Saying what you prefer, without a defense
Lesson 2 of 4 in this module · about 6 minutes · Emotional skills
The idea
A preference is what you would like. A defense is the reasons you add before anyone has objected. A plain statement keeps the first and drops most of the second. It has three parts: one preference, said as yours; at most one short reason, and only if it helps her decide; an open door, then stop. This is practice guidance, not a research finding. No study we found tests it directly, so hold it lightly and judge it by what happens when you try it.
A reason helps when it gives her something to decide with: “It closes at nine, so I’d rather go early.” It is a defense when it protects you: “I know it’s a weird thing to like, and you probably think I’m boring.” If a reason would only matter in case she objects, leave it out and give it if she asks.
Saying what you want plainly is not the same as being cold. The nearest evidence touches a related point. In studies where raters, mostly students, judged men shown briefly on video or described on paper, a prosocial, kind manner was not penalized in attraction ratings 1. Low displayed dominance and low perceived self-esteem went with lower attractiveness ratings 1. So in those ratings, being kind and showing low dominance were separable.
Treat that with care. It is a Plausible finding: indirect, from ratings of presented people by mostly student raters, and not from dating outcomes 1. No study measured over-explaining or hedging directly, and in one study of gay men’s computer dates, assertiveness made no difference to liking 1. So we can’t say that a long defense lowers anyone’s appeal. What we can say is smaller: plain and warm can sit together.
Why it matters
A preference buried in hedges leaves her to find the one useful fact. There is some evidence, from attraction ratings of men shown on video or paper, mostly by students, that a kind manner was not penalized 1. This is practice guidance, not a research finding.
What it looks like
Example
After a salsa class, Elise, 28, asks where you would like to get dinner. You say, “I’d like Thai. There’s a place two blocks from here. Does that work, or do you have somewhere in mind?” She says, “I had Thai at lunch.” You say, “Good to know. Where do you suggest?”
The same moment, handled the other way
Counterexample
Same question. You say, “Oh, I don’t know, anywhere is fine, I did kind of like the Thai place but it’s probably too far and you might not like spicy, honestly I’d eat anything.” She must untangle five hedges to find the one useful fact: you would like Thai.
The one thing to remember
The rule
State one preference as yours, add at most one reason that helps her decide, and leave a door open.
Take her answer without arguing: if she picks something else, ask where she suggests, and if she declines the evening, say “Sure, get some rest,” and leave the next step to her. Do not argue the merits, point back to your earlier preference, or fall back to “whatever you like” in a flat voice, which only looks like flexibility and makes her guess. If she has said no, repeating your preference in firmer words is pressure: a preference can be strong and still easy to decline.
Try it now
Item 1 of this lesson’s set: Breakfast after the museum.
In the real world (optional)
If you like, when you are choosing something with a friend anyway, such as where to eat, say your preference in one plain sentence. Notice only whether hedges crept in.
What this doesn’t tell you
The finding shows only that kind and low-dominance were separable in ratings. It does not show that stating preferences makes you more appealing, that over-justifying makes you less so, or how any one person will respond 1. The principle rests on that thin footing and on one practical point: a plain statement is easier for her to answer than a tangle.
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: PlausibleIn attraction ratings, kindness and low dominance are separable: prosocial orientation was not penalised, whereas low displayed dominance and low perceived self-esteem were associated with lower attractiveness ratings.
Why this label
One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Narrowed from the original wording. Jensen-Campbell et al. found prosocial men rated attractive and desirable as dates; Ahmetoglu and Swami found low-dominance body language rated less sexually attractive; Zeigler-Hill and Myers found lower perceived self-esteem rated less desirable. Together this is indirect support for treating kind and low-assertive as different things. No source measures approval-seeking or conflict avoidance directly.
What it does not show
- Indirect: no study here measured approval-seeking, conflict avoidance or assertiveness as such; posture, perceived self-esteem and dominance are proxies.
- Ratings of presented or hypothetical targets (a 1-minute video, descriptions) by mostly student samples, not dating outcomes; Ahmetoglu and Swami's effect is for one male confederate and 81 women.
- Zeigler-Hill and Myers found the self-esteem trend did not consistently hold for female targets.
- In one study of gay men's computer dates, a partner's social assertiveness did not affect liking or the wish to date again, so the pattern may not hold across groups or contexts.
- Burger and Cosby (1999) is listed as context only; its abstract was not seen and no result of it is relied on.
- Population tendencies in ratings; they say nothing about any individual's preferences.
Who it applies to
A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.
Sources
- Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Graziano, W. G., West, S. G. (1995). Dominance, prosocial orientation, and female preferences: Do nice guys really finish last?, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
- Ahmetoglu, G., Swami, V. (2012). Do Women Prefer “Nice Guys”? The Effect of Male Dominance Behavior on Women's Ratings of Sexual Attractiveness, Social Behavior and Personality.
- Zeigler-Hill, V., Myers, E. M. (2011). An Implicit Theory of Self-Esteem: The Consequences of Perceived Self-Esteem for Romantic Desirability, Evolutionary Psychology.
- Sergios, P. A., Cody, J. (1985). Physical Attractiveness and Social Assertiveness Skills in Male Homosexual Dating Behavior and Partner Selection, The Journal of Social Psychology.
- Burger, J. M., Cosby, M. (1999). Do Women Prefer Dominant Men? The Case of the Missing Control Condition, Journal of Research in Personality.
More practice
The rest of the set, Saying what you prefer: three plans: 3 items, about 6 minutes. Choose or order the ways of saying a line that fit what you mean. 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.
Marni Kinrys: [Video] Raw Female Perspective On What Turns Women Off - Marni's Wing Girl Method
Free public page where Kinrys gives her perspective on behaviours that put people off; an attributable source for what the Wing Girl Method publicly says.
Keep in mind. Single coach's perspective; do not generalise to what 'women' want. Site sells paid courses.
Bobby Rio: 5 "Nice Guy" Conversation Mistakes to AVOID
Bobby Rio on conversation habits that undermine engagement, per the title; relevant to engaged versus merely polite behaviour and to conversational re-engagement.
Keep in mind. Commercial dating coach; 'nice guy' framing is contested and the channel also carries manipulation-style content the app must not teach.