Why We Should Stop Saying He’s Not Really My Type

Start a routine: when someone receives a one-line verdict, run three concrete questions within five minutes. This article delivers a short, operational checklist that makes initial assessment shorter and less biased. Have five core items that separate values from surface signals, and mark whether responses show being available, emotionally present, and aligned with your standard. Use a 60-second facebook message or a two-minute in-person exchange to test signals, because shorter checks reduce projection and save time.

Field testing finds that lists based on measurable preferences lead to quicker, clearer decisions; keep each metric on a 1–5 scale so updates can be made without overthinking. The system is designed to be continually refined: record answers, compare across dates, and replace vague terms with specific things you can observe. Basically, swap blanket dismissal for quantified criteria and a scheduled follow-up within seven days.

Implement a minimum standard: have three non-negotiables and two flexible preferences, then score whether chemistry feels emotionally reciprocal. Make decisions based on repeated signals over time, because that makes patterns visible and reduces mistaking novelty for incompatibility. If a quick judgement was made, apply a 48–72 hour reassessment rule – this finds missed connections that an algorithmic feed like facebook often amplifies.

How to Interrupt the Automatic “Not My Type” Response

Pause for ten seconds, take three slow breaths, always label the impulse as a negative automatic judgment, then write the first three words that come to mind about them.

Apply a three-question checklist: 1) What concrete behavior did I observe and where? 2) Could situational factors explain it, maybe stress or timing? 3) If I spent ten minutes trying to connect, what would I learn that feels interesting?

Run weekly micro-experiments: talk to a woman or a man you would otherwise skip, ask two neutral questions, rate attractive and romantic interest on a 1–10 scale, record answers in a spreadsheet or a small host of notes youll review after three encounters.

Challenge categorical labels: a supermodel, a colleague, a spouse or a wife send different signals; what seems obviously irrelevant to chemistry can still produce fit, so compare assumptions with outcomes and adjust how we assess ourselves – sometimes initial dislike reverses and proves much more engaging.

Use this process as a simple metric system described in this article or a short blog post: track frequency of premature dismissal, average attraction delta, and whether incentives to connect changed. Everyone who follows the method must record at least five interactions before generalizing.

Pause and label the thought for 10 seconds before declining

Pause for exactly 10 seconds, label the thought with one clear word, then deliver a short refusal if needed.

1. Set a 10-second marker: count silently, use a white card as a visual cue, or set a silent phone timer. Time matters: 10 seconds reduces reactive language and gives the body time to downshift.
2. Choose a single-word label within those 10 seconds. Examples: “physical”, “childhood”, “introvert”, “breaking”, “mismatch”. Keep labels neutral; avoid moralizing words.
3. Use a two-question check before declining:
   1. Does this person connect with my core values?
   2. Does this scenario feel like something youve truly want to pursue?
4. If the answer to either is no, use a shorter, calm decline: one sentence, no explanation. Example: “Thanks, I can’t.”
5. After declining, note which label you used and how it felt; this practice trains faster, clearer decisions over time.

• Sample one-word labels to discover patterns: physical, interesting, childhood, national (e.g., cultural fit), introvert, both (when two motives present), breaking (habit or pattern), looks.
• Physical cues to monitor during the pause: shallow breath, tension in shoulders, white-knuckle grip–if present, label “physical” first, then decide.
• For parents or people with kids nearby: model the 10-second pause when you decline to demonstrate calm decision-making; children learn from observed behavior.
• Introvert-specific tip: practice the label aloud at home; youre more likely to use it under social pressure if youve rehearsed it.
• Use the pause to gather perspectives: consider how this interaction connects to childhood triggers or to national/cultural expectations that have shaped your preferences.

Measure progress monthly: record the label, context, and outcome for ten instances. Compare patterns–what you find will reveal whether the concept behind your quick declines has changed, stopped, or intensified, and helps you connect choices with why you made them.

Write down five traits you habitually reject and the reasons

List five traits you reject and for each record: observable behaviors, likely origin (age/childhood), three recent examples from meetings, and a single experiment to keep for eight weeks.

• 1) Aloof / emotionally unavailable

  1. Why I reject: they shut down during vulnerability; started in childhood where caregivers were frequently absent and emotional reciprocity was scarce.
  2. Evidence to collect: note 3 recent meetings where they avoided feelings, the words they used, and the length of silence after an emotional prompt.
  3. Concrete test: keep a simple emotional checklist for four meetings – ask one direct feeling question each time and record whether they respond within 48 hours.
  4. How it matters: patterns that persist across years suggest trait rather than situational behavior; sometimes availability improves with therapy, sometimes it doesn’t.

• 2) Slow to commit / reluctant to marry

  1. Why I reject: fear of repeating past relationship failures based on events in their past; statements like “I don’t want to rush” often mask attachment patterns.
  2. Evidence to collect: list timelines they’ve accepted in past relationships over the last 5–10 years and any explicit statements about marriageand finances or children.
  3. Concrete test: during the second month, have a clear conversation about timelines – ask whether they see themselves willing to marry or to marry eventually, and note specificity.
  4. Decision rule: if answers remain vague after two honest conversations (meeting + follow-up), treat hesitation as a priority mismatch rather than a solvable issue.

• 3) Religion or ritual mismatch

  1. Why I reject: conflicting religion practices can affect holidays, childrearing, and social networks; that conflict is often underestimated.
  2. Evidence to collect: record frequency of attendance, fasting or dietary rules, and how they handled religion in past relationships – include источник: debra anecdote or notes from relatives if available.
  3. Concrete test: arrange one meeting that includes a religious or cultural event (or a conversation about one) and note comfort level and willingness to compromise.
  4. How to use results: if practices are central to identity and immovable, base long-term decisions on alignment rather than hopeful negotiation.

• 4) Emotionally volatile / drama-prone

  1. Why I reject: certain highs and lows trigger my reactivity; volatility can recreate chase dynamics where I end up pursuing reconciliation repeatedly.
  2. Evidence to collect: document 2–3 past incidents where a disagreement escalated, who initiated the escalation, and whether they owned harm afterward.
  3. Concrete test: introduce a “pause and revisit” rule during conflict for one month; observe if they respect that boundary on the second or subsequent conflict.
  4. Decision rule: if volatility resurfaces without sincere repair work, treat it as a structural mismatch and stop giving second chances.

• 5) Too similar to past partners (pattern repetition)

  1. Why I reject: finding the same traits in new partners is based on unconscious attraction patterns; good intentions won’t cancel structural similarity.
  2. Evidence to collect: create a table comparing five behavioral markers across past partners and current prospects – looks, conflict style, ambition, substance use, social circle.
  3. Concrete test: ask a trusted friend to evaluate whether they see the same pattern after two meetings; outside perspective reduces self-justification.
  4. How to proceed: if similarity score is high, change search criteria (what you’re looking for) and keep experimenting with different social circles rather than chasing the same profile.

Quickly classify preferences as negotiable, negotiable-with-conditions, or true dealbreakers

Assign each preference a 1–5 intensity score now: 1–2 = Negotiable, 3 = Negotiable-with-conditions, 4–5 = Dealbreaker; lock initial labels after three shared interactions or three dates and review again after four weeks.

Concrete rules to apply every time you evaluate a person: record the preference, note the trigger behavior, and index frequency. If a behavior occurs 0–1 times in six weeks keep it negotiable; 2–3 times move to negotiable-with-conditions; 4+ times upgrade to dealbreaker. Use a simple spreadsheet or a notes app instead of swiping through facebook posts for impressions alone.

Criteria to separate categories:

Operational tips: write the specific choice that irritates you (for example: constant lateness, dismissive language toward family, secretive app activity). When finding examples, avoid jumping to conclusions from photos or facebook history alone; cross-check by asking one direct question about the behaviour and watching the reply over the next three encounters.

Use behavior metrics rather than feelings: count instances, record dates, and mark context (work, party, group chat). If youve wondered whether attraction or values outweigh a recurring fault, prioritize outcomes that impact quality of life – housing, finances, parenting – over superficial preferences like hairstyle or dress.

Examples applying the scale: almost always late but apologetic and improving = negotiable-with-conditions; lied about a major financial obligation twice = dealbreaker; occasional different taste in music = negotiable. Keep a small list of your top five non-negotiables and test new partners against that list before moving in together or pooling money.

Decision rules to make final: if pattern persisted after boundary-setting and 30 days, upgrade category; if behaviour reverses and remains corrected for three months, downgrade one level. If you physically feel drained, want to leave a situation early, or find yourself watching interactions and making exit plans at parties, treat those signals as high-weight evidence.

Use perspective checks with a trusted friend: show them the table of incidents and ask whether the pattern would prompt them to act similarly. Thousands or even millions of anecdotal posts mean little without corroborating actions; focus on what was done and how often things were repeated. If someone shifts responsibility onto you or refuses measurable change, move onto clear separation rather than negotiating endlessly.

When making a choice, document the date you changed the label and the reason; revisit that note before re-engaging. This practice reduces biased patterns where past assumptions – where you wondered if attraction would fix everything – eventually led to wasted time. If something else appears relevant later, append it but keep the original evidence visible for perspective.

Apply a one-date rule: give a person one meeting before deciding

Meet once before deciding: schedule a single 60–90 minute in-person or video meeting within seven days of first contact; theres a clear deadline: if they cancel or reschedule twice, treat that as a negative signal and close the file. Important metrics to record on the date: punctuality, eye contact, how they listen, whether they ask questions back, and whether their stories match profiles or a blog/fileta you checked beforehand.

Allocate time by topic: 10–15 minutes casual rapport, 20–25 on core values (religion, family, finances), 15 on emotional history (past relationships, therapy) and conflict habits, 10 on lifestyle and daily routines, 10 for logistics and next steps. Use direct prompts so you can hear specifics: “How did therapy change your responses when conflict reaches a peak?” or “What made you decide about kids?” Discover concrete examples rather than abstract lines; while they describe ideals, list behaviors they actually do.

Decision rule: assign +1 for each aligned concrete item (shared goals, compatible parenting stance, no hidden debt), -1 for each dealbreaker (dishonesty, repeated cancellations, explicit fantasies that clash with your values). If score ≥2, schedule a second meeting within seven days; if score ≤0, end contact. If score =1, allow one 30-minute follow-up call; if doubts persist, move on. Especially watch for mismatch signals: if they just watched a popular show and use its fantasy language to describe lifeis goals, or if they praise “skinny” as the only attraction, that often turns into recurring friction. Many people wondered why dates repeat the same pattern; this rule reduces time over repeated tests and helps you find great matches faster.

Turn “not my type” into a testable hypothesis about compatibility

Translate that gut label into six measurable hypotheses and a decision rule: list values, conflict style, sexual chemistry, lifestyle habits, long-term goals, and deal-breakers; assign each a 0–5 score, a clear observable indicator, and a timebox (3 dates for short tests, 8–12 dates or 3 months for deeper verification).

For each hypothesis define one specific test. Example metrics: values – answer to three direct questions about children, savings, career; pass if 2/3 align with your expectations. Conflict – introduce one small disagreement (logistics or preference) and score response time, apology, and repair behavior (pass if score ≥3). Chemistry – note whether you felt physically safe, how often you laugh together (target ≥3 laughs per date), and comfort with touch; score sexual compatibility separately.

Account for bias and prior trauma: record whether a negative reaction came from their behavior or from past events you used as a template. Tag any signals you first saw on twitter or through friends and mark them as social influence. If trauma skews reactions, set a parallel hypothesis: work with a therapist or run a 6–week experiment to learn whether responses change when triggers are addressed.

Keep a simple log: date number, metric scores, two sentence notes on things that surprised you, and a binary column “bored / engaged.” Only continue if the aggregated score after 8 dates is ≥3 on at least four hypotheses. If interest stopped or you were almost always bored, treat that as a fail signal and end the test rather than stretch it for years.

Decision rules to discover patterns: abort if two or more deal-breakers hit “fail”; if most metrics are close but under threshold, re-run a shorter experiment after adjusting expectations by a fixed percentage (reduce pass threshold by 10–20% only if you’ve learned new, reliable information). Use this system to understand their real fit instead of relying on a vague label – you’ll get much clearer data, spot great matches, and avoid repeating choices you used to make without evidence.

Pick a simple success metric for a follow-up date (e.g., curiosity, shared laughter)

Adopt one clear numeric rule: label a follow-up as successful if the other person asks three or more follow-up questions, shares at least two spontaneous laughs with you, or the date extends by 15+ minutes; if any criterion is met, propose a second meet within 48 hours.

Operationalize counts: log question instances (counts where your companion finds a topic and asks for more), note emotional disclosures (short confessions count as one), and record shared laughter episodes; tick a box for each metric and convert to a binary outcome (pass/fail). Measure across dates, not moments, to see patterns across season and time of morning or evening messaging.

Calibrate for personality: an introvert may show curiosity by asking one deep question rather than many small ones, so weight depth × 2 for low‑talk partners. Ignore surface compliments about look or skinny and explicit labels like attractive; those are noisy. Pay attention to whether they ask about your work, partner history, wife or marriage views – those questions are predictive of eventual interest.

Practical thresholds: curiosity ≥3 OR shared laughter ≥2 OR extra time ≥15 minutes = likely yes; curiosity = 2 plus a direct follow-up message within 24 hours = strong yes. If none met across two dates, stop trying to make yourself smaller or different to chase interest; move on and track new metrics.

Quick examples: someone who finds your odd hobby (fileta, weird cooking term) and asks three questions is making emotional connection; someone who swears (says “fuck”) and you both laugh can signal comfort; if theres consistent trying to understand you and you think it’s amazing, mark success and set next date. Known patterns across multiple dates predict partner potential better than a single “looks” judgment.

Concrete Methods to Detect Your Attraction Patterns

Track 20 interactions over 12 weeks in a simple spreadsheet: columns for date, duration (minutes), location tag (party/quiet), attraction score 1–10, one-line trigger note, whether anything happened, and follow-up outcome. Start each entry with a numeric ID and tag the person by occupation, age range and one dominant trait.

Compute three metrics: median attraction score, percent of interactions where connection ≥7, and context dependency (percent of high scores that occurred at a party vs elsewhere). If much of your high-score sample clusters in one context, that is a measurable bias you can break.

Run two controlled experiments of 6 weeks each: Experiment A continue usual choice patterns; Experiment B consciously pick people who violate your known checklist. Track how attraction changes and whether feelings increase or ended quickly. If attraction continually shifts toward the B sample, your baseline was conditioned, not fixed.

Use simple statistics: a 30% uplift in average score between experiments is significant for personal patterns; a <10% change suggests habit. Log whether chemistry feels stronger with people who share a specific behavior (work schedule, hobby) and calculate correlation coefficients between that trait and attraction score.

Keep a qualitative column labeled “why” to force precision: list the single strongest cue that made you feel drawn (voice, humor, eye contact). When youve repeated the exercise across years you can quantify stable cues versus transient ones instead of relying on vague instincts.

Deliver feedback to ourselves weekly: review ten entries, flag recurring cues and broken assumptions, then enact one change (stop using the same opener, try daytime meetings) and measure impact. Continually testing prevents habit traps and prevents us from blaming external factors alone.

Follow this practical advice: if you never feel a connection outside of loud environments, avoid assuming the person is incompatible; change the environment and observe. If patterns persist after two experiments, accept that attraction is a choice influenced by exposure and adjust selection criteria rather than repeating the same behaviors.

When analysis has stopped being useful, end the protocol and compare notes with a trusted friend; invite their perspective on blind spots. You wont get millions of datapoints, but 60–100 structured interactions produce actionable patterns that tell you more than vague advice or past years of guesswork.

If a pattern makes you unhappy, break it: actively choose someone with opposite traits and measure whether connection forms. If it doesnt, move on and try something else; the goal isnt to force chemistry but to map where real attraction happens and where it doesnt, so you can spend energy on people who actually fit.