"Insufficient information" is an answer
Lesson 5 of 5 in this module · about 7 minutes · Emotional skills
The idea
Several findings, each modest, point the same way.
- Strangers watching short speed-dating clips judged who was interested better than chance in one study, but near chance for female interest, and accuracy varied a lot between the people watched. A later study did not find the effect reliably 1.
- In two studies, people judged flirting more accurately when it was absent than when it was present 2. Real flirting may be easy to miss, so one smile cannot tell you which case you are in.
- In the studies this course draws on, no single nonverbal cue has been shown to indicate romantic interest reliably. The research points to loose patterns that observers read inconsistently 3.
- In one pair of studies, people overrated how well they read others, and the least accurate overestimated the most 4. That research was not about dating, and the self-estimates were relative-ability judgments.
Together, these suggest that a confident read of romantic interest is often less reliable than it feels. They do not show that you can never tell, only that confidence must be earned.
“Insufficient information” can answer two kinds of question. A read of what you can observe, such as her receptivity to this conversation, has four levels: Low, Uncertain, Moderate or High. In the exercises the Uncertain level is worded “Insufficient information”. A question the evidence cannot settle, such as what she feels or whether she is romantically interested, gets the same answer, often even after a good conversation. After a lively talk at a friend’s dinner you might read her receptivity as Moderate and still answer “Insufficient information” on her romantic interest. The first is about what you saw. The second is about what you cannot see.
Choose it about her feelings when you have one cue, however vivid; when what you saw matches how she treats everyone; when you have no baseline; when the setting explains it, such as her job or a loud room; when the cues point both ways; when you have not yet done anything that would let her show you more; or when you notice you want the answer to be yes. None of these is a verdict on her. Each says the evidence cannot settle the question yet.
The useful form is “Insufficient information, until ___”: until she asks me something about myself unprompted; until I see how she responds to a small step of my own (M03-L4); until I see whether she stays when she is free to go.
Why it matters
A friend’s question invites a guess in whichever direction you are leaning. A guess can outrun the evidence.
What it looks like
Example
For three mornings you have stood at the same bus stop as a woman in her thirties who carries a green canvas bag. On the third she smiled when you said good morning, as she did to the driver. A friend asks, “So is she interested?” You say, “I don’t have enough to say yet. I’d notice if she asked me something about myself.”
The same moment, handled the other way
Counterexample
Same bus stop. Because of one smile, you tell your friend it is settled that she is interested, and plan a bigger step for the next morning.
One smile that matches how she greets the driver cannot settle that.
The one thing to remember
The rule
When the evidence is thin, answer “Insufficient information” and name what would change your read.
Do not use it to avoid a call the evidence has already made. If someone gives one-word answers, turns away and looks for the exit, the receptivity read is Low. If she has told you she is not interested, that is her answer, not a question for the evidence. Certainty is not the price of a small step: never taking a step the evidence has supported, time after time, is its own miscalibration, though a cheaper one than overstepping. A single pause is never marked down, and no amount of evidence in this course is permission to touch.
Try it now
Item 1 of this lesson’s set: The green canvas bag.
In the real world (optional)
If you like, next time you catch yourself guessing what someone feels, say to yourself “Insufficient information”, then name something that could show up on its own, or a plain question.
Keep it in your head; this is practice with your own guessing, not a record of anyone.
What this doesn’t tell you
The findings come from speed-dating clips, lab studies and one study of mind-reading ability outside dating, and some come from a single paper. They do not show that you, in particular, read people badly. In the pair of mind-reading studies, self-rated skill tracked actual accuracy only weakly or not at all 4. The rule for when to choose “Insufficient information” is the course’s judgment, not a finding.
Why do we believe this?
Each numbered mark in the text opens the evidence behind that sentence. Every claim in this course carries one of five labels.
- Well supported
- A meta-analysis or several independent studies agree, with no serious failure to replicate.
- Supported with caveats
- Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings.
- Plausible
- One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question.
- Speculative
- An idea or argument that hasn't been directly tested.
- Marketing claim
- Something a seller says about their product, without published evidence.
Evidence: PlausibleStrangers watching short speed-dating clips could judge above chance who was interested in one study (near chance for female interest), accuracy varied a lot between the people watched, and a later study did not find it reliably.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Observers beat chance with clips as short as 10 seconds and were better for male than female interest. A second study is reported, from a search-result summary only, to show similar accuracy in three countries. Later, three studies with similar videos found observers could not reliably detect attraction, except when both daters were interested.
What it does not show
- Place 2009 and 2012 use the same stimulus videos, so they are not independent
- Observers, not the actual conversation partners, judged interest
- Speed dates are a short, structured setting
- A 2022 study did not reproduce the effect, so the record is mixed
- Abstract of Place 2012 seen only as summarised by a search result
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Place, S. S., Todd, P. M., Penke, L., Asendorpf, J. B. (2009). The Ability to Judge the Romantic Interest of Others, Psychological Science.
- Place, S. S., Todd, P. M., Zhuang, J., Penke, L., Asendorpf, J. B. (2012). Judging romantic interest of others from thin slices is a cross-cultural ability, Evolution and Human Behavior.
- Samara, I., Roth, T. S., Nikolic, M., Prochazkova, E., Kret, M. E. (2022). Can third-party observers detect attraction in others based on subtle nonverbal cues?, Current Psychology.
Evidence: PlausibleIn two studies, flirting was judged more accurately in interactions where it did not occur than where it did, which suggests real flirting is easier to miss than its absence.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Hall and colleagues found that people judged no-flirting interactions more accurately than flirting ones, and that the base rate of flirting in what observers saw shifted their accuracy. Flirting by women was judged more accurately than flirting by men.
What it does not show
- Two studies in one paper from one lab
- Study 1 used stranger pairs and Study 2 observers of 1-minute clips; sample details not checked
- Flirting defined by self-report
- Not a basis for assuming that any specific person is or is not flirting
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Hall, J. A., Xing, C., Brooks, S. (2015). Accurately Detecting Flirting: Error Management Theory, the Traditional Sexual Script, and Flirting Base Rate, Communication Research.
Evidence: PlausibleNo single nonverbal cue has been shown in this evidence set to indicate romantic interest reliably; the research points to probabilistic patterns that observers read inconsistently.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Third-party observers judged interest above chance in one speed-dating study, particularly for male interest and with large variation between daters, while a later three-study set found they could not do so reliably. Together with the weak mirroring result, this argues for treating cues as prompts for a question rather than answers.
What it does not show
- This is a synthesis of a few studies, not a systematic review
- Absence of a validated cue list in these sources is not proof that none exists
- Speed-dating video clips of short interactions, which may differ from real settings
- Mixed replication record across the two observer studies
- One of the three supporting sources (Grammer 1998) has no abstract seen.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Place, S. S., Todd, P. M., Penke, L., Asendorpf, J. B. (2009). The Ability to Judge the Romantic Interest of Others, Psychological Science.
- Samara, I., Roth, T. S., Nikolic, M., Prochazkova, E., Kret, M. E. (2022). Can third-party observers detect attraction in others based on subtle nonverbal cues?, Current Psychology.
- Grammer, K., Kruck, K. B., Magnusson, M. S. (1998). The Courtship Dance: Patterns of Nonverbal Synchronization in Opposite-Sex Encounters, Journal of Nonverbal Behavior.
Evidence: PlausiblePeople overrate how well they read others, and the least accurate overestimate most; self-rated mind-reading ability tracked actual accuracy only weakly or not at all.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Supports calibration drills with feedback instead of trusting a feeling of insight. Plausible rather than supported because it rests on one paper (two studies); the authors state that earlier work also found a weak or non-existent link, which was not checked here.
What it does not show
- Two studies: a video-based accuracy test and a negotiation exercise with MBA students (Study 2: 164).
- Self-estimates were relative-ability (percentile) judgments; not tested in dating or flirting.
- Narcissism result is correlational.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Source
- Ames, D. R., Kammrath, L. K. (2004). Mind-Reading and Metacognition: Narcissism, not Actual Competence, Predicts Self-Estimated Ability, Journal of Nonverbal Behavior.
More practice
The rest of the set, "Insufficient information" is an answer: six moments: about 12 minutes. Say what you saw and heard, then what it supports, then the smallest sensible next step. Open the exercise set.
Go further
Outside talks, videos and pages on the topics this lesson cites. Nothing from them loads until you follow a link, and a link is not an endorsement: read the note under each one.
Vanessa Van Edwards: Why Women Never Make The First Move!
Van Edwards on who tends to initiate in courtship and the small opening signals that precede an approach; read the video before linking to confirm the claims shown.
Keep in mind. Popular-science framing; check any quoted statistic against the primary study before the app repeats it.
Vanessa Van Edwards: The 5 Flirting Styles: Which One Do You Speak?
Summary of the five flirting styles from Jeffrey Hall's research (physical, traditional, sincere, polite, playful) and how style mismatch can cause missed or misread signals.
Keep in mind. Secondary summary of academic work; the app should cite Hall's research directly.
Jeffrey Hall (University of Kansas): New book outlines five types of flirting styles
University summary of Hall's research identifying five flirting styles, useful for showing that people signal interest differently and that styles can mismatch.
Keep in mind. News release; cite the underlying Communication Quarterly study for claims.