Something odd happens on dating apps.
You may look perfectly ordinary in text, then become dramatically better the moment the interaction turns into a live conversation.
You pick up one detail. You share a little about yourself. You ask one more question about what they just said. Suddenly the other person is talking far more than expected and ends the conversation saying, “I talked a lot today.”
That is when the obvious realization lands:
Maybe your strongest channel is not messaging. Maybe it is conversation.
Dating apps look like writing contests, but halfway through, the sport changes.
1. A with call does not automatically mean turning on the camera
According to with’s current official help, with Calling is a one-to-one calling function for matched users. Video becomes available after the call begins by switching the video button on, so an audio-only call is a valid way to use the feature.[1]
The current rules also require at least five back-and-forth message exchanges before calling. A single call is limited to 30 minutes, the daily total to two hours, and the feature is available in the smartphone app rather than the web version.[1]
So “Want to call?” does not necessarily mean “Show me your face right now.”
There is a real middle layer between messaging and meeting in person:
voice.
2. Good listening is not passive silence
People who are good at conversation are not simply quiet.
They notice a detail and use it to open the next door.
“Work has been busy.” → “Busy because of work itself?” → “Actually, I have overloaded my hobbies.” → “What have you been doing that much?”
The next question comes from what the other person just said.
A 2017 study found that people who asked more questions, especially follow-up questions, tended to be liked more by conversation partners. Perceived responsiveness — appearing to listen, understand and care — was proposed as an important mechanism.[2]
That finding needs nuance. A later reanalysis challenged parts of the speed-dating analysis.[3] A 2025 correction changed some reported values while stating that the main substantive conclusions remained intact.[4]
So the sensible interpretation is not:
“Ask questions and you will win dates.”
It is:
“Follow-up questions are one useful way to signal that you are actually responding to the other person.”
3. The strong loop is self-disclosure, then back to them
Natural conversation is not an interview.
The other person shares something. You reveal something small about yourself. Then you hand the conversation back.
Research on intimacy has long emphasized both self-disclosure and the feeling that the other person is responsive — that they understand, accept and engage with what was disclosed.[5]
In crude terms:
questions only = interview self-talk only = speech self-disclosure → return to partner = conversation
People who are strong in real-time talk can run that loop quickly.
Something that takes hours over asynchronous messaging may unfold in thirty seconds by voice.
4. “Want to meet?” is a surprisingly heavy yes/no question
After several messages, many dating-app conversations move straight to:
“Want to meet?”
That creates a binary decision: meet or decline.
But there is a large middle state:
“I am interested, but not ready to schedule an in-person date.” “I am still cautious.” “I would talk, but meeting feels like too much effort right now.”
If the only next step is meeting, all of those states can collapse into “no.”
A better bridge can be:
“Would a call or meeting in person feel easier?”
The point is not to trap someone in two choices. It is to remove the assumption that meeting is the only valid next step.
To reduce pressure further:
“If you would rather keep messaging for now, that is fine too.”
Expand the routes; do not remove the exits.
5. A call is a small compatibility experiment, not the final exam
Calls have low setup cost.
No travel. No venue. Less preparation. And if the conversation does not work, it can end quickly.
At the same time, voice reveals rhythm, pauses, laughter, curiosity and turn-taking — things text hides.
A 2014 study comparing first interactions by text, audio, video and face-to-face found less positive outcomes in the text condition, while video did not clearly add more liking than audio.[6]
In a different context, a 2025 experiment on social support found broadly similar perceived support across in-person, video and voice conditions, while text scored lower on some outcomes such as empathy and satisfaction.[7]
That is not proof that voice is best for dating.
It does show that audio can carry a great deal of interpersonal information without video.
6. But audio is not universally superior
A 2020 online-dating study complicates the story.
Participants who first interacted through text reported more social attraction than those who first used video. After switching to face-to-face interaction, romantic attraction declined.[8]
Every medium has a bias.
Text gives time to think. Voice adds rhythm and emotional tone. Video adds facial cues. Face-to-face adds even more information.
More information does not automatically mean better outcomes.
The useful question is not:
“What is the best medium?”
It is:
“Which medium lets the real compatibility between these two people appear naturally?”
7. What “I can carry it on a call” probably means
The feeling that you are “good on calls” does not need to mean mysterious charisma.
It may simply mean you can make many small adjustments in real time:
- notice a detail
- ask one concrete follow-up
- share a short related experience
- return the focus
- stay where the other person becomes animated
- stop pushing where interest drops
That is not “controlling” the other person.
It is closer to creating a conversational environment where both people can show up naturally.
If compatibility is poor, the call can still end.
That is useful information.
The purpose is not to push everyone toward a date. It is to identify fit — and mismatch — sooner.
8. Operationally, stop using a single bridge
The practical change is simple.
Build enough comfort in text first. Then do not make an in-person date the only next step.
Try:
“If you are up for it, would you prefer a call or meeting in person?”
If the answer is a call, do not prepare an interrogation script.
Take one topic they offer. Go one layer deeper. Disclose one layer of your own. Hand it back.
If that rhythm works, meeting can come later.
Instead of a two-story system:
text → in person
you have a mezzanine:
text → voice → in person
Conclusion: do not hide your strongest communication skill until the final stage
Profiles and messages are the entrance to dating apps.
They are not a complete measurement of how someone connects.
If your strengths appear in live conversation, there is little reason to keep that ability locked away until an in-person date.
Insert a smaller step.
Some people who decline “Want to meet?” may still be perfectly open to “Want to talk?”
And once the interaction becomes live, both people may suddenly feel far more natural.
This is not about “gaming” another person. It is about choosing the right medium.
Dating apps are not only about finding the right person. They are also about finding the communication channel in which two people can actually discover whether they fit.
Sometimes the best move before “Want to meet?” is simply:
“Want to talk?”
References (8)
- with official help: with Calling support.with.is
- 2017 study on question asking and liking doi.org
- 2019 reanalysis of question asking as a dyadic behavior doi.org
- 2025 correction to the study above doi.org
- 1998 study on self-disclosure, responsiveness and intimacy doi.org
- 2014 comparison of text, audio, video and face-to-face first interactions doi.org
- 2025 comparison of in-person, video, voice and text social support doi.org
- 2020 study of text versus video before face-to-face online dating doi.org
