Is It a Crush or Just a Vibe?
One person, seven plays, and an official ruling on what your heart is doing out there.
Folks, we have movement on the field. You've been replaying one specific person's messages, and the booth needs a ruling: is this a developing crush, or is your brain just enjoying some pleasant static? The distinction matters more than the scoreboard admits, and tonight we settle it.
Hold that specific person in mind while you answer — no substitutions at halftime. Seven honest calls from you, then the officials hand down a tier, a title, and a caption you should absolutely never send them. Play begins now.
Read every possible result and what it means →
Inspect the scoring, question by question
The highest possible score here is 21. The original game divides scores into 4 bands; the bands contain different numbers of answer combinations. A high point total is not a measured percentile.
1. Their name lands on your phone screen. Give us the instant replay.
- I open it fast but draft my reply suspiciously slowly — 2 original points
- Same reaction as any other notification, honestly — 0 original points
- Full heart-rate spike, and I reread it twice before responding — 3 original points
- A small internal 'oh nice' and I answer whenever — 1 original points
These are the archived game’s option weights. Partial credit is a game rule, not a clinical or population measurement.
2. How much of your average week contains this person, statistically?
- We cross paths and it's pleasant enough — 1 original points
- They have somehow entered my shower thoughts — 3 original points
- They show up when they show up — 0 original points
- I notice when a whole day passes without them — 2 original points
These are the archived game’s option weights. Partial credit is a game rule, not a clinical or population measurement.
3. A friend announces you two would make a great couple. React.
- My ears go hot and I change the subject way too fast — 3 original points
- I laugh it off, then privately consider it for one minute — 1 original points
- I say 'maybe' in a voice that clearly means 'go on' — 2 original points
- Genuinely never crossed my mind before this moment — 0 original points
These are the archived game’s option weights. Partial credit is a game rule, not a clinical or population measurement.
4. They mention someone attractive from their gym. Internal weather report?
- Clear skies, zero turbulence — 0 original points
- Brief unexplained fog that I refuse to name — 2 original points
- A single passing cloud, gone in seconds — 1 original points
- Sudden storm system, and I resent that it has a name — 3 original points
These are the archived game’s option weights. Partial credit is a game rule, not a clinical or population measurement.
5. Which existing plan would you cancel to see them?
- A decent hangout, while telling myself it's just convenient timing — 2 original points
- Nearly anything short of a wedding, and even then I'd check the schedule — 3 original points
- None. My calendar stands firm — 0 original points
- Errands, maybe, if I was bored anyway — 1 original points
These are the archived game’s option weights. Partial credit is a game rule, not a clinical or population measurement.
6. What happens to your posture when they walk into the room?
- A friendly nod, business as usual — 1 original points
- Nothing. I remain furniture — 0 original points
- Instant sit-up-straight, hair check, personality upgrade — 3 original points
- A slight adjustment I will deny under oath — 2 original points
These are the archived game’s option weights. Partial credit is a game rule, not a clinical or population measurement.
7. Last call: picture them dating someone new next month. Verdict?
- Devastated in a way I would need to privately schedule — 3 original points
- Happy for them, full stop, no asterisk — 0 original points
- Fine, with a shrug I mostly mean — 1 original points
- Supportive out loud, weirdly quiet on the inside — 2 original points
These are the archived game’s option weights. Partial credit is a game rule, not a clinical or population measurement.
What happens across every possible answer pattern?
We counted all 16,384 patterns, treating each offered choice as equally likely. This is a synthetic rule check, not visitor research. It does not describe how real people answer.
| Result | Patterns | Share of patterns |
|---|---|---|
| Just a Vibe, Officially | 323 | 1.97% |
| Curiosity in the Warm-Up Lane | 7,869 | 48.03% |
| Crush Confirmed | 7,456 | 45.51% |
| Fully Down Bad | 736 | 4.49% |
Download the full counts · Download Python script · Download rule inputs
To reproduce locally: python3 measure_legacy.py --input legacy-rule-inputs.json --output counts.json. Uses Python 3 and its standard library.
The body often gets there before the story
In 1974 Donald Dutton and Arthur Aron ran a study on two footbridges over a river in Vancouver. One sat solidly above a stream. The other was a narrow suspension bridge swaying some seventy metres up. A young woman approached men crossing each with a short questionnaire and left her number in case they wanted the results. Far more of the men from the high bridge rang her.
The explanation offered was misattribution: a heart racing from the drop got filed under the woman standing in front of it. It is a small field study with rival readings, but the wider principle, that arousal from one source leaks into the next judgement, has held up.
Somebody put a name on this in 1979
Dorothy Tennov interviewed several hundred people about being in love and concluded that the intense early state needed its own word, because it behaves nothing like affection. She called it limerence, and the description is uncomfortably recognisable: intrusive thought about one specific person, mood pinned to the smallest signal from them, an ache for the feeling to be returned, and a gift for extracting enormous meaning from a two-word reply.
Stendhal sketched the same process in 1822 with a better image. Leave a bare branch in a salt mine, he wrote, and weeks later it emerges encrusted with crystals. Attention does that to a person. Limerence came from interviews rather than experiments, but as a portrait of the crush stage it is unbeaten.
Where the line between the two actually sits
No instrument measures this. Researchers studying attraction rely on self-report: asking people to notice their own reactions honestly, the same job this quiz gives you minus the laboratory. The markers worth watching tend to be persistence, whether the thought returns unprompted across weeks; specificity, whether anyone with similar banter would do or whether it has to be them; and cost, meaning what you would genuinely rearrange. None of them settles the question alone, but together they give the feeling a shape.
What to do with a tier
The one thing this page cannot do is tell you whether they feel something back. Nothing online can. That information lives in one head and is not indexed. Treat the result as a prompt rather than a verdict. If it says more than you expected, the useful follow-up is not whether they are the one but whether you want to find out, and what the smallest brave move would be.
Reading context & limits
For background and a fuller source trail, read How Friendship Actually Works. These references provide context; they do not validate the entertainment result or every historical detail in the archived essay.
- Lindenfors, Wartel & Lind, 'Dunbar's number deconstructed' — Biology Letters
- Dunbar, 'Structure and function in human and primate social networks' — Proceedings of the Royal Society A
Content lead: LISA. Updated October 25, 2026. Send a specific factual correction.