Dating Coach: The Signs He'll Never Commit to You | Sabrina Zohar
In a Nutshell
The core message is that effort equals genuine interest—look for reciprocity, consistency, and progression rather than chasing emotionally unavailable people who trigger old wounds. The key framework is regulating your nervous system first so you can assess compatibility based on mutual capacity and willingness to grow, instead of projecting potential onto someone who has already shown their limitations. Ultimately, build a fulfilling life you're not willing to compromise, then only allow in partners who add to it through mutual respect, clear communication, and shared accountability.
These notes were generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies.
The modern challenge in dating is the tendency to overthink and ruminate about whether someone is genuinely interested, similar to the childhood game of pulling flower petals to determine "they love me, they love me not." The key framework for assessing interest is effort equals interest. Rather than focusing on dopamine hits like daily texting, the focus should be on whether someone makes you feel safe, seen, and secure. This requires reciprocity, intentionality, consistency, and actual relationship progression through making plans.
People show interest differently based on their neurodiversity and attachment styles. Someone with ADHD might show up as super keen, while an avoidant partner might express interest through spending quality time rather than texting. The most reliable way to assess interest is through direct conversation: asking "How are you feeling about this?" and "What are your intentions with where we're going?"
Many people chase those who are disinterested because love has been framed as something that must be earned or won. The more someone avoids or is elusive, the more attractive they become, making their lack of response seem like they're busy and interesting. However, these behaviors are actually signs of disinterest, not challenge.
The number one question to ask when chasing someone is: "How old do I feel and where did I learn this from?" Repetition compulsion is a Freudian concept meaning you date the parts of yourself that haven't been healed. This stems from early caregiver relationships that wire beliefs like "you're not enough" before words can even be formed. These patterns can come from big trauma or small "paper cuts" - like a parent being too busy to make eye contact.
Your state (nervous system regulation) determines your story (how you interpret situations), which determines your strategy (how you behave). When dysregulated, the story becomes "I'm not safe, there's something wrong with me," leading to strategies like excessive texting. When regulated, you can access choice and sit in discomfort rather than reacting from a wounded child state.
The window of tolerance refers to how long you can stay in a ventral (regulated) state versus going up and down emotionally. Expanding this window allows you to handle situations like someone not calling without making it about your worth. Emotionally unavailable people feel familiar because they match what your nervous system has learned as baseline safety.
- Asking how their last relationship ended and what it taught them about themselves reveals growth mindset and accountability. "All my exes are crazy" shows zero accountability.
- Someone saying "you deserve better" is actually saying they won't become what you need.
- How they respond when you set boundaries reveals respect levels. Making fun of or pushing back against boundaries is an immediate red flag.
People self-abandon their wants, needs, and desires because they're focused on being chosen rather than choosing. Butterflies are actually your nervous system's way of signaling you might need to run, not excitement. The charm and grandiosity that feels attractive often masks problematic behavior.
A common pattern is someone being consistent and regulated for 4-6 weeks, then suddenly becoming inconsistent. This differs from love bombing because it initially feels like normal adult connection. The intensity of seeing someone nearly every other day creates a false sense of progression without actually assessing compatibility.
Going slow isn't an excuse for bad behavior - it means not expediting relationship stages. This includes maintaining your own life and not making someone too accessible too quickly. The advice to "always have dates on Thursday" creates the impression of having nothing going on, making you too available.
When someone pulls away after consistent connection, the best approach is not taking it personally and examining the narrative you've created about the situation. Often the pain comes more from the story than the actual events. Scarcity mindset makes people put others on pedestals they haven't earned.
The question isn't who wants you, but who do you want to be wanted by? When you need someone versus want them, it becomes dangerous. The fear isn't that they'll leave you - your inner child is scared that you'll leave them, repeating patterns from childhood where you had to earn love.
Dating exhaustion often comes from putting pressure on matches to "make life better" rather than living fully in the present. People haven't learned to grieve endings, making it difficult to move forward. Dating requires accepting that there are many incompatible people, but also many amazing ones.
The healthiest approach is building a life you don't want to lose, then allowing someone to enhance it rather than complete it. This means being okay with rejection and having standards. When meeting someone new, the energy should be "I'm allowing you into my life because you're not going to mess with what I have."
Key non-negotiables include:
- Someone must be done with their ex
- Growth mindset demonstrated through questions like "What is something you changed your mind about recently?"
- How they treat service workers when dysregulated
- Whether they use "I" statements versus "you always/never" language
A solid foundation requires going slow to observe patterns over time. Each interaction reveals whether someone can handle boundaries, treats others well, and creates a comfortable environment. The goal is assessing whether this person adds to an already fulfilling life rather than becoming the source of fulfillment.
Instead of approaching dating with a predetermined outcome mindset, each date should be treated as an opportunity to assess whether a second date is desired. The problem arises when people go on a first date and immediately label the other person as "Prince Charming," creating unrealistic expectations based on Disney narratives that only show "happily ever after" without depicting the reality that comes after.
Disney stories end with "happily ever after" without revealing the actual challenges that follow. This creates a false expectation that finding someone who likes you is sufficient, rather than evaluating whether you genuinely enjoy their company and holding space for your own preferences.
Many people avoid difficult conversations because they're afraid of being perceived as "too much" or pushing someone away. The response to this fear should be to embrace the possibility that if someone finds you too much, they should go find less. This mindset shift reframes the situation as evaluating whether someone is right for you, rather than trying to be right for them.
A solid foundation in relationships requires the ability to have hard conversations. When someone says something that hurts you, the process involves addressing it directly: "Hey, can I share something with you? What's going on? I really didn't love the way you said that. It really made me feel small. I felt very dismissed and discredited. Moving forward, can we have a different way of saying it?" A partner's appropriate response involves acknowledgment and willingness to adjust, rather than defensiveness.
Trust should be built conditionally - giving a little information and observing how it's handled before sharing more. On first dates, avoid trauma dumping about past experiences like childhood abuse, as this information could potentially be used against you. The foundation should be built on trusting yourself first and having your own back.
Having non-negotiables means refusing to play small in relationships. This doesn't require overreacting, but it does mean refusing to minimize your needs or voice.
Emotionally unavailable people consistently steer conversations back to shallow topics and shy away from any discussions about commitment. They struggle to let others in and often create situations where everything remains superficial. When someone brings up deeper topics, they immediately shut down conversations.
Emotional unavailability often stems from capacity issues rather than lack of desire. Someone can want a relationship but lack the emotional capacity to handle commitment, which requires being accountable to another person's emotions and feelings. This goes beyond simple activities like going to movies or parks - it involves holding space, learning to regulate emotions together, and coexisting with another person.
Even people who are typically available can become emotionally unavailable during difficult periods. One example involves a partner who lost a sister three years before meeting his current partner and struggled to open up due to grief. This wasn't because he didn't want to connect, but because he lacked the capacity to process his own emotions, let alone hold space for someone else's.
Both avoidant and anxious attachment styles can manifest as emotional unavailability. Anxious individuals may also be emotionally unavailable because they're focused on the other person rather than understanding their own emotions. The key indicator is discomfort with depth, emotionality, and vulnerability.
The suggestion is to avoid trying to change emotionally unavailable people. Change is something that person must do when they're ready and have the capacity. Your presence in their life won't be what creates that change.
What frustrates people most is when someone has potential but lacks capacity. It's easier to accept when someone simply doesn't have the ability to be empathetic, but when it's a capacity issue, people often believe that if the person loved them enough, they would develop that capacity.
A growth-minded partner who says "I want to work through this. I don't want to be emotionally unavailable. I don't want to be avoidant. I want to be secure. I want to show up for you as the person you deserve" represents an ideal situation. Setting boundaries from the beginning, such as "If you don't let me in, I can't continue doing this," establishes the foundation for healthy dynamics.
When someone explicitly states they are emotionally unavailable, the response should be immediate disengagement rather than hoping they'll change. Past experiences, like watching a parent never change despite years of effort from family members, demonstrate that love alone doesn't create change in people.
There's a crucial distinction between needing "more than" someone versus needing "more of" someone. If you need more than what they have to offer, the relationship may not work. However, if you need more of their presence and they're willing to work on providing that, there's potential for growth together.
Love alone doesn't change people. If loving someone enough could create change, then examples like watching a mother do everything possible to change a father would have worked. When someone lacks the capacity for change, nothing you do will alter that except walking away.
Most people are honest about their limitations from the beginning, stating things like "You know I'm not ready for a relationship" or "You know I'm not into this." The problem occurs when these statements are ignored because of a desire to see potential rather than accepting the reality being presented.
Situationships often develop because one person plays the "cool guy or girl" who has no needs and remains two-dimensional. The dynamic emerges when people don't take up space for their actual needs and desires.
When someone is genuinely into you, they call, have real conversations, and work through issues together. Secure individuals don't entertain emotionally unavailable people because they know they deserve more. Insecure individuals often convince themselves that limited attention is all they can get, translating "crumbs into a meal" when they deserve the "entire loaf."
There's a distinction between rigidity (leaving at the first sign of discomfort) and recognizing when there's no progress or depth in a relationship. The key is not continuing to waste time when someone shows no capacity for the depth needed.
The concept of "right person, wrong time" is rejected in favor of the belief that what makes someone right is being in your life at the right time. Timing and proximity matter more than love alone. If someone is right for you, they'll return organically without needing to be held onto.
Meeting someone you like at the wrong time means they're not the right person by definition. Being in different life stages or readiness levels doesn't make someone the right person - it simply means the timing isn't aligned.
Dating advice often gets reduced to simplistic phrases like "If they like you, you'll know. If not, you'll be confused" or "If he wanted to, he would." These reduce complex human dynamics to 140 characters or less, ignoring the nuanced nature of relationships.
Meeting someone amazing in the past doesn't discredit a current partnership. Different connections serve different purposes, and it's acceptable to recognize that someone from the past was right for that moment but not for the present.
When someone doesn't want you, it often increases desire to prove worthiness and earn their affection. This pattern reconnects to old wounds rather than accepting "Thank you so much. I'm going to move on with my life."
After one date, nobody owes anything to the other person. While it would be nice to communicate disinterest directly, some people react poorly to rejection, including showing up at someone's house. If ghosting occurs, it's important not to take it personally.
When someone communicates they don't like texting during the day because they're busy, anxiety about response times is a nervous system issue rather than a problem with the other person. Not everyone has the bandwidth to respond immediately, even if they're on their phone, and black-and-white thinking about texting patterns creates unnecessary anxiety.
If you're always the one starting conversations, it may indicate you're not giving the other person space to reach out. Distance creates desire, and constantly initiating prevents the other person from having the opportunity to demonstrate their interest.
Texting behavior alone isn't a reliable gauge of interest. Someone might text constantly at the beginning and then reduce communication, which could indicate a shift, but intrinsic texting patterns don't necessarily reflect genuine interest. Some people simply prefer phone calls over texting.
If all you have with someone is texting, you don't have a relationship. Real connection involves actual conversations and shared experiences beyond screen-based communication.
Partners may have different texting preferences, with some preferring phone calls over text messages. The key is understanding and adapting to these preferences rather than creating narratives about what delayed responses mean.
Texting creates a dopamine addiction similar to a slot machine, where the anticipation of a response releases dopamine rather than the response itself. This creates hypervigilance about response timing, punctuation, and tone that often disconnects people rather than connecting them.
Without tone or context, text messages lead to creating entire fantasies based on words on a screen. People project their own communication style onto messages, wondering why they're upset when the reality doesn't match their imagined scenario.
Text messages lack tone and context, making them poor vehicles for important decisions. Phone conversations allow for collaborative decision-making with full context rather than high-pressure yes/no responses without nuance.
If someone says they don't want anything serious but keeps treating you like a partner, they're taking what they have access to. You have to tell them that you're not willing to allow that, otherwise they will keep taking it.
When someone has been in countless situationships that last only a couple months, the issue is not using their voice. A situationship is a relationship without boundaries, without clear communication, and without asking for needs to be met. Start asking for needs to be met and start taking up space, then relationships will start changing.
When someone goes on a date that felt amazing, they say "let's do this again soon," then there's silence, it's entirely possible that in the moment they did like you, then went home and changed their mind. People want certainty before they've even gone out with someone because they don't trust themselves. If you trust yourself that no matter what, you'll be okay, you'll ask the right questions, you'll vet them properly, and you'll decide if it works for you.
When someone goes on a date with a person who is perfect on paper but there's zero spark, the question becomes what you're actually looking for. If you're chasing a feeling, you can't be surprised when you don't find it. When you're chasing something that's just momentary, then you're left with a human after. The spark is usually your nervous system trying to tell you to run. If you don't have the spark, that doesn't mean it's bad. Look at whether you're interested in topics they talk about, if you like what they have to say, and if you're intrigued and interested in talking to them. If that's the answer, it doesn't matter about the spark. If you don't like the person, that's the differential.
When someone keeps saying "I'm just not good at relationships," take it as both honesty and a red flag. If somebody is openly telling you they're not good at relationships, the next question should be "What does that mean?" and the response should be "No, thank you" because you are good at relationships.
In trying to keep ourselves safe, we often make the other person feel very unsafe by listing everything we don't like without giving them the opportunity to get to know each other. When someone says they want a healed person with no more unhealed people, the reality is that healing is a journey for life. Stop looking at things myopically as either healed or unhealed. Look for growth-minded people instead. If somebody is saying they want to do the work and want to invest, then you can support each other through that. If somebody isn't going to at least take accountability and ownership of their part in the dynamic, it's a moot point.
You don't ask somebody what it is that you are. You tell them what you want and see if it aligns. If you're in the gray area, you say "Hey, I'd love to share something with you. I don't know what's happening here. I really like you. I'd love to delete the apps and just focus on you, but I wanted to see how are you feeling about that." Most people won't do that because they're scared of the answer. "Go with the flow" is the worst dating advice. Where's the flow going? Is there an end game? When people say they're going with the flow, what they're really saying is they're not going to commit. What you need is clarity, not the fluidity.
When someone was dating you and said they weren't ready, then six months later they're in a full relationship with someone else, the tendency is to internalize it as "I wasn't enough." This is projection. The facts might be that they found a partner better suited for them, that person didn't trigger their nervous system, that person was a safer experience, or you reminded them of their dad growing up. Look at what the facts are to back up the thought. If there are no facts, then where did you learn this from? If it's your insecurity, that's what's really coming up.
When people can't think of facts to back up their thoughts, they go to "maybe if I didn't ask for so much, maybe if I wasn't always needing so much," which is really saying they're not comfortable with what their actual needs are. Even if you got back with them, you'd still want those things in three months' time. Nothing changed. If you're scared to ask for your needs to be met and have this conversation, that person probably doesn't have the bandwidth to begin with. When you look back and say they have something you don't, all you're doing is projecting your insecurities. That has nothing to do with the person and everything to do with the story you created about why they didn't want you. The good news is you can control that.
When dating someone who avoids conflict or shuts down when things get tough, have the conversation about what they're going to do about it. If somebody is consistently shutting down, there's rupture but no repair. See if they take accountability for that and if they're trying to do anything about it, or if they're saying "Well, that's who I am and this is it." You can absolutely work through this. Maybe they learned in childhood that confrontation means they're bad and so they shut down, which means they need to go to therapy. Look at if you show up as you, how are they showing up as them, and does that work for you. For a lot of people, they're used to being abandoned and having people leave when they don't do what they want. But maybe they're not used to someone saying "I'm here by your side, and if you're willing to do the work, I'll walk the journey with you." If one person is going to gaslight, deflect, shut down, walk out, and say "Well, I'm not going to talk about it," there's nothing that's going to change.
All good relationships are mutual. You have mutual understanding, mutual respect, and mutual awareness. The word mutual makes everything so simple. When trying to figure out whether to invest in a relationship, it's whether it's mutual or not. Over time, you get really clear on whether there's a mutual level of desire to invest and connect and build. As you do the work, your circle gets smaller because you start to realize some people are there because they benefit, because they need something, because they're bored. If you don't grieve the ending of things, then you're not going to be able to create new. If you constantly try to hold on to somebody and say "I'm only okay if I have them," you're never going to actually be able to grow anything else. If a house burns down, you can't rebuild it with the ashes. You have to be the phoenix that rises and rebuild it with something more solid and more concrete. It's okay to let it come crashing down.
"If he wanted to, he would" - This is myopic and not understanding human relationships. Want and do are two different parts of the brain. If you wanted to, you would move on and you're not, so it takes two.
"There's no good men out there" - This is the salience network at play. If you don't believe there are good men, then there are also not good women or not good things. If you're not finding them, change your state, the story, and the strategy so that different people can enter your life.
"When you know, you know" - Disagree. For some people it's 100% when they know, but for other people it's a longer journey. When you know that you don't want that, please listen to that. When you know that you do, please listen to it. Not everyone has the same journey.
"Once a cheater, always a cheater" - Completely disagree. People can grow and evolve. Once a cheater, if you don't take accountability, you will continue to cheat. If you believe someone's a cheater and will always be a cheater and you can't get over that, the relationship naturally won't work. If you're going to give somebody another chance after they cheated, you have to make the commitment that you're going to move on because it's not fair to hold it over their head. If you don't have trust in a relationship, you don't have to give it back. But if you're making the choice to stay in the commitment, then make the choice together that you're staying in the commitment.
"Men are intimidated by strong women" - Disagree. There are some men that are, and then there are men who find strong women to be sexy. Stop keeping it as if everybody is one thing and understand that one person's lived experience is not everybody else's.
"If it's not a hell yes, it's a no" - Disagree. It took six months to be a yes with a partner who was a hell yes month one. It's okay to take time. If it doesn't get to a hell yes, then take it as a no.
"It should feel effortless with the right person" - Wildly disagree. It shouldn't be a fight, but what doesn't take work? Relationships are not easy. They take a lot of work, but they're also rewarding. Look at it as a bank account - if you're in the green, keep going. If you're in the red and your needs aren't met and you're constantly depleted, that's the issue. It's not that it should be easy.
When you come back home to yourself, then you can show up differently. Make sure your light is shining as bright as it can so that you can welcome everybody in so that they also feel seen. Step into your power to know who you are and how amazing you are as a human being. If you don't believe that, go back to square one and work on where you learned that from.
Keep Jay Shetty Podcast in your library
Save the videos and channels worth coming back to, and find them again in one place.
