Charm Upgrade

Learn · Everyday conversation

Equal footing

Lesson 7 of 7 in this module · about 7 minutes · Communication

The idea

“Equal footing” is the course’s own name for a stance. It is a course principle, not a technique or a research finding. You can find someone attractive and still treat them as an ordinary person with an ordinary day. A pedestal is the opposite: attraction becomes proof that they are out of reach, or a prize to win.

  1. Notice the pull, and leave them on the ground. Noticing attraction is fine. Acting as if it changes what they owe you, or what you may ask of them, is not.
  2. Introduce yourself plainly. Your name and a plain remark about where you both are (module 15, lesson 1). People predict that talking to a stranger will be less pleasant than silence, but commuters assigned to talk with a stranger reported a more positive trip 1. Those were brief, non-romantic talks, and the commuters were assigned to them.
  3. Be curious. Follow what they say (lesson 3).
  4. Say what you like. “I’m enjoying this” or “I’d like to hear more” is a plain statement of your own. After conversations with strangers, people tended to underestimate how much their partner liked them 2. That measures general liking, not romantic interest.
  5. Accept no interest without resentment. A no, or a lack of return, ends that line, and you leave warmly (module 11, lesson 6).

There are three ways to stand. Relaxed interest is interest said in plain words, at a size the other person can answer, with no need for a particular answer. Performed indifference is acting as if you do not care, or being vague about your interest, to seem hard to get. Over-pursuit is pushing past what they have returned: more messages, bigger plans, more compliments, or a request again after a no.

In online experiments, vagueness lowered appeal when the person seemed uninterested, and explicit expressions of interest raised it 3. In two studies of one paper, playing hard to get raised how much a person wanted to pursue someone while lowering liking, and lowered both if they were not already committed 4. Those were laboratory measures, and the finding does not recommend the tactic. In one speed-dating study, people who said they desired almost everyone they met tended to be desired less 5. That concerns real differences in interest.

Over-pursuit has a cost. In one 1993 study of retrospective accounts of unrequited love, many people who had declined described the other’s persistent efforts as intrusive, while the would-be lovers believed no definite no had been given 6. In one college study, approach behaviors such as asking someone out went with a relationship forming, and surveillance and intimidation went with it not forming 7. That study says nothing about persisting after a clear no.

Why it matters

People who believed a particular person liked them tended to report somewhat more interest in that person 8. It does not mean that saying it will create interest. Say it plainly because it is honest, and let them answer.

What it looks like

Example

At a community garden workday, Idris, 34, repots seedlings in the next row. You find him attractive. You tell him your name and ask what he is growing. He says peppers, and you ask what he does with them. Later you say, “I’m enjoying this.” He says, “Me too.” When he heads off, you say, “Good to meet you, Idris.”

The same moment, handled the other way

Counterexample

Same workday. You decide he is out of reach, so you answer in single words and act bored. He takes the hint and turns to the next row. In another version you ask for his number, he says he would rather not, and you ask him why.

Neither version gave him an easy, honest answer.

The one thing to remember

The rule

Be curious, say what you like plainly, and accept any answer without argument or sulking.

Say it once, in a size they can answer. If they return it, you have something to follow. If they do not, say something kind and go back to ordinary talk or leave.

Try it now

Item 1 of this lesson’s set: The olive counter. Pick the line that shows relaxed interest. The simulator has five scenes in the same settings: The melon display, Coffee with Ana, The crowded kitchen, Between songs and Replying to her story.

Open the exercise set

In the real world (optional)

If you like, notice once in an ordinary conversation whether you are treating the other person as above you, below you or level with you.

What this doesn’t tell you

The sources are brief lab and survey studies, mostly of students and online samples, plus one set of recalled accounts. None shows that relaxed interest makes anyone like you, and none says what any one person will answer. The five parts and the three stances are the course’s own.

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. Supported with caveatsPeople predict that talking to a stranger will be less pleasant than solitude, but when commuters were assigned to talk with a stranger they reported a more positive trip, and no less productive, than commuters assigned to stay alone.

    Why this label

    Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Demonstrates: Epley and Schroeder (2014) ran experiments in trains and buses in which people assigned to connect reported a more positive experience than those assigned to stay disconnected, while separate people predicted the reverse; the authors attribute the gap partly to underestimating strangers' interest in talking, and a lab waiting-room study found being talked to was as positive as being told to talk. Marketing framing: none common. Kardas et al. (2022) found a similar underestimate for deeper conversation with strangers; see self-disclosure-questions-c3.

    What it does not show

    • Several experiments in one paper from one lab; no large preregistered replication was found in this check.
    • Commuters in a few US cities and a waiting-room lab sample; stranger contact was brief and not romantic.
    • Participants were assigned to connect, so the findings do not show how people who choose to approach strangers fare.
    • Self-reported mood, not independent ratings.

    Who it applies to

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

    Sources

  2. Supported with caveatsAfter conversations with strangers, people tended to underestimate how much their partner liked them, a pattern called the liking gap.

    Why this label

    Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Demonstrates: Boothby and colleagues found the underestimate across lab strangers, dorm mates and workshop attendees, lasting for months in new dorm relationships. This is another form of overestimating others' negative judgement; see reciprocal-liking-c2 for the existing claim. Marketing framing: none common.

    What it does not show

    • Samples were lab strangers, college students and workshop attendees; it measures general liking, not romantic interest.
    • From one research programme; independent replication was not checked.
    • A population-level tendency: it does not mean a particular partner is interested.
    • Not a treatment: knowing about the gap is not shown to reduce social anxiety.

    Who it applies to

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

    Source

  3. Supported with caveatsBeing unclear about romantic interest does not reliably make someone more appealing: in online-interaction experiments, vagueness lowered appeal when the person seemed uninterested, and explicit expressions of interest raised it.

    Why this label

    Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. Birnbaum and colleagues ran six studies, four with online confederates who were clear or vague about romantic intent and two surveys and diaries in established couples. Partner regard predicted less uncertainty, which predicted greater perceived desirability. The authors read reduced desire under uncertainty as self-protection.

    What it does not show

    • All six studies come from one research programme; findings were read from the abstract only.
    • Online confederate interactions and established-couple self-report differ from in-person early dating.
    • Measured appeal and desire ratings, not later behaviour.

    Who it applies to

    Depends on the setting and the people involved.

    Source

  4. PlausiblePlaying hard to get can raise how much a person wants to pursue you while lowering how much they like you, and if they are not already committed to pursuing you it lowers both.

    Why this label

    One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Dai, Dong and Jia reconcile folk wisdom with earlier null results by separating wanting (motivation) from liking (affect). Two studies in one paper supported the pattern. The authors state that earlier research gave little support for the tactic working.

    What it does not show

    • Two studies in one paper; sample and procedure details were not checked beyond the abstract.
    • Laboratory measures of wanting and liking, not real pursuit or relationship outcomes.
    • A higher wish to pursue paired with lower liking is a poor basis for a relationship; the finding does not recommend the tactic.

    Who it applies to

    Depends on the setting and the people involved.

    Source

  5. PlausibleIn one speed-dating study, people who said they desired almost everyone they met tended to be desired less by the others they met.

    Why this label

    One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. Desire directed at one specific person was reciprocated, but a general tendency to desire many people predicted being desired less. The pattern concerns genuinely different levels of interest, not a tactic.

    What it does not show

    • Single short report (156 undergraduates, plus a second sample of 608); the paper has no abstract and its full text was read in the S7.1 check, which confirmed the claim (reported r = -.41 for desiring many people and being desired less; the r = .14 in the same report is the reciprocity finding of c1).
    • Correlational: it does not show that pretending to be choosy raises appeal, and the app does not teach concealing real interest.

    Who it applies to

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

    Source

  6. 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

  7. PlausibleIn one college study of courtship persistence, the kind of behaviour mattered: approach behaviours were linked to a relationship forming, while surveillance and intimidation were linked to it not forming.

    Why this label

    One study, or indirect evidence from a nearby question. The study counted approach, such as asking someone out, among courtship persistence behaviours, and approach went with relationships forming. So it does not show that persistence in general fails; it shows that intrusive kinds (surveillance, intimidation) went with relationships not forming. Persistence at a breakup resembled persistence earlier in the relationship.

    What it does not show

    • One sample of 300 US college students; correlational.
    • It studied courtship persistence in general, not pursuit after a clear no; it says nothing about whether persisting after a refusal helps.
    • Self-report, and an individual's result can differ.

    Who it applies to

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

    Source

  8. Supported with caveatsPeople who perceive that a particular person likes them tend to report somewhat more interest in that person, although the speed-dating evidence for this is limited and the studies cannot show which comes first.

    Why this label

    Several studies agree, with stated limits such as student samples or lab settings. In speed-dating, desire that was unique to a pair showed some reciprocity, and in a seven-month study of singles, perceiving that a potential partner was interested was one of the robust positive predictors of one's own interest.

    What it does not show

    • The speed-dating report is a short report with 156 undergraduates; its full text was read in the S7.1 check, which confirmed the pattern; the reciprocity correlation it reports is small (r = .14). The r = -.41 in the same report belongs to a different finding, that desiring many people predicted being desired less (c3).
    • All three sources are correlational: perceived interest and one's own interest are measured by self-report at the same time, so they do not show that being liked causes liking in return.
    • Luo and Zhang describe only 'some support' for reciprocity, so the effect is not uniform across samples.
    • These are population averages; they do not tell you whether a given person likes you.
    • The Luo and Eastwick 2022 abstracts support only 'some' reciprocity and perceived interest as a predictor.

    Who it applies to

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

    Sources

More practice

The rest of the set, Equal footing: exercises: 6 items, about 12 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: 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.