How People Unknowingly Use Military Theory in Romantic Dates

Humans Seek Trust in Every Situation

Picture yourself on a first date, sitting across from someone intriguing at a cozy café.

You’re engaged in conversation, but your phone sits face-up on the table, its presence a silent signal. Without a word, it suggests your attention could shift at any moment to a notification, a text, or a call—something more important than the person in front of you.

As a 2017 study by Knapp and colleagues on nonverbal communication highlights, subtle cues shape how we perceive each other. A visible phone undermines presence, hinting at divided priorities.

This isn’t just a modern social faux pas. It’s an example of signaling—a concept rooted in military strategy and evolutionary biology. We use it on dates, often without realizing it, to convey intentions and build trust.

In this piece, we’ll look at how signaling works in dating, how it mirrors military strategy, why actions carry more weight than words, and how all of it circles back to one thing: trust.

Signaling in Romantic Dates

The phone-on-the-table scenario is a textbook example of signaling in dating.

A 2016 study by Misra and colleagues found that even an untouched phone can reduce empathy and connection during conversations. Leaving it visible says, “You’re not my full focus.” Tucking it away says the opposite.

Other cues matter too. Sustained eye contact shows engagement. Albert Mehrabian’s research from 1971 found that nonverbal cues like eye contact shape more than half of how we interpret face-to-face messages.

Uncrossed arms, leaning in slightly—these are physical cues that say, “I’m open.” Nodding, paraphrasing—these are listening cues that say, “I’m here with you.”

Thoughtful gestures matter too. Picking a restaurant your date casually mentioned earlier hits harder than any generic compliment. It shows you were paying attention.

And not all signals are on purpose. Fidgeting or checking your watch could signal nervousness or boredom.

The stakes on a date are high. Both people are scanning for signs: Are they into this? Can I trust them? It’s the same logic generals use in war games—project strength and reduce uncertainty.

Signaling in Military Theory

In the military, signaling is all about cutting through uncertainty.

As Robert Jervis wrote in 1970, signals are essential when stakes are high. During the Cold War, parades showing off tanks and missiles weren’t just shows—they were messages: “We’re ready.”

NATO uses standardized protocols and secure channels to reinforce shared goals and mutual trust.

But signals can misfire. A troop exercise misread as an invasion can trigger chaos. That’s exactly what nearly happened in 1983 when the Soviet Union misinterpreted NATO’s Able Archer exercise.

Same thing happens in dating. You check your phone to ease nerves. Your date reads it as disinterest.

Clear, consistent signals reduce doubt. Mixed ones open the door to misreadings and missed chances.

Why We Use Signaling to Convey Our Motives

Words are cheap.

Economists Farrell and Rabin called it “cheap talk” in their 1996 work. Anyone can say “I’m really into this.” But if it costs nothing, it means nothing.

That’s why we trust signals that cost something. Biologist Amotz Zahavi explained this with the “handicap principle” in 1975. Think of a peacock’s tail—only a strong bird can afford that much show. The signal works because it’s hard to fake.

Humans are wired the same way.

A smile, a steady gaze, or a well-planned date takes effort. That effort makes it believable. Saying “I like you” isn’t the same as reserving their favorite restaurant.

Turning your phone off during dinner? That’s a costly signal today. It tells your date, “You matter more than anything on this screen.”

But modern life complicates things. Sherry Turkle has written about how phones confuse face-to-face connection. Your date might not know if your phone is a lifeline or just a habit. Either way, signals speak louder than promises.

And the goal of all those signals? Trust.

Humans Seek Trust in Every Situation

Trust is the real currency on a date.

John Gottman’s research in 2011 showed that trust creates emotional safety. When it’s there, people relax. They open up.

How do you build that? Signals.

Show up on time. Ask good questions. Follow through. That builds consistency. Share something real about yourself—that builds reciprocity. Turn your phone off—that signals respect.

It’s not just romance. In the military, clear communication builds coordination. One wrong signal, one misread cue—and the whole mission can fall apart.

A distracted glance on a date is like a garbled radio transmission mid-operation. Both damage trust.

Misra’s 2016 study backs this up: phones reduce how understood we feel. That’s a trust-killer, plain and simple.

So what’s the move? Be intentional.

Put the phone away. Make eye contact. Mean what you signal.

Conclusion

We signal all the time, often without meaning to.

Military leaders do it to project strength. Animals do it to show fitness. Humans do it to show care.

On a date, it’s not the words—it’s the actions. They shape how we’re read and remembered.

A thoughtful choice. A calm presence. A phone, turned face-down.

Those things don’t just matter. They build trust. And trust is what we’re all looking for.

So next time you’re on a date, ask yourself: What signals am I sending? And are they earning the trust I want to build?