Preferences and disagreement
Lesson 4 of 6 in this module · about 7 minutes · Communication
The idea
A plain preference takes one or two sentences and has up to four parts. What you would like: “I’d rather somewhere quieter, so we can talk.” A reason, only if it helps, in one clause and not as a defense: “I’ve had a loud week.” An alternative, if you have one: “The tea house on Mill Street?” A hand-back: “Or what sounds good to you?”
A plain disagreement has three parts: what you agree with, what you see differently, and a question. “I agree the first half dragged. I thought the ending worked, though. What didn’t land for you?” It avoids two failures. One is the apology (“Sorry, I might be wrong, but…”), which takes back the view before she has heard it. The other is the attack (“That’s a ridiculous reading”), which turns a difference into a contest. The question at the end is real: you are asking what she saw.
A preference is something you say, not something you win. After you speak, she might agree, offer another idea, or hold hers. Any of these is fine. If she holds hers, you can go with it, find a middle ground, or sit this one out and suggest another time. Do not push, repeat yourself louder or sulk. A disagreement ends when each of you has said what you think.
The evidence for this lesson is indirect. In a few studies where people rated men shown in a short video or a written description, a kind, prosocial manner was not penalized, while low displayed dominance and low perceived self-esteem went with lower attractiveness ratings 1. Together they offer some evidence that being kind and being unassertive are different things 1. This course takes that as a reason to treat being kind and speaking plainly as compatible.
The limits matter. None of the studies measured approval-seeking, conflict avoidance or assertiveness as such, and posture, perceived self-esteem and dominance are only proxies 1. The ratings were of a one-minute video or written descriptions, mostly by students, not of dates 1. In one study of gay men’s computer dates, a partner’s social assertiveness did not affect liking or the wish to date again 1. These are tendencies in ratings and say nothing about any one person’s preferences 1. Nor do they ask you to act dominant: kindness was not what lowered ratings.
Why it matters
“Whatever you want” gives her nothing to know you by, and you may end up resenting a choice you did not speak against. An over-explained version asks her to reassure you before she can answer. A conversation where one person always gives way tells both of you less.
What it looks like
Example
Leaving a gallery, Farah, 30, suggests a place with a loud open kitchen and a long wait. You say, “I’d rather somewhere quieter, so we can talk. The tea house on Mill Street? Or what sounds good to you?” She says, “I was looking forward to the kitchen, honestly.” You say, “Okay, let’s try your place.”
The same moment, handled the other way
Counterexample
Same street. You say, “Whatever you want, I’m easy.” You spend an hour shouting over the grill, a little annoyed at her for a choice she made because you did not say anything.
That fails because she could only answer what she heard, and she heard no preference.
The one thing to remember
The rule
Say what you’d prefer or see differently in one or two sentences, without apology or attack, then stop.
Plain preferences and plain disagreement are practice in this course, not findings. The reasons are ordinary: she can only respond to what you say, and that is an argument about conversation, not a claim about attraction. Accept her answer; do not repeat yourself or sulk.
Try it now
Item 1 of this lesson’s set: The loud kitchen.
In the real world (optional)
If you like, when a small decision comes up, such as a place or a film, notice the preference you actually had. If it feels easy, say it plainly, in a short sentence.
What this doesn’t tell you
No study here measured stating a preference or disagreeing in early dating, so the support is indirect and Plausible at best.
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, Preferences and disagreement: exercises: 3 items, about 5 minutes. Choose or order the ways of saying a line that fit what you mean. Open the exercise set.
Same move, five places
Preferences and disagreement: transfer ladders: 2 items, about 6 minutes. The skill from this lesson, once with a friend and again at a first date. Open the ladders.
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.