Every conversation you have — every single one — is running a score. Not a vague feeling. Not an intuition. A measurable, readable score across three dimensions: Profit, Love, and Tax. The person who can read that score in real time has a fundamentally different experience of life than the person who walks away from a conversation and only later thinks, "Something felt off."
Conversation scoring is the core practice of the PLT framework, created by Craig Jones. It's not a personality test. It's not a communication style quiz. It's a scoring system — a method for reading what's actually happening beneath the words, the silences, and the body language of any human exchange.
This guide teaches you how to score any conversation, in any context, using all three PLT dimensions. We'll walk through four real-world examples — a business meeting, a salary negotiation, a sales call, and a relationship conversation — with full scoring breakdowns.
Before we score anything, here's what each dimension measures:
Each score can be rated on a simple scale: +2 (strong gain), +1 (slight gain), 0 (neutral), -1 (slight loss), -2 (significant loss). The combination of all three tells you the real outcome of the conversation — not the outcome you hoped for or the one the other person told you about.
You're in a quarterly review meeting with your team lead and their manager. Your project delivered results, but another team is trying to claim credit for the overlap. Your team lead knows the truth but hasn't spoken up yet. The other team's manager is presenting your shared metrics as their win.
Move 1: The other team's manager presents the quarterly numbers, framing the results as primarily driven by their initiative. They acknowledge your team's "support role" briefly.
Move 2: Your team lead stays silent. No correction. No pushback. They give a neutral nod.
Move 3: You interject calmly with specific data — showing which deliverables came from your team, with dates and impact metrics. You don't attack the other team. You just present facts.
Move 4: The senior manager asks both teams to "work together on the final report," which is corporate for "sort it out yourselves."
| Participant | Profit | Love | Tax |
|---|---|---|---|
| You | +2 | +1 | -1 |
| Your Team Lead | -1 | -1 | -2 |
| Other Team's Manager | -1 | 0 | -1 |
Analysis: You gained Profit by establishing the record with facts. You gained slight Love with the senior manager (competence builds trust). But you created minor Tax — your team lead may feel undermined that you spoke up when they didn't, creating a conversation you'll need to have later. Your team lead lost the most here: their silence cost them Profit (the credit went unchallenged for minutes), Love (you now trust them less to advocate for the team), and created significant Tax (they owe you an explanation and the dynamic needs addressing).
You've been offered a new role. The base salary is 15% below your target. The hiring manager seems excited about you. You've done your research — you know the market rate, the company's budget cycle, and that they've been trying to fill this role for four months.
Move 1: You express genuine enthusiasm for the role and the team. You spend two minutes on what specifically excites you. This isn't filler — it's building Love capital before you push on Profit.
Move 2: You present your counter: "Based on my research into market rates for this role and the value I'd bring from day one, I'd like to discuss a base of [target number]." No apology. No hedging. Clean ask.
Move 3: The hiring manager says they "need to check with finance" and mentions the "approved band." They ask if you'd be open to a lower base with a six-month review.
Move 4: You say: "I understand budget constraints. I'm flexible on the structure, but the total compensation needs to reflect the role's impact. Can we explore a signing bonus or accelerated review timeline alongside the base?" You've reframed the negotiation from one number to a package.
| Move | Profit | Love | Tax |
|---|---|---|---|
| Your enthusiasm (Move 1) | 0 | +2 | 0 |
| Your counter (Move 2) | +2 | 0 | 0 |
| Their "check with finance" (Move 3) | -1 | 0 | -1 |
| Your reframe (Move 4) | +1 | +1 | +1 |
Analysis: This negotiation is well-scored across all three dimensions. Move 1 builds Love surplus before the Profit push in Move 2. Move 3 from the hiring manager creates Tax — the "six-month review" is a deferred promise that may never materialize (Tax always comes due, and vague future promises are the highest-Tax instruments in negotiation). Move 4 is the strongest play: you gained Profit by expanding the negotiation space, built Love by showing flexibility, and actually reduced Tax by refusing to accept a vague future promise and instead pushing for concrete alternatives.
"The person who names the structure of the deal has already scored Profit. The person who accepts the other side's structure is playing their game."
You're a B2B salesperson on a discovery call with a prospect who reached out through your website. They have a clear problem you can solve, but they mention they're also talking to two competitors. They're friendly but guarded.
Move 1: Instead of pitching immediately, you ask about their current process and what's not working. You listen for three minutes. You take notes. You repeat back what you heard to confirm.
Move 2: You share a specific, relevant case study — not a generic success story, but one that mirrors their exact situation. You name the problem, the approach, and the measurable result.
Move 3: You say: "I'm not going to pitch you today. Here's what I'd suggest instead — let me send over a brief analysis of your situation with three specific recommendations. Two of them you can implement without us. The third is where we'd add the most value." You schedule a follow-up.
| Move | Profit | Love | Tax |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deep listening (Move 1) | +1 | +2 | 0 |
| Targeted case study (Move 2) | +2 | +1 | 0 |
| Free value + follow-up (Move 3) | +1 | +2 | +1 |
Analysis: This call runs positive across all three dimensions — the mark of a PLT-aware salesperson. Move 1 builds Love (they feel heard) and Profit (you now have intelligence the competitors probably don't because they were too busy pitching). Move 2 creates Profit by establishing credibility with specifics, not generalities. Move 3 is the masterclass: by giving away value upfront and not pushing for the close, you build massive Love surplus, gain Profit (you're now the trusted advisor, not one of three vendors), and actually reduce Tax (no pressure means no buyer's remorse, no "I need to think about it" stalling).
Compare this to the competitor who spent the same call doing a 20-minute product demo. They might have scored +1 Profit (if the demo was good), 0 Love (demos are about the seller, not the buyer), and -1 Tax (the prospect now feels obligated to respond but hasn't been given a reason to care).
Your partner has been working late for three weeks. You've been handling everything at home — dinners, kids, errands. You're not angry yet, but you can feel resentment building. You know if you don't say something now, it'll become a bigger conversation later.
Move 1: You choose the timing deliberately — not when they walk in the door exhausted, but Saturday morning when things are calm. You say: "I want to talk about how the last few weeks have been going. Not a fight — a real conversation."
Move 2: You describe what you've been carrying without blame: "I've been handling everything at home and I'm starting to feel the weight of it. I know you're under pressure at work. I'm not saying you're doing anything wrong — I'm saying I need some of that pressure shared."
Move 3: Your partner responds defensively: "You know this project is temporary. I don't need this right now." They've shifted the frame from the problem to the timing of the conversation.
Move 4: You hold your ground without escalating: "I hear you. And I chose now specifically because I'd rather have this conversation when it's small than wait until I'm resentful. What's one thing we can adjust this week?"
| Move | Profit | Love | Tax |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timing + framing (Move 1) | +1 | +1 | +2 |
| Honest description (Move 2) | +1 | +1 | +1 |
| Partner's deflection (Move 3) | 0 | -1 | -1 |
| Your re-anchor (Move 4) | +2 | +1 | +2 |
Analysis: This conversation is a Tax-reduction masterpiece. Move 1 scores +2 on Tax reduction because choosing the right timing and explicitly framing it as "not a fight" prevents the defensive Tax that usually accumulates in these conversations. Move 2 continues reducing Tax through honesty without blame. Move 3 from your partner creates Tax (deflection always does) and spends Love. But Move 4 is the key: by naming exactly why you chose this timing — "I'd rather have this conversation when it's small" — you've articulated the PLT principle that early Tax payments are cheaper than late ones. And the specific, small ask ("one thing this week") is a Profit move that's achievable enough to actually happen.
"The conversation you are not having is not a silence. It is a Tax."
You don't need to be an expert to begin. Start with these five steps:
Craig Jones's Scorer series is the applied workbook for everything in this guide. Each book takes real conversations and scores them move by move across all three PLT dimensions:
Each book in the series reads like a field guide. You're not learning theory — you're watching scores happen in real exchanges, building the pattern recognition that lets you score your own conversations in real time.
Get All 18 PLT Books — $49 →Or start with The Scorer individually →