"Type" Is a Vague Word for What's Actually a Specific, Trackable Selection Pattern
By Momar Lissa Ndiaye ("MLN"), Founder & CEO, weyoga Inc.
"I guess I just have a type" is usually said as a kind of shrug — an acknowledgment of a preference too vague and too personal to really examine further. Underneath the shrug is usually something far more specific than the word "type" suggests: a describable, trackable set of selection criteria operating consistently enough to produce a genuine statistical pattern.
What gets casually labeled "type" — a certain unavailability, a certain intensity, a certain kind of attention — is, functionally, a filter: a set of conditions a person is selecting for, often without ever consciously listing them. Filters are specific by nature. "Type" just describes their output without naming their criteria.
This matters because a vague word invites a vague response — "that's just who I'm attracted to" closes the conversation, while "these are the specific conditions I keep selecting for" opens one. The same underlying fact reads as fixed in one framing and examinable in the other.
"Type" was never a personality trait. It was always a selection pattern wearing a word too soft to invite inspection.
Part of The Recognition Layer →
Momar Lissa Ndiaye ("MLN") is the Founder & CEO of weyoga Inc., a Delaware company. — weyoga.ai · mln@weyoga.ai