Charm Upgrade

Learn · Six "Nice Guy" failure modes

Early over-investment

Lesson 6 of 6 in this module · about 6 minutes · Emotional skills

The idea

When you invest far more than she has, you cannot see what she would do on her own, so match her investment roughly. Investing early can look like long, frequent messages, planning far ahead, and gifts, favors or rearranged schedules for someone who has not yet shown much investment of her own. It can also mean pushing the pace of the conversation, the plans or the feelings. If this is familiar, the motive may be hope and a wish to show her you are worth it, and only you can check that.

The main reason is the course’s reasoning, not a finding: when you do most of the work, you cannot see what she would do voluntarily. Module 8 builds on this.

There is some research on unequal giving, though not in the first weeks. In one longitudinal study of dating couples, feeling that you give more than you get tended to go with lower satisfaction and commitment 1. The study found little sign that unfairness at one time caused later change, and it relied on self-report from mostly US students in established couples 1. The label is Plausible. It does not show that giving early drives anyone away.

The research on unrequited love adds a caution about how differently two people can see the same efforts. In retrospective written accounts, would-be lovers believed the attraction had been mutual and that they were led on, while many of the people who had declined described the persistent efforts as intrusive and annoying 2 3. These are motivated memories, and a would-be lover’s belief that he was led on does not show that the refusal was unclear 3. What the accounts do show is that one person’s preoccupation is not evidence that the other feels the same 2.

Why it matters

Doing most of the work hides what she would do voluntarily, and your own preoccupation is not evidence of hers 2. Roughly matching her gives her room to show what she would start, and gives you something real to see.

What it looks like

Example

Kirsten, 34, gives you her number after a conference session. You send one message about the talk. She answers in two lines, so you reply in two or three and wait. A day later she asks a question about your talk. You answer it, and leave her room to suggest something.

The same moment, handled the other way

Counterexample

Same number. Within a week you send Kirsten eleven long messages, a link to a restaurant and a plan for a weekend trip. She answers most with a line or two. You cannot tell what she would start on her own, because you have left her no room to start anything.

The one thing to remember

The rule

Match her investment roughly: reply at about the length of her messages, and leave room for her to start things.

Roughly means you are not counting messages; you are noticing whether she starts things, asks you questions and makes plans too, and keeping your own life going. After two invitations that she turns down or leaves vague, with no alternative from her, or if she never starts anything, stop proposing and leave the next step with her. A no ends the line.

Try it now

Item 1 of this lesson’s set: Long message, short reply.

Open the exercise set

In the real world (optional)

If you like, the next time you feel the urge to do much more for someone than they have done for you, notice it, and ask what you hope the extra effort will do.

What this doesn’t tell you

The finding on lopsided giving concerns established dating couples 1. The unrequited-love accounts are retrospective and one-sided 3. None of this tells you what Kirsten, or anyone, will do. What the lesson offers is practice guidance: do less, so you can see more.

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.
  1. PlausibleIn dating couples, feeling that you give more than you get tends to go with lower satisfaction and commitment, though it is unclear that fairness at one time causes later changes.

    Why this label

    One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. A longitudinal study of dating couples found under-benefit linked to lower satisfaction and commitment and more breakups. Little evidence that equity predicted later change; some evidence ran in the opposite direction, with satisfaction and commitment reducing perceived under-benefit.

    What it does not show

    • Single study, mostly US students; sample details not checked here.
    • Self-reported perceptions, correlational design.
    • Concerns established dating couples, not early getting-to-know-you stages.

    Who it applies to

    A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.

    Source

  2. PlausibleIn retrospective written accounts of unrequited love, would-be lovers, unlike rejectors, believed the attraction had been mutual and that they were led on, while many rejectors described persistent efforts as intrusive, so one person's preoccupation is not evidence the other person feels the same.

    Why this label

    One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Baumeister, Wotman and Stillwell compared written accounts from both sides of unreciprocated attraction and found mismatched perceptions. This supports lessons that stress checking what the other person actually does and respecting a clear no.

    What it does not show

    • Retrospective, self-selected written accounts; each side's memory is motivated.
    • Student samples; the abstract was read in a truncated form.
    • Describes differing perceptions, not how often they occur.
    • A would-be lover's belief that they were led on is their perception; it does not show that the rejection was unclear.

    Who it applies to

    A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.

    Source

  3. PlausibleIn retrospective accounts of unrequited love, many rejectors described the other's persistent efforts as intrusive and annoying, while would-be lovers believed the rejection had never been definitely communicated.

    Why this label

    One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. This one study of retrospective narratives shows the two sides experience the same events differently, which is a reason to be clear when declining and to stop when the answer is no.

    What it does not show

    • Single study from 1993 using retrospective narrative accounts; sample details not checked.
    • Each side's account may be self-serving.
    • Does not show that the rejection was in fact unclear; a would-be lover's belief is their perception, and a no should be taken as a no.

    Who it applies to

    A pattern across groups of people, not a statement about any one person.

    Source

More practice

The rest of the set, Early over-investment: four moments: 4 moments, about 8 minutes. Read the history of who started and who gave what, then choose whether to match, give space or stop proposing. 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: Boldness and Creepiness Aren't Separated by What You Say. It's What You Do After.

    Video · leaves this site for youtube.com

    Kinrys's argument that boldness differs from creepiness by what a man does after seeing the other person's reaction, per the title; supports noticing and adjusting.

    Keep in mind. Coach's opinion in a commercial channel; the app must add that persistence after a no is never acceptable.