When consulting I used to ask this of clients when they asked to meet. It would end up with emails back and forth with me only me proposing a vague timeframe and them just giving a yes or no answer.

After a little change in attitude about myself and my worth overall, I just lead and send them a time. Most of the time it ends up working fine and saves emails. And I think makes me look better in the end.

Maybe my brain is going (long day), but that makes no sense.

First paragraph: you send them a time ("me proposing a vague timeframe"), they say yes or no.

Second paragraph: you send them a time ("I just lead and send them a time"), they say yes or no.

I can see how picking a specific time could work better, as then they're more likely to bend to your time than if you're vague. Being vague implies you have other open times too, so they're freer to say no while still getting the meeting. But how is the first about letting them choose a time-frame?

If I am vague, they seem to come back with the same vagueness. Me picking a time from the start puts them more on the spot and their no is normally followed with a concrete suggestion of their own. (I never seem to get that when giving a timeframe or options)

Even though that is the case, you can also start things off by suggesting a couple times. I find it more of a linguistic construct that's harder to get out of.

Let's face it, you only care about this stuff if there is a chance the person might not meet with you. In that case, it's better to use a little psychology and set the "frame of the interaction" -- meaning you determine how it's going to go by starting a well-known formula that everyone has been conditioned to follow, and they accept. It's like a handshake in the west, vs in Japan. You initiate it, chances are they will follow through even if they aren't that interested.

I can understand your point of view, but I think OP is saying that it will be interpreted differently, regardless of your intent. People's prior experiences put words in your mouth.