.

The second cost is being read as arrogant. The intolerance gets perceived as contempt, and I will not pretend it never is. Sometimes it really is contempt: for the performance of depth with no substance under it, for the name-drop that has not been earned, for the confident wrongness that refuses to question itself. But a great deal of the time it is not contempt at all. It is a different quality of attention, a kind of listening that is waiting for something real and goes visibly flat when the real thing does not come. That disappointment looks like judgment, and gets felt as judgment, even though it is not quite the same thing.

The last cost is the most concrete: the missed connections. The people who would have been wonderful given a little more time, who had depth that needed drawing out, who were performing superficiality only because the situation seemed to call for it, and who in other circumstances would have met me exactly where I was. The intolerance can shut that door before it has any chance to open, and that is a genuine failure, not a virtue in disguise.

V. The Defense, Why It Is Also Right

Against all of that, and I do hold all of it honestly, here is the defense.

The first part is that honesty requires it. There is a familiar social performance that means pretending to be interested when you are not, finding something meaningful when you do not, manufacturing engagement out of pure politeness. I understand why people do it, and I know it is often a kindness. But underneath, it is also a small and socially convenient lie. The intolerance for superficiality is, at its best, simply a refusal of that lie: a refusal to fake an interest I do not have, to pretend a conversation is going somewhere it clearly is not, to let the social script stand in for an actual meeting between two people. There is respect in that. It says: I will not perform for you; I will either be really here or not here at all.

The second part is that it protects something. Every hour spent in a real conversation is an hour not spent performing a shallow one, and this is less a claim about other people than about the plain economics of time and attention. Someone who can sit happily in surface-level talk for hours has those hours to spend. Someone who cannot is guarding something: the capacity for depth, the readiness for a genuine encounter, the attention such an encounter demands. That is not superiority. It is a different way of allocating a finite resource.

The third part is that it is a form of fidelity. Fidelity to the conviction that things actually matter, that ideas have weight, that words are supposed to mean something, that a conversation can change you, and that the person in front of you is usually capable of far more than small talk and deserves to be met at that capacity rather than at the comfortable minimum. Refusing to accept less is, at the very same moment, a refusal to offer less.

VI. The Danger, When Intolerance Becomes Contempt

I also have to name the ways this goes wrong, because it does.

It can curdle into elitism: the belief that depth is available only to a few, that an inability to articulate depth proves its absence, that the vocabulary of profundity is the same thing as profundity. That belief is wrong, and it is itself a kind of superficiality, the superficiality of mistaking the map for the territory, the language for the thought, the performance of depth for depth itself.

It can curdle into impatience, into closing the door before the room has had any chance to show what is in it. Depth is not always immediately on display. People are not always at their best, and anxiety, social pressure, unfamiliar ground, all of these flatten depth in people who genuinely have it. The intolerant person who will not wait simply misses the depth that was there and only needed a little more time.

And it can become loneliness dressed up as standards. “I just cannot tolerate superficiality” makes a very convenient way to avoid asking why connection is hard, why intimacy feels like a threat, why the surface might be preferred not because it is comfortable but because it is safe. This is the hardest one for me to look at directly. Sometimes the intolerance is a way of making sure that no one ever gets close enough to notice that the depth I demand of other people is not always present in me. The person who cannot be met is also the person who cannot be known.

VII. The Between

I called this blog filizinbetween, and between is exactly the right word.

The whole thing lives in a series of gaps. Between the demand for depth and the fact that most social life runs along the surface. Between the loneliness of never quite fitting and those rare, extraordinary moments when someone meets you precisely where you are. Between the failure mode of contempt and the virtue of honest attention, and between the exhaustion of holding the demand up and the impossibility of ever putting it down.

This between is not a problem to be solved. It is a condition to be lived in. Lower the demand in order to resolve it and you lose something; withdraw from people entirely in order to resolve it and you lose something else. The harder path is to keep the demand while holding it loosely enough to still be surprised by depth where you did not expect it, and the harder path here, as almost everywhere, turns out to be the right one.

VIII. What Depth Actually Requires

So what is depth, actually? The question matters, because depth without any content is just another kind of superficiality.

It is not using difficult vocabulary, or having read the right books, or holding the correct opinions, or being able to perform profundity on cue. Depth is the willingness to be changed by what you encounter. The book that rewrites how you think. The argument you can neither answer nor honestly dismiss. The person whose life has made your assumptions about the world suddenly look too small. Depth is the capacity for an encounter, with an idea or a person or the world, that leaves you different from how you came in.

The superficial person encounters everything and is changed by nothing; everything confirms what was already believed, and every conversation ends roughly where it began. The deep person encounters things and is altered by them, sometimes a little and sometimes completely, but always actually.

That is the thing whose absence I cannot tolerate. Not the performance, not the vocabulary, not even intelligence exactly. Only the willingness to be changed, the openness to a real encounter, the refusal to close.

IX. The Gift of the Intolerance

And here is what the intolerance gives back.

When you do find depth, and you do find it, the encounter is extraordinary. A conversation that goes somewhere none of you expected. A person who says something that makes you stop moving. An idea that quietly reorganizes everything around it. The moment when two people are genuinely present to each other, not performing, not managing the interaction, just actually there.

These moments are rare, and the intolerance makes them rarer still, by holding the standard up, refusing the consolation prize, and waiting. But it also makes them far more vivid when they finally come. Someone who is content with the surface does not meet depth the same way, because they were never waiting for it and never turning down the substitute. The person who has sat through performance after performance, who has so often been almost-present but not quite, recognizes the real thing the instant it appears. And it lands with a weight it simply cannot have for someone to whom it was never scarce.

Coda

One last thing: this is a confession, not a prescription. I am not recommending the intolerance, or claiming it is optimal, or suggesting you go and acquire it if you do not already have it.

I am saying that if you do have it, if any of this is recognizable, if you have sat in a room full of people and felt that particular loneliness of being present and still not encountered, then you are not broken. Not arrogant, or at least not only arrogant. Not antisocial, or at least not only that. You are someone for whom depth is not optional, for whom the surface genuinely is not enough, and not as a preference but as something closer to a constitutional fact.

It makes some things harder. It makes the right things more real. The demand is the cost, and the demand is also the gift, and the only honest place to stand is in the between.

This one was never meant for a reading list. It is for the conversation you have been waiting to have. :)

Have a question about this piece? Ask →