#badger vs lion primary

[wisteria-lodge]

badger primary + lion secondary

hi, wisteria! I enjoy reading your sorting asks and I’ve been struggling with my sort for a while now, so I thought I would write in to ask you for some help. (the little list of bulletins you made for things to possibly include in a sorting ask was very helpful with this, btw—and now I’m wondering if that’s something that might hints towards a house too: bird? bird-like?)

I grew up in a somewhat stifling house: I played the role of perfect child for a very long time. I still do, except I’m aware I’m playing the role now—whereas I previously used to think that’s “who I have to be”—and this position, though frustrating at times (because it’s actively someone I’m not and it involves many degrees of lying), feels much better. 

A friend of mine once defined “authenticity” as “consensual presentation” and I always liked that. The presentation is the same, but it feels like a choice, and a decision you are freely making when it didn’t before. Of course that feels better. 

With everyone else in my life, I shuffle characteristics around here and there. I moderate based on what I think people can handle; usually, it’s just because I think that different people do require different kinds of modulations (I suppose I say modulations because the traits I exhibit are all present in some degree or another mostly; there are some traits I find exhausting to exhibit and don’t try to, mostly) and I’m generally happy to give them that. I do wish it wasn’t like this sometimes, because it feels like work (so not snake?), but I’ve come to realize different degrees of intensity with different people is just how things work sometimes. 

You have a very sort of calm writing style, but this does sound like Lion secondary to me. This is how Lions talk about face-changing. Like a very chill lion, but still. (Modulation = the classic Lion dimmer switch/volume dial metaphor.)

And overall, it helps people be comfortable + makes for more interesting and thoughtful conversation in general, which I would rather have than never feeling a lil :/ about altering personalities. 

Hmm. Signs of a Loyalist primary? Snake or Badger maybe? 

I suppose this is a good point to switch into mentioning that people are sort of the lynchpin to my everyday

and there we are. 

I like people, I like thinking through how they work, and I even enjoy my job because it allows me to encourage people to reflect about the world and how they think. This isn’t meant to be altruistic, though. I just find this meaningful, because people and their thinking just seem to be the most fundamental axis on which the world works (if not for that, then what would we have?). I’ve also just learned so much from people and interacting with them, and I value that immensely. 

Yes. To me there is nothing so fascinating as people. And what we have here is either a Badger primary, or a very Badgery Paragon Lion. 

That said, and maybe this is funny, I’m also a little shy. Or maybe that’s not the word: I’m reluctant to enter a conversation; I prefer to observe because it takes me time to figure out precisely what I’m thinking and want to say (spontaneity is not my favourite thing…). 

Normally not liking spontaneity would make me say ‘not Lion secondary.’ But I’m not sure. I think you may just be a quieter, more deliberate Lion secondary. 

This has also generally been true for most settings. I like preparation, and I’m usually at my best when I’m ready to some degree (and not too much, because if I go to the point of rehearsal, I obsess too much over controlling and being…well, perfect).  

Interesting. “Too much preparation screws me up” is something I see with Lions and Badgers. (Birds will tell you there’s no such thing as too much preparation, Snakes will tell you that preparation will make them less able to see the moment for what it really is.) 

When I’m in a difficult spot, I can only work my way through it by thinking it out completely. I need to make sense of what happened, to whatever degree I can manage, or else it will gnaw at me. 

This is a bit general. I could see any secondary writing this - even someone like a Snake, although they’d probably mean something very different by “thinking it out completely” than a Bird would. 

I can struggle a lot with letting go of something; I’m trying to learn, because I can see how it makes sense in some scenarios. If the situation involves a conflict with someone, I don’t need to talk it out with them for a resolution; often, it’s enough if I grasp what was motivating them and what they were trying to express in that moment. 

One thing about Lion secondaries is absolutely their tendency to go “okay, so we’re doing this NOW. No we’re not changing the subject. No we’re not coming back to this later.” And while I do kind of love them for it, and BOY does it make for some great fictional characters, you’re right in that it’s not... always the way to go, in real life. 

I do have some lines, though, which when crossed will affect my affection for the person, about which I do talk out loud. When it comes to things that are uncontrollable, (like natural disaster, to pick a random example), and no thinking will help anything, I turn to people for comfort, to remind myself there are still other good things around. 

Lion is still possible, but I’m leaning Badger for you. Honestly because you seem... a little mellow for a Double Lion, and the lion secondary is absolutely coming through. 

More broadly, in general, I struggle with doing anything I have no interest in.

Kind of just a people thing, but Bird secondaries are especially good at just sort of *making* themselves interested in things, which kind of feels like a superpower to me. 

 I’ve noticed that I can develop an interest even in things I previously felt utterly disinterested in (again, often because of perspectives people offer) and then do it willingly. But otherwise, I’m not good with completing tasks that are need-to-do/might offer something in which I don’t find any meaning (or even a job in which I can’t find value). 

When you’ve talked about the things you find value in, it’s been - people, understanding people, helping people understand themselves. So even though you are using Lion primary language here, I’m going to double down on Badger.

I think this might be all I have to offer for now? I hope it’s enough! thanks for reading it, in advance!

 Yours,

sww

[reds-burrow]

my sister, a Lion Primary: y'know how when you're little, you want to be Special

me, a Badger Primary: sure

sister: and then you grow up and realize you aren't The Hero who is going to vanquish the world's evils--

me, thinking Special meant being someone who could help others no matter what the problem, not being the Chosen One, fighting for the soul of humanity: wait what

[alix-in-july]

Vampire Academy (book)

A main theme in Vampire Academy is love vs. duty. The authority figures are constantly scolding Rose for breaking the rules in order to protect her people, but she is ultimately shown to be in the right.

Rose: Snake Lion. Everything is about Lissa and eventually Dimitri in later books. She's got the typical Snake hedonism because she missed the drunken boarding school festivities while they were on the run. It's at least heavily implied that she was hooking up a lot before they ran away from school. She hates her mother for choosing duty over her. She has a Bird model about her role as a Dhampir, but whatever duty she feels is always second to her special people. The thought of being assigned to guard anyone but Lissa is horrifying. Her secondary is obvious. She's terrible at lying and is constantly holding herself back from punching people in the face. Not always successfully.

"...when something sets me off, I tend to punch first and then find out who I actually hit later. When it comes to those I care about being in danger . . . well, rules seem optional..”

Lissa: Double Badger, Snake model for Rose, Snake secondary model. Lissa feels guilty that all these Snakes are willing to cause trouble for her. She is passionate about animal rights and not letting people take advantage of others. She has a Snake model for Rose but it is the exception to the rule. She's a healer and goes to other people for help solving problems. Her solution to a vicious rumor about Rose was to make friends with all the important people and convince them one by one that it was a lie. She used a Snake model for some of that but hates dishonesty in general.

“And I keep thinking about all the things I could do, all the people I could help.” She looked regretful.

Dimitri: burned Snake Badger? At the end of the first book, Dimitri tells Rose he can't fall in love with her because if she's in danger, he won't be able to be a dutiful guardian. He'll abandon his duty and put her first. Rose describes him as patient and meticulous on several occasions. I could have his primary wrong. He's really reserved.

Christian: Snake Lion. He's known Lissa for less than a month and sets someone on fire for upsetting her. The most angry, vicious insult he gives someone in the first book is calling them a liar. He and Rose are very alike so it's odd she distrusted him so much at first.

Natalie: Snake primary, Snake or Bird secondary. She was willing to do anything for her father. Her secondary is probably some combo of Snake and Bird because of all the lying and plotting she had to do in Book 1. We don't really see enough of the real Natalie.

Victor: Lion Bird. He wanted to become King to save the Moroi. Definitely not a Loyalist because he doesn't care at all about his daughter or anyone else as people. He sees Natalie and Lissa as tools and is willing to kill people in cold blood to get them out of his way.

[solcomfortssouls]

This is a very interesting perspective, with Hak's actions being more similar to those of a villain and Suwoon's with that of a hero. But isn't this just that "greater good" resonates with some people more, but is also a good excuse to kill and make war and and force people to succumb to your will in its way? It's a dangerous way of thinking "whatever evil I do is justifiable because it's for the greater good".

I can get behind the idea it wasn't just King Il responsible considering he had the five generals at his disposal who all represented the different tribes and their interests. I would argue then, that Hak was exceptionally young for a general and brought up by his grandfather to see the King as just and Yona as rightful and that by becoming her bodyguard he technically had very simple tasks to be responsible for: protect Yona, fight people I tell you. He is the kind of person to put his trust into chosen people and follow them without question (simple soldier thinking in a way). There are people who are capable of bigger perspective, like the wider problems of the kingdom and those that focus on being loyal to chosen people. That's the difference between Hak and Suwoon.

I'm not necessarily saying Hak isn't capable of more, but he was young, that was his upbringing, and that was the life and way of thinking he chose. Blaming him for not being concerned for the rest of the kingdom - also considering that the Air tribe was doing really well and that was the ground he based his worldview on: my tribe is fine, my responsibilities are fulfilled, everything must be going okay.

Not to forget that Hak did put his faith in one more person: Suwon. He would have supported him as king and followed him. Why never bring those concerns Suwon had about the kingdom to Hak, if he didn't believe in Yona that much?

Suwon could have confided in Hak about the kingdom problems. But he didn't. He didn't think Hak would choose him over Yona? But Suwon's mistake was not believing in Yona as well, and he couldn't get his way with Il cause objectively speaking, Suwon's dad did kill his wife, which led Il to kill him in retaliation. This feud was personal and clouding Suwon's - as well as Il's - judgement. Even if Suwon said and maybe believed he was doing it more for the kingdom than the revenge.

Now Suwon did lots of good for the kingdom, that is true. And he is a very human character, relatable in many ways.

I'm just thinking the differences between Suwon and Hak can be nicely explained through personality differences like the sortinghatschats system describes them. There are people who are more visionary and look at the bigger perspective (the lion primary type witch is usually depicted as the one classic protagonsits have btw) like Suwon and there are people who focus on relationships and loyalties like Hak (snake primary which is usually more associated with relatable villian characters, though Hak is actually a badger which makes him more community based and Yona represents that community promise to him).

This doesn't make one more evil or less capable of love or the other more stupid. They put their value in different things (eg. ideals vs specific people). It makes them suited for different tasks.

Hero vs Villain

The Antagonist Soo-won in the manga is the "I'll save the world for you" type of guy. Basically every hero ever. He loved his dad, so he became the king who saved the Kingdom just as his dad wanted him to.

The main protagonist Hak on the other hand is the "I'll burn the word down to save her" type guy. Classis villain. He killed anyone trying to harm Yona to save her life on the day of the regicide. He would kill anything and anyone for Yona.

Yet, we love Hak and Yona, cheered for their growth and development and was appalled by Soo won's betrayal. I just adore how Mizuho Kusanagi plays with perspective. Akatsuki no Yona was a villains perspective all along. From the beginning, she was the spoilt princess of a selfish king leading a kingdom to ruin. Hak knew this, being a generals son, he was very aware how how things were outside the castle but he didn't care, if it meant Yona would be happy.

[mooglesorts]

went out for a long walk earlier, had a lot of Snake Secondary Thoughts i was excited to post/reply when i got home. accidentally took a wrong turn on the way back and ended up taking a VERY LONG walk, ran out of energy to actually write down the things for the moment fshdfklhsdfsdf

[amai-no-ura]

I've been thinking about this lately, and I'm curious to know what you think: By definition, systems like sorting hat chats put something relatively simple (their structure) on something incredibly complicated and ever-changing (life). How do you use it to your advantage without ignoring the many pitfalls?

One thing I love about SHC is that it is observable and applicable in real life. You can see people being Lion primary, Snake primary and how they interact with their numerous skillsets. You can see all of that in action. I think my way of applying it is to use it as a template where I interpret experience and people I meet. I don't think everything has to fit into SHC structure, because people are complex. But something can be explained using the system.

Like, why do my aunt, mum and stepfather all think I'm selfish? Because they are hardline loyalists (Badger with Lion model, Snake and Badger with Bird model respectively). They couldn't understand how I could sacrifice people for my goals/career/life path because they would NEVER do it. But I also couldn't imagine myself putting people first over what is right for me (goals, ambition, ideals). I'm Lion primary, hence why I have always been drawn toward goals and personal choice. It is empowering to me the way my loyalist family will never understand.

I can see that play out in real time independent of personal experience coloring it (no biases, no emotional expectation, no cultural influence, just how they function as a person). Hence I believe this theory has merits.

Or about the secondary. I'm snake sec, meaning I always prefer adaptability and fluidity over brute force. My aunt is Lion secondary, so she will always prefer directness and transparency over any trickery. That's the underlying formula of these secondaries. For Lion, it is transparency and solidity. For Snake, it is fluidity and adaptability. Even if my aunt is diplomatic, very good at hiding her thoughts, she is still Lion secondary. Meanwhile, I'm very direct and open but underneath all of that, I'm still a fluid Snake.

My coworker is a bird sec. He relies on his organization skills, built knowledge and systematic learning to get things done. He does really well in structured environment because that's how his mind operates. I thrive on unpredictability. I don't do well in structured learning courses or something like that. I thrive on real experience where I can adapt and face them hands-on. It's the heady energy of bird vs raw, hands-on approach of snake.

Then, I will use all these information to my advantage by adapting my language and methods to match the people in question. My boss is double Lion (and also ESTJ 8w7, so even more directness), so I won't beat around the bush with him and be honest always. My coworker is Badger sec (also ESFJ 6w7), so I wait for her to do her badger thing instead of rushing through it. Another coworker of mine is snake sec (ESTP 7w6), so I play with him using my snake. Etc, etc. Or when I have to charm a Snake primary, I show them how much my family means to me (lies) and how much I care about my people (truth) because that's what they value. If I have to interact with fellow lion, then I'll just respect their goal and encourage them on their path (because that's what we crave).

Another thing to note is I supplement SHC with other systems like MBTI and Enneagram. So all of them play a part in my application in real life. Like ... my boss is ESTJ 8w7 so/sp and Double Lion meaning he has a LOT of directness, strength and protective tendency. I know instantly he respects strength (8w7 + Double Lion), competency (Te-dom in general, as well as his personal values) and fair character (his Fi-inferior values + being so/sp). So I cater to all of that by not performing too much, just be frank with him in almost everything. Speak up for myself and everyone else, showing up for work. Always bettering myself and make sure to become a better person. That's how I get on his good side (and it benefits me too, since I become a better person).

So, I think that's how I apply it in real life. But what about you? Do you do the same thing as I do? Or is it something else entirely?

And for anyone seeing this, do share how you use SHC in real life! I'd love to read them all.

[missbrunettebarbie]

Hi! Do you know the maurderers era students hogwarts houses? I read that Snape was a Snake/Bird and Peter Pettigrew is a Lion/Badger but what would the rest be in your opinion? I think James is a double lion, Lily a lion/bird, Remus a lion/bird with a badger model, and Sirius a Snake/Lion. Bonus!: I think regulus black was a snake/bird or a double bird with a snake model for his family.

Hello, nonnie. I have to confess, the Marauders were never my favourites characters, but I'll try to do my best. Iirc, I think @awinterrain and @the-phoenix-heart have talked about them befoere, but I am going to throw in my two cents.

Peter Pettigrew - He was sorted here by @wisteria-lodge I find the arguments very compelling, so yeah, I agree on Lion Badger for him.

Remus Lupin - Probably the hardest to sort, because I don't really care about him, like, at all. I agree Bird secondary seems likely. I could also see Bookkeeper Badger, but eh, let's say Bird. I disagree on him being an Idealist because the most memorable of scenes for me was in book 7, when he wanted to joing the trio and Harry accuses of him of running away from his family because he's scared of failling as a father. I think an Idealist would have pointed out that helping defeat Valdemort is the best thing he could do for his family, but he doesn't. We are left with the sense that Harry was right. And indeed, running away in order to protect people seems to be his MO. He was absent from Harry's life for 12 years and then disappeared again in Year 4. And as much joy as he gets from teaching, he doesn't fight for it when he's fired. IMO, he's a burned Badger primary that dehumanizes himself and doesn't allow himself a community.

Sirius Black - I think it would be impossible to sort him as anything but a Snake Lion. Clearly His Person was James and after he died, he focused on Harry and I think that's what kept his primary relatively healthy. Also what motivates Sirius in book 3 is revenge on Pettigrew. Very Snake-y of him. As for his secondary, it looked like both James and Sirius were Improvisers and I could never see this guy as anything but a Lion.

James Potter - The thing about James is that a lot of people have a very, very good impression about him and for 4.5 books the reader also sees him in a good light. But then we see Snape's flashback in book 5 and find out he was actually a bully. Which makes us wonder how literally everyone but Snape -who is biased bc of other reasons- had such a high opinion of him. IMO, it was because James was a veeeery Snake secondary. Compare him for just a moment with Sirius, who was mostly like James, but people, including people close to him, had no problem believing he was a murderer. As @laufire pointed out, it's hard to see Dumbledore, Remus, etc. believe the same of James if the situation was reversed. Lion vs Snake secondary, man. I agree he was most likely a Glory Hound Lion that probably shifted more towards Paragon after he graduated from Hogwarts and joined the war.

Severus Snape - I don't remember who sorted him and where, but I totally agree with Snake Bird. Severus was a pretry unhealthy Snake who fixated on Lily since childhood, but also valued power more than her. He thought he could have the best of both worlds and then Lily died and I am pretty sure he burned to a crisp. And yeah, what other secondary could the potion master have but Bird?

Lily Evans - We really know ridiculously little about her, but the way she stood up to James again and again since their first till their fifth year, makes me think she was a Lion secondary. (I am getting the feeling James really liked Lion secondaries) Definitely an Idealist primary and I could see Lion, but I like the idea of her housesharing with Harry too much, so I prefer imagining her as a Bird.

Regulus Black - Pretty much my favourite character on this list LOL. We also know too little about him to really have any definitive sorting, but I like your ideas that he might be a Snake Bird or a Double Bird. If it was the former, it's truly tragic, as I think only Kreacker would have been His Person by the time he died. Buuut, I am more inclined towards a Bird primary who thought pureblood ideaology was Right and Good, till he was smacked across the face with evidence that it really, really wasn't. The reason I am choosing Bird over Snake is because I cannot see a Snake sacrificing himself in the Cave when Kreacker was already safe. Snake!Regulus would have either: 1. never let Kreacker leave with Voldemort 2. sacrificed himself if it was between his life and Kreacker's or 3. as soon as Kreacker came back from the cave, would have taken him and deflacted from Voldy and the Blacks. But he didn't do any of these, instead he chose to die in the hope of his death helping bring Voldy's destruction. Kinda screams Idealist to me. And I think it's Bird and not Lion, because the cave and the horcrux and Kreacher almost dying seem to have been the straw that broke the camel's back for him and he did a 180 degrees turn and decided the Black family values can go to hell, Voldy needs to die. Considering the (super dramatic) message he left, Regulus strikes me as a planner, so I agree Bird secondary could suit him well.

So, TL;DR:

Peter Pettigrew - Lion Badger

Remus Lupin -Badger Bird, burned primary

Sirius Black - Snake Lion

James Potter - Lion Snake

Severus Snape - Snake Bird, unhealthy and burned primary

Lily Evans - Bird Lion

Regulus Black - Double Bird who changes his belief when he realizes how dangerous Voldemort is.

But, really, we know so little about most of these guys, you could write them as almost any sorting in fanfics and it probably won't look out of character. These are just my preferred interpretations.

[magpie-of-a-birb]

which idealist primary would you say might be most worried about being overly credulous? i can see it for lion integrity vs the bird search for truth. for sure i’m not a loyalist but i haven’t yet figured out where my ideas come from. it’s just a huge pet peeve of mine when things are taken without question/at face value, and i really value finding things out for yourself.

My first instinct is to say bird, since when it comes to the morality side of things, what is picked up could have a more direct impact on the bird's compass than if they were a lion, so making sure the data isn't faulty would be important. However, due to this post that amai made, I'm not so sure. For the most part, I think it could go either way, but depends on whether or not the bird or lion has something in their system that makes double-checking information to be important

That being said, the way that you value finding things out for yourself makes me think that your secondary may be influencing this, as well, since you're valuing having the "checking" step as a part of your information-acquiring method. The way it's phrased makes me think badger secondary, since it sounds like you take pride in doing the work to find the answer, yourself

TL;DR: checking over newly acquired information leans more towards bird primary, but could be bird or lion primary. However, the secondary may be influencing said value

[painted-crow]

hey so i'm looking to figure my sorting out. i'm p sure of my secondary but honestly i've gone in circles so many times that i'd believe anything lmao

so i guess to start like. i'm fairly sure i'm an idealist, but with a twist. i care about making the world a better place-- i'm kinda infamous among my friends for being a little TOO outspoken about my opinions. on a small scale, i have strong opinions about a lot of things, but on a larger scale... idk. i don't think any one person can know what an ideal world looks like cause there really is no such thing. there are literally countless variables when it comes to implementing even small systems, countless ways to fuck it up, so i don't think i'd be choosing some grand ideal over the people i love anytime soon.

that being said, i think my idealist streak gets directed into something else most of the time. i'm very focused on understanding myself to a fault. i want to know why i do the things i do, why i believe certain things over others. when it comes to my beliefs about the world, they're strong but take it or leave it, but when it comes to myself they are not a good idea to push. i've ended relationships over not feeling like myself with them or feeling like i'm losing myself or they're pushing me to be someone i'm not. i make strong instant decisions about what the "right" thing to do is when it comes to how it impacts my perception of myself, especially with intimate relationships (i'm a lot less impulsive with things like friends and things i'm less personally involved in). i NEED to know who i am, way more than i care about any one specific person or thing. obviously i love people very deeply and would do just about anything to have both, but if i don't know who i am, if i'm not true to myself, then i have nothing. losing people happens.

the issue is, because i'm prone to doing that and not thinking as much about how it'll impact people, i've been called selfish a lot over my lifetime. recently i've started thinking more about how my actions impact people and their feelings, and i'm feeling a lot more torn. i want to do what i want to do, what i feel is best, but i feel immature for doing it a lot. i've started worrying a lot about being a bad person and hurting people, and i've been thinking about how the "right" way to be is. i went through a phase where i was repressing myself to make the "moral" choice, but i just felt so flat. ultimately i realized that it doesn't really matter how good i am if i have to repress myself to get there, cause then all it is is performance. tldr is i feel super guilty for making "selfish" choices rn, especially as i've gotten more aware of other peoples' feelings.

what i think is probably going on is that i'm an idealist primary with a badger model, but i'm not sure between lion and bird, and i'm still open to badger. pretty sure i'm not a snake.

the section on my secondary's gonna be a lot shorter, sorry this got so long! so i'm p sure i'm a badger secondary. considered lion and snake secondary too. whatever i am, i have a p loud lion model over it. i've always had a gift for making people trust me, for acting. i kinda blend in and become what i need to to both help them and get them off my back so i can do what i need to do. i have a serious passion for helping people with tough love (i like to think of myself as a p good advice giver, since i can both tell people what they need to hear and really get in their shoes and be kind where other people might not). i think i judge myself the least when i can kinda toe that line between pushing boundaries and stepping back-- i track where peoples' boundaries are constantly so i can push them to the limit without stepping over them. i'm very fluid when it comes to presentation in reality, even though i think people actually think of me as kinda controversial. i tend to see people who are ACTUALLY overstepping boundaries as lowkey selfish at times, even though i also really respect them. i like to do things the "right" way as long as i give a shit about them. the catch is, i don't want to blend into the background, and i don't think i do. a partner of mine called me a fox cause he noticed the way i constantly toe that line where i can get people to notice me and still keep them off my back, still make them comfortable. i'm also NOT a planner. people constantly give me shit for only ever feeling things out in the moment, and honestly thinking about the future freaks me out. i don't want to plan how i do shit i'd rather just get in the zone and figure it out from there. tldr i'm pretty sure i'm a badger secondary? but i could be convinced of snake. definitely see elements of both but my gut's telling me badger so take that how you will

anyway! thank you so much for taking the time to answer this, i know it's a lot.

also sorry one thing i forgot to add about my secondary! i think my lion model got so loud because when i do the shifty presentation thing, i have a tendency to lose myself and start perceiving myself as whatever i'm presenting. it's made it really hard to figure out who i actually am and so i started just being as clear about it as possible.

for my primary, i really care a lot about being right. i try to take every side into consideration to make sure i get the best conclusion. i can be super stubborn when it comes to certain things, but i don't want to just... hold to perceptions that are wrong. that being said it's important to me to trust my gut and i take it as a big input. i'm very felt out for most things, don't really have a strong system of how to be. i really wanna be able to trust myself but i just don't. i have a big habit of relying on other people to tell me what to think, which is uh. yeah.

Primary

You're a Bird primary with a Lion model, and you're trying on some Badger ideals. That's one of the easier Sorts I've done, lol! Possibly because your primary and models actually House match mine :p

Your reasoning process screams Bird xD and so does your writing style and just the length of the ask. Birds love self-analysis, it's part of how we make sure our systems stay as close to true as we can make them.

You've got some Lion too, but it's a model. It sounds like your Lion and your Bird have come into conflict before, and like most Birds with Lion models, it bugs the snot out of you when your Lion's intuition (which is important data!) doesn't line up with what your Bird knows.

You've prioritized Bird's conclusions before, but (as with many Birds) you don't entirely trust your own system and you're wondering if your Lion might have been right and you should give its reasoning more weight.

Also, you're consciously deciding that maybe Badgers' way of doing things is more moral than yours, and you're pulling in some of those ideals. That doesn't make you a Badger primary. Birds are notorious for this kind of thing actually 😂

The line between whether some ideals you've pulled into your Bird system vs. what counts as a model is fuzzy. It's up to you really, how important those pieces of Badger are to you.

For me, I think the line might be--is it wired into your sense of self on its own, or does it get filtered through your Bird and Lion? It really sounds like your Lion is a strong part of your sense of self: if you ignore its advice, you feel not totally like yourself. You don't have to feel all your models equally strongly, but thinking of it that way might help.

(It's also hard because Birds often feel like they kind of are their systems, or they are their ability to reason, that's a core part of their identity. ...It's complicated.)

Secondary

You sound really really Snakey. I'm not sure where you're getting Badger, actually!

Badgers are more than the mirroring ability. They also bury themselves in work or community, and it can sometimes look like they're neck deep in so many responsibilities that they couldn't possibly handle any more problems--and then they do have a problem, they do need something, and they stand up and all that stuff they were buried in turns out to be armor and tools.

Snakes, otoh, are improvisational and tend to be very aware of their surroundings. Unlike Badgers, the Snake brand of social shapeshifting involves a lot of keeping track of other people's reactions to what they're doing--trying something and then watching the response, then adjusting, rinse and repeat. You turn yourself into exactly the right person for this situation.

Badger mirroring is usually simpler. You reflect the other person's energy back at them: it's an empathetic response that says we're alike, I accept you, you're safe. A lot of Badgers do this without thinking--it can be hard to turn off.

Snakes also don't go in for prep work as much, it tends to trip them up (Snakes with Badger or Bird models notwithstanding). They're Improvisational secondaries, unlike Bird and Badger which are Built and rely heavily on some form of preparation.

The Lion model sounds legit, but just check for yourself: you might be learning to use Snake's neutral state. Snakes will sometimes drop all their layers of acting and maneuvering and suddenly they're just themselves. Different Snakes have different relationships with neutral state. For some Snakes, it's a relief to drop the mask; for others, it feels vulnerable and they only trust certain people with their full authenticity.

It does sound like you really admire Lion secondaries, though, so you might indeed have a model there! This is just something else you could check on.

Hope that helps!

- Paint

[sortinghatchats]

Hey! One thing I haven’t understood about the sorting hat chats system is what it means to have an internal vs external primary. Could you explain that a bit please? Thanks!

Sure thing! This was the last primary “split” we managed to put a name too, but we really like it as a concept. 

INTERNAL

Gryffindors and Slytherins (or Lions and Snakes) are internal primaries-- they put the most stock in the morality that comes from their self or their gut. Some things just “feel” wrong or just “are” wrong-- and that matters! There’s a sense of trust in themself and a prioritization that at the end of the day, their moral choices first have to satisfy themselves. If they make a hard choice, and the result makes them feel shitty and guilty-- for them, that’s a sign this probably wasn’t the right choice. 

A Slytherin or Gryffindor will fight the whole world, if they’re convinced they’re right. This can make them martyrs and heroes, but also can leave them unchecked and arrogant, unable or unwilling to give full attention to those who disagree with them. 

In Burning, you can see some of the “internal” similarities between Slytherins and Gryffindors-- they both lose faith in themselves, first; in their ability to tell right from wrong; in their ability to love well or to be loved. 

EXTERNAL

Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws (or Badgers and Birds) are external primaries. They may listen to their “gut” or take stock in how choices make them feel, but at the end of the day that’s irrelevant in the face of what’s *truly* right and wrong. They look outside themselves-- Hufflepuffs to people, to the world, to the things concretely happening in front of them, to the things the communities or systems they care about think or say; Ravenclaws to logic, systems, teachings, learnings, religion. 

There’s a bit of a tacit humility to this -- they don’t assume *they* themselves are inherently moral, which Snakes and Lions are much more likely to. They put more weight in what an external source of morality-- their church, their philosophy, their friends, their society-- says is right, rather than first trusting themselves. It leaves them open to new ideas, but sometimes susceptible to bad ones. 

(Note: some Ravenclaws don’t *look* necessary “humble,” and it’s a misleading term. But your arrogant, “I’ve read fifteen books on this philosophy, I’m right, if you just understood this like I understand this”-style Ravenclaw is still, arguably “morally” humble. They don’t believe themself more moral than others, so to speak-- but maybe cleverer, more logical, more dedicated. Logic can feel like something that lives “outside” your self. They think/study/listen/learn to find their moral path -- there’s a step between them and the morality, a moment of translation. It doesn’t “come” from them, and that’s what I mean by moral humility). (You can have arrogant Hufflepuffs, too, any House can be any thing, we’ve talked about this-- but god Ravenclaws (I love you, Birds, I do, but you know who I’m talking about), so I thought I’d clarify there). 

A Burned Badger may start to look inward, losing faith in the society or people around them, or their ability to be part of that world. Looking inward feels selfish, often, or cowardly. Real morality comes from looking outside yourself. A Burned Bird might look similar-- felling unable to stand by or to process external truths, or perhaps losing faith in the existence of firm external truths, they might fall back on that “gut” morality or even into a general state of apathy. Again, ceasing to “look outward” feels selfish and cowardly. if they were just a better person... 

Interactions between internal and external Primaries can be fun to look at -- external Primaries may find comfort in each other, as they see the other as similarly committed to “looking outside.” They might find *internal* primaries to be rash, arrogant, selfish, or reactive. Internal primaries might not seem to “listen,” might seem too rigid-- or perhaps the external primaries would find the internal primaries refreshing, inspiring, or reliable in how directly and genuinely they believe and act. 

Similarly, two internal primaries might take comfort in that, once they’re on the same path, they know nothing external will sway their friend from the road they’re on. It’s reliable and reassuring! But two internal primaries might also come to blows, if their guts claim opposite truths. And internal primaries might find external ones humble, nuanced, and compassionate-- or, alternatively, might find them troubling and inconsistent, as their moral feelings can be swayed by any shift or opinion in the wind. 

It’s a fun dynamic to play with! Hope this was helpful to you. 

[repetitionsings]

43, 44, and 58 of the shc ask game?

43. Favourite SHC hero-antagonist dynamic

My favorite hero/antagonist dynamic of all time is "friends turned enemies with Intricate Complex Residual Feelings", and loyalist primaries are good for this. My #1 are Snake Pri-ing at each other even through their gritted teeth and I love it, but a Snake Primary who can't get why the other one doesn't abandon the wider community for them vs a Badger Primary who doesn't understand why the snake won't just stay is also a beautiful thought. The hows don't matter so much to me, generally.

44. Favourite SHC sibling dynamic

MAN I love sibling dynamics too much to pick one so have a couple that I am very fond of: Idealist who's taken their sibling's Loyalist devotion as part of their moral code and/or Loyalist whose first loyalty is to their Idealist sibling and considers their values part of that Bird Sec siblings with very different skill sets (possibly because this is basically me and one of my brothers. XD) Builder Sec siblings with an odd Lion out who occasionally charges across their best-made plans

58. Sorting most likely to be a spy

Probably a Lion Primary? I feel like Idealist spy characters would do better than Loyalists. XD I don't know if it's the singular most likely, but I love the idea of a Bird Primary/Badger Sec spy character.

[wisteria-lodge]

bird primary + burnt snake secondary

 tl;dr: Fairly sure I'm Lion primary (maybe burned Badger since I sort of envy the idea of close communities, or hedonistic Snake, not sure where that line is)

(the way that divide works out is that basically, Burnt Badgers look like Snakes. They have the Snake's small community, but wish they could cast their net wider. Hedonistic Snakes tend to be more solo, and much more focused on /stuff/. Also, both options make pretty good short-term coping mechanisms.)

but unsure whether my secondary is Bird, Snake/burned Snake, or burned Lion.

I love researching and reverse-engineering and my immediate response to situations is to Google advice, but reactively, not proactively. I am allergic to planning, and prepwork feels stifling and unnatural.

Ooooh, have we got a single-player Environment Snake? (I also think of these as MacGyver Snakes.) Basically just pulling at the things around you in order to solve the problem at hand.

I studied math in college then did a coding bootcamp, and I always felt adrift because both only taught memorizing solutions to individual problems/proofs, not how to solve unfamiliar ones -- i.e., really learning. 

However, I neither consider myself flexible nor want to be, and singleplayer Snake is wayyyyyyyyyyyy more comfortable than stuff involving other people. (Complicating factor: not neurotypical.)

I think I can say, pretty confidently, that this system works just fine if you're not neurotypical. :) There's no reason you have to use the multi-player version if you don't want. The most dramatic single/multi player divide is probably Bookkeeper Badger vs Courtier Badger, and there are lots of people who prefer being just one or the other.

I do the "faces" thing reflexively, in the moment, but it doesn't feel like "shifting" or "becoming" anything: just me, lying.

That's Snake. "Becoming" is more of a word that a Courtier Badger would use, they kinda do have to believe it, or it doesn't work. Snake secondaries are a lot more aware of what they're doing, in the moment.

It's interesting that you are just straight-up using the word lie though. In my experience, Snakes are more likely to conceptualize that particular problem-solving strategy as "say it in a way they'll listen to," or something like that. You might just be super direct (and/or like hanging out in Neutral) buuuut... the negativity of "lie" can sometimes point to a Burnt secondary. No sign of that yet, but I'll keep an eye out for it.

I don't have a moral problem with lying; it's often even right since a) telling the truth often hurts people, and b) people do prefer it: most people want to hear what they want to hear, and if that happens to be the truth that's great.

Hmmm. This is sounding like primary stuff. And it's quite reasoned out, which makes me interested in hearing why you went for Lion primary instead of Bird.

But deep down, I guess I resent it. I wish that when I say what I mean it would convince people rather than create problems. I try to ration that to only things that REALLY matter to me, but tbh many things do. I hate arguing.

What I'm hearing here is the Bird primary fantasy of "If I was only able to explain it exactly right, in precisely the right words, then everyone would agree with me." And as you say earlier, it doesn't actually work like that. It sounds like you're feeling a bit cynical in regards to other people a the moment, and I can't exactly blame you.

I would love to be an inspirational secondary but I am bad at inspiring people.

There is definitely some burnt secondary talk going on here.

Family: I'm not close to my father -- he’s a terrible person, serial cheater, racist, etc. I'm closer to my mother, and don't think she's a bad person, but both parents were hypercritical and have horrible tempers, so my childhood felt horrible to live through since I was always getting yelled at or having corporal punishment used for doing something wrong.

Definitely seeing where the burned secondary energy is coming from, if so many of your formative experiences involved being told that the way you were doing things was wrong. I also see why you might have at least a fascination with the confident, firey, speak-your-truth-and-damn-the-consequences Lion secondary.

(On paper this could be called abusive, and anyone else being subjected to this makes me furious, but I'm not fully comfortable with the label for my situation, even though I know that's inconsistent.) 

I understand, and I appreciate that. I also appreciate your carefully articulated position, and it's slanting me in the direction of Bird primary. Even though this is obviously a topic you are very emotional about, all those emotions are arranged within the framework of thought. You're aware of and okay the fact that you feel all kinds of different ways about what happened.

Any secondary model came from my mom, but I don't know about primary. She always says my sister and I are "the most important things in her life." (One of the reasons I don’t want kids is that I don’t think I could ever believe or promise them that.) She ostensibly also hates my father and their divorce was vicious, but she kept working for him until he retired, goes on trips with him to see my sister or me, and pressured me for years to un-estrange him because “after all, he’s family” until I gave in and now pretend to have a relationship just enough to placate them. I don't have any ethical problems doing this, it's just irritating.

That is very, very unusual family dynamic. Have to get my head around that. Your mom may have some very intense Badger going on, especially with the the whole "after all, he's family" thing. That could fit go with a nasty divorce, especially if she thought his presence was a threat to you and your sister. On the other hand, she might just be able to compartmentalize to an insane degree, which would probably point to Bird secondary.

I don't understand this aspect of my mom; I observe it happening, but I don't understand it. It feels kind of sad, in an existential way. 

Honestly, I agree.

(Another way my dad sucks is that he played favorites with my sister and I, me being the favorite.

Being the Golden Child sucks just as much as being the Problem Child.

The shitty resulting dynamic is I only "care about" his approval to avoid him creating drama that ripples to everyone around him -- he's gotten better but he has literally started shit when I didn't end emails with "love" -- but my sister actually cares about his approval, and it hurts her.)

Secondary-wise, my mom would always harp on me to "pay attention to the people and things around you," and whenever I tell her about solving problems in Snakeish ways she's like "way to go, [me]!" But she also is meticulously planned and scheduled and organized, and hates surprises and not knowing exactly what will happen. She's the kind of person who gets frustrated in April when I haven’t told her my Thanksgiving itinerary, which, like... I don't want to think that far ahead.

She could be either Prep-work secondary, Bird or Badger. If she's a Bird, "pay attention to the people and things around you," points to a a Rapid-Fire Bird (which can look *very* Snakey.) Or it could be a way of describing Courtier Badger. Being that scheduled is more often a Bird thing... but I could also imagine a Badger manifesting like that, especially if she is so concerned with specifically planning holidays.

Low-stakes/high-stakes problem that felt good: This is a high-stakes problem containing a low-stakes problem. I'm rolling them together because they illustrate both aspects of my problem solving.

Higher stakes: That coding bootcamp required being on Zoom 8 hours every day. But I had 3 roommates (part of why I did it was to not have 3 roommates), and they didn't want me there that much. I can't go to coffee shops because either they're loud, or I will make them loud by talking for 8 hours, thus becoming the problem. Coworking spaces are expensive af. I even consider renting a storage unit but I don't think they have power and wifi. The idea I settle on is sneaking onto a nearby college campus: preferably the CS building, to blend in. I scour the college subreddit for posts about what buildings let students in without ID, then scout them out (this is March, the thing doesn't start until May, I'm just high on must-solve-now energy). After ~15 minutes (lol) of walking through campus I decide I've had enough, seems doable. The day of, I leave early in case I have to give up and go home, but that turned out to be completely pointless because tailgating in is shockingly easy. Like it's scary how easy it is. One day a security officer stopped me but even he eventually let me in after I acted increasingly frazzled and panicked -- not ENTIRELY an act but I definitely was playing it up.

I like this story. And I feel good about saying that it is QUITE snakey: what do I have immediately around me, and how can I use it to get what I want in this moment? Even little details like - you're not bothering to come up with a cover story or borrow/forge someone's ID. If you're caught you'll talk your way out of it. You did a little research, then scoped the place out, then were good to go.

Lower stakes: I usually did classes from an empty auditorium (students weren't supposed to be there but no one checked, and also I'm not a student right?). The whiteboard's eraser stand was a few inches away from the wall, and one day I drop my phone in the gap. Shit. The gap's way too high to reach down. I can't ask anyone for help because I'm already 2 layers deep of being somewhere I'm not supposed to be. The stand screws to the wall, but I don't have a screwdriver because who just carries a screwdriver around? (For whatever reason, going to a hardware store didn't occur to me.) I stare at the thing until I realize: I am literally in the ENGINEERING building. I search various offices, ask people for a screwdriver, but no luck. Then I see a board listing the departments. One floor has a "makerspace," and somehow, its door is wide open (the student lounge is locked down but the room with deadly power tools isn't, ???) I grab 5 sizes of screwdriver, then also grab duct tape and a ruler to fish my phone out in case the screwdrivers don't work, which turned out to be a good idea because they didn't

Sounds to me to me like you just MacGyvered a solution :D

One thing I am picking up on is your subtle critique of the existing rules/systems. Getting in via tailgateing is easier than it should be, talking your way past the guard was too easy. The door with the powertools really should be locked, etc. It's making me (again) think Bird primary for you. You've very tuned into the way things run, and how well designed (or not) that is. There's also just a little bit of Birdy rules-lawyer in "Students aren't allowed in this room, but I'm not a student (because I snuck in.)"

Hard decision-making process…. I don’t know. I don’t experience many decisions as hard. I often know what I want to do right away; the difficult part is doing it.

In the language of this system, that's a Burnt secondary.

Or I know what I should do, am obligated to do, have no choice but to do, etc., though sometimes it feels miserable or wrong, like resignation.

Unfortunately that is what it feels like to have a Burnt secondary - you just use whatever problem-solving strategy you can at random, since they all feel like a chore and it doesn't really matter.

I can feel proud of making certain "right" choices in an abstract self-congratulatory way, but I never like it or really feel good about it. I either act on something immediately or put it off until the decision makes itself, a drop-dead deadline approaches, I get bored/impulsive enough to do it on the spot, or I suddenly swerve my life toward something I like better.

You're definitely an Improvisational secondary. Which is really fine, even though I know it doesn't feel that way all the time when you come from a family of intense Prep-work people. Just keep an eye on that 'wait until the deadline' impulse. It's very, very common for neurodivergent people to use that last-minute stress adrenaline to kind of hack their brain, and it's not sustainable.

I'd wanted to change careers for years but the actual decision to do the bootcamp was an impulse based on ~3 hours' research the day I encountered it.

That can absolutely work though. You *are* working on the problem and mulling it over in your head long term, even if you are (in the words of another snake secondary) "waiting for the opportune moment."

This is all healthy and well-adjusted, and it definitely has never caused any predictable problems! (Did get a job though.)

Hey, if it's stupid and it works, it's not stupid.

My fantasy: To be successful and well-known in my field; to create the kind of art I want to create and have it be respected/influential. To live the life I want, with the aesthetic I want, and the opportunities from others and follow-through from me to achieve that. The details vary based on the field but that's the general template. 

I'd say that's a very human fantasy, without too many details that slant me one way or the other, in terms of this system. There's definitely a focus on the community around you and how you relate to it/integrate into it. And that makes me think Bird (the external primary) is more likely than Lion (the internal primary.)

Characters: I relate to characters who are flawed in the same ways I am -- they feel like cautionary tales -- or sometimes via empathizing in a way the story doesn’t (Carlotta from Phantom got done DIRTY).

It's interesting that you respond to characters who the narrative framing doesn't support, because the narrative framing doesn't support them. I guess that does fit with your interest in constructed systems, and if they're useful/functional or not. Which points to Bird.

On that big pop culture character test I always get Hannah from Girls and Gaius Baltar from Battlestar Galactica: harsh, but not wrong.

(I always get Inara from Firefly and Céline from Before Sunrise.)

It's been a second since I've seen Girls or Battlestar Galactica, but I do think that both of those characters are Bird Snakes, which is honestly impressive since Bird Snakes are easily the least common fictional archetype.

Baltar is clever, adaptive, reactive, he pulls from around him. He also bluffs and will *act* like he's an expert when he really isn't. A lot of his internal conflict revolves around extremely Bird primary rationalization - is this situation really his fault? and if it is, what is he morally/rationally supposed to do about it (if anything?) "Voice of *a* generation" Hannah also has this way of getting caught in her own feedback loops when trying to figure herself out. One of my favorite moments is the bit where she loses her purse on the way back from the wedding, and then rides the train all the way to Coney Island, sits on the beach and eats the slice of wedding cake while watching the sun rise. I think that's beautiful, and a very Snake secondary response.

I also gravitate toward a specific archetype: Blanche from A Streetcar Named Desire, Madame Bovary, Violetta from La Traviata. People who desire an impossible thing deeply and unshakably, temporarily achieve it, and are taken down dramatically.

Now that, I'm thinking is a story structure that you like. And/or you're drawn to these tragic great ladies, living most of the way in a fantasy world. It's a good, cathartic archetype.

What makes me feel powerful: I don’t really resonate with that framing. The closest is that feeling like I have no options is the same for me as feeling powerless.

Okay, "not feeling powerless," I'll take it. And we're back to that Burnt secondary again. I'm hoping you'll leave your Snake a little more room to breathe and play, because it seems like you're a pretty capable person. You manage to do the things you want to get done, and you have an excellent awareness of what are good and bad situations, both for you and just in general.

Thank you to anonymous for such an excellent submission. If you'd like a Sorting of your very own, commissions are open on my ko-fi. :D

If you'd like to read more about the system I'm using, my explanation is right here.

[reds-burrow]

One of my college roommates would read the news and always get fired up about the politics (to the point that it became a running joke in our household). I would let her vent to me because our other two roommates didn't stay up to date with the news or didn't care. So, I got the earful and the usual question, "How can they believe that?" And my usual answer would be something along the lines of "They're scared/angry." She was never satisfied with that type of answer. Looking back, I'm pretty sure she was a Bird primary looking for someone to test her system against, hoping that I could actually explain the logic behind these people's beliefs. As a Badger primary, I didn't get this and kept trying to answer her by trying to humanize whoever she was ranting about. The conversation would usually end when I finally got around to saying that I agreed with her standpoint. Probably could've saved both of our time if I had understood what she was really asking...

[intheseautumnhands]

Sorting The Last 5 Years

Hello I’m back with yet more tiny fandom sorting because I have Thoughts and also, Feelings. Let’s talk about The Last 5 Years, which has ranked consistently among my favorite all-time musicals for so very, very long, and has such great characters for dissecting.

First some brief housekeeping: This is based specifically off the script for the stage show, and the cast recording version by Norbert Leo Butz and Sherie Rene Scott in 2002. I have not been lucky enough to see this live. I also promise no consistency with the movie because I just... nope, sorry, don’t like it. I think I remember things being consistent enough that this’d probably be good for both, but I’m not gonna try to include movie-based thoughts.

Second: I am not purposefully getting into the great “who was at fault” debate but I think my thoughts on them as characters makes it clear that I think both of them have flaws, and that while Jamie crossed a lot more lines at the end, neither of them are blameless for the relationship’s issues. SHC is always kinda YMMV, but even moreso than usually, if you’re really biased towards one side or the other, we probably read these characters very differently. Which is cool and I’d love to hear other opinions! But I will not be surprised if we disagree somewhere along the line.

I’m going to do this slightly different than usual -- since we’ve only got two characters to talk about, and I want to discuss how their houses bounce off each other, I’m going to go by house instead of discussing by character. In addition, I’m going to go Secondary first, because I have a lot I want to say about their Primaries.

Secondaries

In his second song of the show, Jamie tells us exactly how he approaches life: 

But I say no, no, whatever I do I barrel on through, and I don’t complain No matter what I try, I’m flying full speed ahead.... Things might get bumpy, but Some people analyze every details Some people stall when they can’t see the trail Some people freeze out of fear that they’ll fail But I keep rolling on

If I had to pull out one singular moment to crystallize how he approaches things, that’d be it. Jamie doesn’t bother to stop and consider or change his approach. He sees what he wants, and he goes for it, and he’s lucky enough that that works out really, really well for him. And even when it’s a response to hardship, that’s still his approach. Just look at I Could Never Rescue You: so we could fight, or we could wait, or I could go. He decides there’s nothing else worth trying, calls someone else to help him leave, and goes.

Even when it’s not the best idea right now, when tempering what he has to say might help him get what he wants (If I Didn’t Believe In You) he doesn’t do it.  Jamie charges, he’s stubborn, he’s set on what he wants -- he’s a pretty intense Lion, in other words.

Cathy tries to go after what she wants, too, but she ends up with several more obstacles in her way. While a lot of that is luck of the draw, she’s also a little more hesitant overall. Look at her running internal monologue throughout Climbing Uphill, second-guessing every decision (why’d I pick these shoes, why’d I pick this song, why’d I pick this career).  In The Schmuel Song Jamie alludes to the same hesitance: maybe it’s just that you’re afraid to go out onto a limb(-o-vitch), maybe your heart’s completely swayed but your head can’t follow through.

She comes off as having that preparedness of a foundational Secondary -- I don’t see any hints of the breathless charge and certainty of a Lion, or the adaptability of a Snake. I honestly think either Bird or Badger would be suitable for her, and could easily be played into in either direction depending on small acting choices.

Absent of other interpretations, I’m going to lean Bird, off that line from Jamie above and some of the little nuances of Sherie’s performances. There’s a lot of frustration that this all isn’t coming more easily that, while it probably has a lot to do with how easily things have come to Jamie, also leans me away from Badger a little bit; but she’s clearly not unwilling to put in the work, and I could absolutely see that interpretation working just as well.

Primaries

Interestingly, Cathy is outright stated as having the traditional Snake-y trait: don’t you think that now’s a good time to be the ambitious freak you are? That’s not why I’m going to say that Cathy’s a Snake Primary, and Jamie’s clearly got ambitions too, but it does make me smile a little.

Loyalist Cathy’s earliest (timeline-wise) songs are so full of Snake wrap-myself-up-in-my-favorite-person sentiments and lines. Goodbye until tomorrow, goodbye until the rest of my life, and I have been waiting, I have been waiting for you. You don’t have to change a thing, just stay with me. I want you and you and nothing but you, miles and piles of you. I don’t mean to put on any pressure, but I know when a thing is right. Once Jamie’s in her life, that’s it, he’s a priority. It is heartbreaking to go back over this show and realize how much more of what Cathy says is directly about Jamie than the other way around.

Even later on, after we get the first tiny signs of tension, it’s still there. In The Next Ten Minutes: I don’t know why people run, I don’t know why things fall through, I don’t know how anybody survives in this life without someone like you. I could protect and preserve, I could say no and good bye -- but why, Jamie, why? In Summer in Ohio: I found my guiding light, I tell the stars each night, look at me, look at him -- son of a bitch, I guess I’m doing something right.

It’s not even the first time she’s done this. In I Can Do Better Than That, she talks about a previous relationship in the same terms: I gave up my life for the better part of a year. When Cathy gets serious about someone, she makes them her priority,

And that’s what she gets, until that’s all she has, and she lashes out with the exact same thing she wanted at the beginning: you and you, and nothing but you, miles and piles of you. And I don’t think it’s because she didn’t actually want it. It’s because she thought it would be less one-sided.

Because idealist Jamie does put her high in his priorities, but he doesn’t put her first in the same, fixated way. Jamie’s instinctual and set-on-his-decisions Lion Primary chafes against Cathy’s expectation that he’ll put her above what he wants, fed into by that charging, bold instinct from his Secondary.

Which is not to say that Cathy isn’t important to Jamie. But the downfall in their relationship is that what that looks like is so different between the two of them, and they never figure out how to meet middle ground. They’re both unreliable, biased narrators in this story, and neither of them see what the other needs.

A while back, I talked about how different Primaries love. Jamie and Cathy could be case studies in what I said there, and especially in how that love can go bad.

Lion Jamie sees that they both have big dreams, and encourages Cathy to push her way forward on her dreams: Shouldn’t I want the world to see the brilliant girl who inspired me?... Stop temping, and go and be happy! He uses the thing that is most important to him -- his writing -- to encourage her, show her that he sees her hesitance and he believes in her. And when they’re having problems, he puts the blame on how her dreams are going first: Is it just that you’re disappointed to be touring again for the summer? Did you think this would all be much easier than it’s turned out to be?

And that’s where we get, I think, one of the biggest highlights of how they misunderstand each other: If I’m cheering on your side, Cathy, why can’t you support mine? Cathy feels unsupported, Cathy feels like everything has become all about Jamie -- but Jamie feels the same way. The kind of support they need is different, and neither of them see it.

(Even at the height of their love story, the one moment they’re at the same page, The Next Ten Minutes, it says so much to me that Jamie keeps getting these lines about a bigger picture that he and Cathy are just part of: there are so many dreams I need to see with you -- not dreams about them, dreams they can see come true together. I will never change the world, until, I do.)

And Jamie withdraws, and takes her more and more for granted, and steamrolls over her both accidentally -- A Part of That, and Cathy’s fierce declaration of I will not be the girl who gets asked how it feels to be trotting along at the genius’ heels getting disproven in front of her eyes -- and then purposefully, when he decides it’s time to stop trying.

Meanwhile, Snake Cathy sees that as the betrayal. She puts him first, makes him the priority, and when she doesn’t get that in return, she sees it as everything being about Jamie instead of the balance being equal. Fed into by her own ambitions going unfulfilled despite her own best efforts, she clings tighter, until he feels suffocated by it: all that I ask for is one little corner, one private room at the back of my heart, tell her I found one, she sends out battalions to claim it and blow it apart.

Until Jamie leaves, and Cathy is left bitter by it: Jamie is probably feeling just fine. Jamie decides it’s his right to decide. Run away, like it’s simple, like it’s right. Because to her steady, solid foundational Secondary and person-focused Snake, Jamie’s impulsive choice and quick action is cowardice at best, proof he doesn’t care as much at worst.

In summary:

Cathy Hiatt is a Snake Primary/foundational Secondary, either works with the text, but based on OCR, likely Bird.

Jamie Wellerstein is a Double Lion.

And Cathy’s person-first version of support VS Jamie’s dreams-first version of support, and their lack of understanding what each other is trying to provide and needs to recieve, is the entire crux of why their relationship fails, with some help from their uneven amounts of luck in their dream careers.

[starry-sky-stuff]

Historical Sortings

I've done a lot of reading about royalty in the 19th century and I decided to have some fun and try my hand at sorting historical figures.

I wonder if you can tell who my favs and unfavs are from my sortings.

Cut for length.

British Royals:

Queen Victoria: Snake/Lion. An unhealthy Snake Primary who expected that level of unhealthy devotion from everyone around her. Probably burned a bit after Albert died. Also an unhealthy Lion Secondary who strong-armed, controlled, and domineered others, particularly her children.

I don't know too much about her husband, but I think Albert might've been an Idealist.

Edward VII, aka Bertie: Lion/Badger. His charm strikes me as more of a Badger than a Snake. He seems to me to be the ‘I know a person’ guy. Just the vibes I get. He also really liked routine and wasn’t a particularly good conversationalist, just genuinely interested in others. Not too sure about his primary, but I didn't get Loyalist vibes so I went with Lion.

Alexandra of Denmark {wife of Bertie}: Snake/Badger. She usually gets characterised as the long-suffering wife so it’s not surprising she’s the love interest sorting. She was loyal to her husband despite all his infidelities, and her interests were confined to her children and pets

Princess Alice {daughter of Queen Victoria}: Bird/Badger. Experienced a crisis of faith in middle age which I interpret as a Fallen Bird trying to reconfigure their system. Her dedication to helping others makes me think Badger Secondary. Also, she died after contracting diphtheria from giving her sick son comfort which seems like a very tragic Badger.

Prince Alfred {son of Queen Victoria}: Lion/Lion. He was wilful and abrasive, and had a no-nonsense attitude, so probably Lion Secondary. I can’t really get a read on his primary but maybe also a Lion. That would mean he and his wife houseshare, which might’ve contributed to the breakdown of the marriage.

Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna {wife of Alfred}: Lion/Lion. Very caustic and abrasive, I definitely wouldn’t want to be around her in real life but I admire her no-nonsense attitude and no tolerance for BS. Her marrying off her daughters young because she thought it was right makes me think Lion Primary.

Princess Beatrice {daughter of Queen Victoria}: Snake/Badger. She subjugated her entire life to fulfilling her mother’s needs and the only major conflict they had was over her wanting to get married (Snake on Snake loyalty conflict maybe). Very much a background character who worked behind the scenes, so Badger Secondary.

I don't know enough about Queen Victoria's other children to sort them.

George V: Badger/Badger. Dull, dutiful and dependable is how he tends to be described, which always makes my mind go to Badger (I swear, I love Badgers, they’re great but they’re not very flashy). Considering he refused to give sanctuary to his cousin Nicholas II because he was afraid he might threaten his own country and throne, I’m going with Badger Primary who put the good of his group over individual loyalty.

Mary of Teck {wife of George}: Badger/Badger. Duty and dignity defined her, so I think she was a Double Badger who was loyal to the institution of the British Monarchy and her family (above any individual member). Her and her husband houseshare, which might explain some of their parenting issues since neither could compensate for the other’s shortcomings.

Marie of Edinburgh, aka Missy {daughter of Alfred}: Snake/Snake. Charismatic and flamboyant, she started out as a young bride in a foreign country with no support and she ended her life as a beloved figure and the most popular member of the royal family. Part of this was her finding meaning in her life by working for the benefit of Romania, which makes me think she was a Snake whose loyalty came to include all of Romania. Also, she was disgusted with her son’s selfishness and his (initial) abdication of his rights.

Victoria Melita of Edinburgh, aka Ducky {daughter of Alfred}: Lion/Lion. Strong-willed, temperamental, and uncompromisingly honest, Ducky unabashedly followed her own course in life. She divorced her first husband despite family and social pressure, married her second husband despite protests from his family, and was no-one’s fool.

German Royals:

Victoria, Princess Royal, aka Vicky {daughter of Queen Victoria}: Lion/Lion. I read in her biography that someone was quoted as saying she was “always clever, never wise”, which I think just fits this sorting. You’ve really got to admire her steadfast belief in liberalism in the face of Prussian conservatism, but sometimes reading about her aggravates me because I’m like, can’t you chill for just a second. Like, stop doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome.

Frederick III, aka Fritz {husband of Vicky}: Lion/Badger. He and Vicky were really united in their shared Lion Primary and belief in liberalism, from which they never wavered. His indecision and constantly subjugating his beliefs to family loyalty make me think he of an unhappy Badger Secondary loyal to a group that doesn’t value him.

Wilhelm II {son of Vicky & Fritz}: Lion/Lion. Considering his fraught relationship with his mother I find him and Vicky having the same sorting to be kinda funny. But he was such a Glory Hound Lion, a total egomaniac, bombastic, and a bully. A deeply unhealthy Double Lion.

Augusta Victoria of Schleswig-Holstein {wife of Wilhelm}: Badger/Badger. Definitely an unhealthy Badger Primary, she exalted anything that was German and was prejudiced against anything that wasn’t. Probably a Badger Secondary too, who dedicated herself to her husband, children, and throne.

Otto von Bismarck: Lion/Snake. Also a Glory Hound Lion judging by his visceral reaction to the implication anyone but him was responsible for German unification. The ultimate politician and opportunist, his Snake Secondary allowed him to stay in power for decades and outmanoeuvre pretty much everyone until the system he created failed him. The irony of that is hilarious to me (Bismarck’s a figure I find interesting but utterly despicable)

Russian Royals:

Nicholas I: Badger/Lion. I’m going with Badger just on his dehumanisation of ethnic minorities, liberals, and anyone who opposed him. And he was known as the Iron Tsar, so definitely a Lion Secondary who crushed any dissent both large and small. Very ironic that he’s the Protagonist sorting, since he was someone who really wanted to do what was right for his country, but what he believed was right was the worst and he's generally considered one of the worst tsars.

Alexandra Feodorovna {wife of Nicholas I}: Snake/Badger. Similar to Alexandra of Denmark, she was defined as being the perfect wife, loyal to her husband and overlooking his infidelities, with few interests outside of her family.

Alexander II {son of Nicholas I}: Lion/Snake. Definitely not a Loyalist based on the way he treated his wife. Loyalists can commit adultery too, but if he’s a loyalist than he’s not one who valued his wife or their children. And he definitely gives me immature Lion Primary vibes, doing what makes him happy to the detriment of others, his family, and his country. He was known for his charm and congeniality, but his way of dealing with his ministers was to play each of them off each other which makes me think Snake.

Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich {son of Nicholas I}: Lion/Lion. A total firebrand and idealist, he pursued his goals relentlessly and often tactlessly. Burned later in his life after his brother took a conservative bent and then Konstantin was basically removed from power after his brother’s death, so he retreated to life with his mistress and second family.

Alexander III {son of Alexander II}: Badger/Lion. Very similar to his grandfather, Nicholas I. Dutiful and hardworking, but also a lot of dehumanisation and running roughshod over others. Treated his family better than his father, and family was very important to him which could also be Snake.

Maria Feodorovna {wife of Alexander III}: Lion/Badger. She was vivacious and friendly and flourished in court life, which makes me think either Courtier Badger or Snake. I think Badger because she really understood the institutional power of the role of empress and was also really suspicious of anyone outside of the family. Nothing about her suggests Loyalist to me, but she was very firm in believing in the correctness of her own opinions. Her conflict with her daughter-in-law definitely makes sense when viewed through the lens of a Lion/Badger vs Lion/Lion

Nicholas II {son of Alexander III}: Badger/Badger. He garnered a reputation for duplicity because, since he hated conflict, he would agree with a minister during a meeting and then fire them via note the next day, so definitely not a Lion. Probably a Badger since he was obsessive over doing every single aspect of his job, including even sending letters and he refused a secretary. His attachment to autocracy derived at least partly from duty and he was very attached to his family, so maybe Badger Primary. He was also very close to his cousin George V and they houseshare.

Alexandra Feodorovna {wife of Nicholas II}: Lion/Lion. A deeply unhealthy Lion, she was obstinate, imperious, and completely inflexible. Wholeheartedly believed that she was entirely correct in her opinions, often based on little evidence, and objectivity was completely beyond her.

[mooglesorts]

man. it's weird, because there's a lot of things about me that are Very Badger Primary, to the point where i would probably pick it with a strong bird model over anything else at this point... except that i hate dehumanization. i saw primaries described recently as 'things you wouldn't be you anymore if you went against,' and more than just about anything else that's it. even when i think people are monsters, i can't see them as not human; i'd be hard put to define exactly what i consider a 'monster,' but it's more about like. good faith than personhood, i suppose?

it's not necessarily a permanent status to be one--people can change--but my deeply held instinct is that once you have done something monstrous you will always be a person who has been a monster by your own choices, and that it's your duty to learn how to accept that while still living your life, and act accordingly from thereon out. you have to reconcile that you are a person with the fact that some doors are closed to you now, and it's up to you to decide what you do from there.

just. like. even when i hate someone and as far as i'm concerned they can go fuck themself, even in the multiple Heavily Badger social environments i've been in over the course of my life--church, progressive circles, the way the structure of the internet kind of just affects you in general--even on occasions where i've gotten swept away and given in to the pressure to dehumanize (or perform it) for a minute, there's always, always been a voice in the back of my head saying this is a person. this is a person. this is a person. this isn't right.

unintentional dehumanization sets off my '...should we really be doing this? we are getting into not good territory here, it's time to pull up and start questioning' alarms. explicit, intentional, purposeful dehumanization sets off the whole ass tornado sirens. if people on my side are doing it it's enough to throw me into a system-destabilizing crisis, because NO NO NO I WANT TO GET OFF THIS RIDE, I WANT NO PART OF THESE PEOPLE'S MORAL SYSTEM, I FEEL UNCLEAN. it's a good way to make sure i will never, ever, ever trust someone again.

things that are Really Really Badger, off the top of my head (after the cut because Long and trauma talk):

[[MORE]]

---

-i've always loved playing adoptable games, pet simulators, etc? any game with randomly generated characters that are Yours Now and a Community, in a deeply badgery way. including games where they can die (the satisfying part is making sure they don't). except that, no matter how much fun the gameplay is, if it gets to the point where they start feeling disposable, and the only way to really keep playing is to stop humanizing them, i lose interest. it's super fucking depressing. it feels like part of me dying inside a little. i don't like it at all.

-i've always been drawn to fandoms and roleplaying communities. i was fiercely loyal to, and proud of, my first rp community on dragoncave as a 13-year-old. when my abusive mom found out about it and completely isolated me for half a year, the promise of being able to make it back to them--just sneakier this time--kept me going; when i finally got back and the group had drifted apart in my absence, it.... was absolutely devastating. i never really recovered from it. even then, i spent years trying to get the group back together every now and then, until i finally gave up.

-i am always keenly, painfully aware of the life cycle of a community. every time i hear the sentiment 'you guys are all great and i love this group' my stomach drops, because i know it's only a matter of time before things go sour or the group dissolves. rp groups, skype chats/discord servers, fandoms, you name it, i am always bracing myself or staying away entirely to avoid the inevitable and it hurts. and it hurts to see people taking part in a community i don't dare be part of, which makes lurking in fandoms... really rough. frankly, it takes me a lot of courage every time i express my appreciation for the shc community because i've been burned so many times.

-on that note: i went through some really traumatic stuff at the end of 2020 that completely turned my life upside down, and i was doing bad until i stumbled across the shc community. the moment i started engaging, it was a huge boost to my mental health, and my ability to cope with circumstances under which i was about to break down spectacularly. and it has been ever since! contributing to The Group Project and seeing other folks being friendly with each other gives me the happy feelings.

-i used to go out of my way to build and run spaces, mainly fandom and rp spaces, and took a lot of pride in engineering them so that they Functioned Well. unfortunately it wore me the hell down over the years for Burnt Badger Reasons, and now i'm too jaded, bitter, and exhausted to give a shit about being a mod/community leader anymore because of it lmao

-among those burnt badger things i relate HARD to the Red Ledger narrative. hoo boy.

-i wish i could find it again, but there was an mlp comic i saw once which went into luna's observations of what each element of harmony Means. with the element of friendship, she says that twilight has a massive amount of love to give; right now it's all focused on celestia, but when she learns to expand it outward she'll have grown into her full potential as a person, and she'll change the world. that struck a chord with how i used to feel, hard, and it's really stuck with me ever since. (hello, unhealthy snake model)

-emphasis on 'used to feel,' lmao

-got super invested in a really toxic '''mental health''' community at a low point in my life; exploded HARD trying to help everyone i could; got into vicious, protracted fights with the shitty mods for years about the harmful way they ran their community until i finally managed to go 'fuck this it's not getting better' and leave.

-had to numb myself emotionally to the people around me for a long time once i really started learning about mental health and trauma stuff, because now i was seeing signs of their pain and baggage everywhere i looked, and i couldn't handle not being able to help.

-the imagery with which i think about my bird primary is overwhelmingly negative. whether it's my actual primary or a model, i uh. i feel like a healthy relationship to one's primary doesn't involve associating it with gore.

-i saw a conversation recently about how birds think of morality in terms of 'if you can, you should,' and how that's scary for badgers because their definition of 'can' involves destroying yourself for the sake of that 'should,' and... yeah, that's a mood. that's a BIG mood. thinking about bird primary stuff is hard--and i had to pick up my lion model to deal with it--because it's so easy for me to spiral into a self-shredding spiral of other people are counting on you to do the right thing, how dare you pull back for your own health and sanity. how dare you turn your back for even a minute. how dare you rest. the work is never done.

which is... a very exploded badger approach to exploded bird morality. whoops.

-fix-it and time travel fiction in which Everything Went Right This Time and It's Going to Be Okay are one of my very favorite self-indulgent fantasies. i will enjoy putting characters through the wringer in all kinds of creatively horrific ways which may or may not end on a downer note, certainly, i love that shit, but i will also 90% of the time have a backup version of the arc or dynamic that's softer and lighter and Actually Healthy This Time. it's the dichotomy there that really gets me tbh, a story where Everything Ends Happily by default will mmmaybe pull me in? but stories where there's the constant shadow of this could end horribly, it's supposed to end horribly, and we got a happy fucking ending anyway are just... that shit will make me cry, man.

it's also why i kind of really hate stable time loop stories where it initially looks like this is going to be The Good Timeline this time around, but OOPSIE everything went to shit anyway! we're right back where we started, just like it was meant to be all along! it's a tired cliche by this point and an unsatisfying one for me, and it makes me roll my eyes every time.

-this is relevant to the bird vs. badger because like... my gut instinct is to prioritize people over systems. when shit hits the fan, when someone's fallen into the machinery and is about to get hurt, i don't feel right about it if i just let it happen. i'll break the machinery if i have to to keep it away from them; i won't feel great about that, and it might cause problems, but fuck it, we'll figure it out later. throwing people into the gears of a system when i'm convinced it's the only option makes me feel Awful.

-related to the above, another trope that really speaks to me in fiction is when a character defies the rules of reality through sheer force of will. no, this is not happening, i don't give a shit what the limits are supposed to be. i refuse to let this be the way things are. (there's that lion model.)

-i've just kind of... always wanted to be an Everyone Badger. it makes me sad how much of that i've lost over the years as i've gotten more cynical, but it's what i wish i could be.

---

doubtless i'll think of more the moment i hit send, and there are just as many things about me that are Super Bird Primary, but like... mamma mia that's some spicy badger. the main thing stopping me is the Can't and Refuse to Dehumanize bit. i also... hm. i think i can function okay without a community? they just help a lot, and it sucks when i'm confronted with one i don't have a (stable) place in. any thoughts? is it possible for a bird system's foundation to run so deep that eventually it overrides the bird?