While it's true that respect and open communication are essential components of true love, it is the asymmetry of attraction that can make those conversations difficult. Nikhil was absolutely correct that the unease derived from an imbalance of attraction can easily be mistaken for genuine creepiness. Furthermore, Nikhil correctly suggested that if one becomes socially inept in the presence of their beloved, it is not necessarily a sign of disinterest, but rather an expression of a deeper connection and admiration.
Of course, being "remarkably charming" while masking lack of genuine interest is far from a sign of love. However, Nikhil never said it was - in fact, he suggested the opposite. He wrote that if you are on a date with him and he is being remarkably charming, "then you should end the date right there", implying that the excessive charm was a sign of disinterest rather than affection. In other words - UrRong - his essay was neither suggesting nor implying that being remarkably charming was indicative of love or interest.
In conclusion, Nikhil's original essay was not advocating for being "textbook creepy" or "remarkably charming" as signs of love - rather, it was exploring how an imbalance of attraction can cause one to behave in ways that may be misinterpreted as creepy or disengaging. The moral of the story? If your date is showing signs of being unremarkably non-charming - then you just might have a shot!