What You Actually Want From Them
Strip a relationship down to its skeleton and one question remains.
What do you want from the other person?
The answer decides everything that follows. Two people can use the same word — like — and mean completely different things. One reaches for something. The other reaches toward someone.
People mistake liking for a feeling. It is not. It is a movement. And every movement falls into one of two categories: taking, or following.
The first kind wears a friendly face. It looks like affection, sounds like interest, feels like connection. But it is really inventory management.
This version of liking is not picky about the person. It is picky about the goods. Resources, status, contacts, emotional labor, a shoulder that does not ask questions — these are what get evaluated. The person is just the shipping container.
The moment the goods move elsewhere, the liking moves with them. No goodbye required.
The defining feature of this pattern is that it never hurts. Getting what you want feels like good judgment. Not getting it feels like the other person’s failure.
Watch a networking event. A thirty-two-year-old consultant works the room, handing out business cards and LinkedIn QR codes like Halloween candy. Two weeks later, one contact lands a promotion. The consultant’s next post reads, “So inspired by your leadership journey.” Six months after that, the same contact takes a fall. The posts vanish. The chat history goes quiet. Not because anything changed between them — because the balance sheet changed.
This is not a character flaw. It is an operating system. In that system, every relationship is a line item. Everyone gets a valuation, a holding period, a liquidation date.
You can spot this type faster than they think. Watch how they treat someone with zero utility. A server at a restaurant. A junior assistant. A retired boss who no longer opens doors. Warmth toward the useful is an investment. Warmth toward the useless is a choice. The first is instinct. The second is who someone actually is.
The second kind moves in the opposite direction. It does not reach for anything. It reaches toward.
This version attaches to the person themselves — to something whole and ordered that the other person seems to possess. The follower does not keep score. The question is never “what can you do for me.” It is “where are you going, and can I keep up.”
The object of this liking might not be better in every way. But they are ahead in at least one way that matters.
A young architect stays late for three years assisting a senior partner who pays below market and offers no partnership track. The senior partner is difficult, inconsistent, sometimes wrong. But in year four, the young architect opens their own practice with a clarity of vision they could not have bought at any price. They were not collecting a paycheck. They were collecting a way of seeing.
This kind of liking carries a cost. Admitting someone else is further along requires admitting you are not there yet. That hurts. But that hurt is the engine. Taking pulls things inward. Following pushes things forward.
There is a danger. Following can collapse into dependence. When someone outsources their direction, their taste, their judgment to another person, the relationship deforms. The healthy endpoint of following is surpassing. The unhealthy endpoint is disappearing. The person who grows becomes themselves. The person who merely clings becomes a shadow.
The two patterns look identical from the outside. Both wear the same label. Both produce the same sentence: “I really like this person.”
The difference shows up at one specific moment.
When the other person says no.
When the resource does not arrive. When the connection does not pay off. When the person being liked does not give back what was expected.
The taking version turns sour at that exact moment. Every good feeling from before gets converted, line by line, into resentment. What looked like affection was a deposit. Deposits expect returns. When the return does not come, the depositor does not feel sad. They feel cheated.
That is why so many friendships end in mutual damage. One person was keeping score. The other was keeping pace. When the bill came due, both felt betrayed by math they never agreed to.
Get Nanmoon’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
The following version survives the no. Because it was never a transaction. You admire someone. They do not invite you in. You feel disappointed, not owed. There is a difference between losing something you never had and not getting paid for something you thought you sold.
There is a third pattern that pretends to be the second but is really the first in disguise.
It looks like devotion. Unlimited giving. Infinite patience. Self-erasure. The person says they just want to be close, just want to help, just want to support.
Underneath, they are building a ledger. Every act of service is a deposit. Every sacrifice is a line item. Every swallowed complaint is a claim waiting to be cashed. This is not following. This is lending with no stated interest rate.
The difference is one question: what happens to the giver when the receiver does not reciprocate?
Following says: I am here because I want to be near this direction. The cost is mine.
This disguised version says: I have been so good to you. You owe me.
One is a path. The other is a trap with a thank-you card on top.
Why does the first kind seem to be everywhere now?
Because it is the cheapest to run. It asks nothing difficult. No admission of incompleteness. No humility. No patience. Just a belief that you deserve something, and someone else has it.
The entire attention economy is built to confirm that belief. Algorithms feed you what you already want. Ads tell you what you already deserve. Short-form video lets you live someone else’s life in thirty-second increments. Every surface repeats the same message: you are the customer, and the world is the menu.
This loop does not even require money. It runs on attention. And attention, once spent, cannot be refunded.
After enough time inside that loop, a person starts to feel the world owes them a certain standard of treatment. They have not fallen in love with anyone. They have fallen in love with being served. And the person nearest to them becomes the unlucky stand-in for a platform that promised everything and delivered nothing but frictionless scrolling.
The platform does not care who you love. It cares where your attention lands. And once love becomes measurable, it becomes optimizable. Which means it becomes a product. Which means it stops being love.
The hardest version of this question is not about other people. It is about yourself.
What kind of liking are you offering?
If the person you claim to care about lost everything tomorrow — their job, their looks, their network, their future — would your feeling still be there?
That pause before the answer is the answer.
The person who is taking will feel the ground shift. The person who is following will not even understand the question.
One treats people like clearance items. The other treats themselves like unfinished work.
One makes the world smaller with every relationship, because every new person is just another stop on a search that never ends. The other makes the world larger, because every person they follow adds something that was not there before.
The follower eventually becomes someone worth following. The taker eventually becomes someone worth avoiding.
The rarest thing in any relationship is not the feeling. It is the willingness to say: I am not there yet. Show me.
Following requires lowering your head. Not because you lost. Because you found a road.
The person who is always looking for the next thing will never arrive anywhere. The person who found one thing worth moving toward already has.
The world is full of people keeping score. Be the one keeping pace.
