#badger vs snake secondary

[reds-burrow]

it's interesting that you think of badger as "dog" and snake as "cat", because to me, my snake loyalty to my people manifests itself as very dog-like loyalty. I'm not disagreeing with you, I genuinely think it's interesting!

(This ask is in response to this post.)

Is there a difference in loyalty? I guess cats are generally more independent and subtle in their attachment than dogs. But as far as actual loyalty and devotion, perhaps I’ve simply met different cats than you, but once they devote themselves to someone, I’ve seen cats be as intensely loyal as dogs (and science supports this). When I said Dog and Cat are good alternatives for Badger and Snake respectively, I wasn’t talking about just loyalty, but other behaviors. My apologies for the confusion; I never fully explained my thoughts.

The first part of it has to do with how dogs live in packs, while cats do not. In a sense, dogs are naturally community minded. So, like how the well-being of the community comes before personal wants for Badgers, most dogs can learn to take commands and do what their humans expect from them even if they'd rather jump on the dinner table and eat everything. Cats, however, will do what pleases them before they’ll listen to their human, like how Snakes will prioritize their personal wants. Oftentimes those wants are to take care of their people, just as you can have incredibly friendly, cuddly cats. But it's difficult to get a healthy Snake or a cat to do something that they don't want to without an alternative incentive.

There’s also the fact that many cats are pickier about who they get close to, which I see as reflective of Snake Primaries and their vetting process. You have to earn a cat’s affection, just as you do with Snake Primaries. There’s a reason being chosen by a cat feels similar to being chosen by a Snake. On the other hand, for Badgers, there is already a base sense of loyalty to others, even strangers, simply because they are people, which I find is more similar to how dogs latch onto people. A recent study has suggested that the friendliness that dogs exhibit, a key part of their domestication, came from a similar genetic mutation as what causes Williams syndrome in humans, a disease that (to oversimplify) causes people to look at everyone as a friend. Meanwhile, cats domesticated themselves because they recognized that being around humans gave them an advantage: humans store grain, grain attracts rodents, and rodents make a good meal.

And… It’s not what your ask is about, but if you'll indulge me, I'd like to explain my thoughts on the Secondaries. Yes, Snake and Badger were selected as the HP mascots specifically with the Secondaries in mind, but I think I can make a decent argument for Cat and Dog.

Dogs are pack hunters and display alloparenting. That means they work together, specifically that they invest in each other, taking care of each other’s pups and sharing food resources. I’d argue this is similar to how Badger Secondaries invest in people. Also, most dogs exhibit joy in being given a job to do. Their hard work can vary from actual jobs (service dogs, search and rescue, livestock guardian, etc.) to performing the tricks their humans ask of them.

Cats, however, will do what is easiest to get what they want. A study showed that when given the choice between performing a task to get a treat and simply taking the treat, cats chose the latter. This might sound like the obvious choice, but many animals, including canines, prefer performing a task to get their food, a behavior called contrafeeloading. But cats? They are happy to freeload, even if they’re active and intelligent enough to solve the presented food puzzle.

Then there’s the fact that both cats and dogs have shaped their behavior to better communicate with humans. For dogs, these are mainly instinctual behaviors or literal changes to their form, built into their species over thousands of years, like understanding human pointing from birth and evolving expressive eyebrows to better communicate their feelings to humans. Meanwhile, cats learn to continue meowing past kittenhood, depending on their situation, by reading their humans' reactions. Feral cats don’t meow at the same rate as house cats because adult cats generally communicate through smells instead of sounds. Meowing is something cats developed for humans.

Anyway, I understand if you still consider your loyalty to look more dog-like. Perhaps the subtle affections of cats aren't your style. But I hope you enjoy this alternative way of thinking about things!

[wisteria-lodge]

badger primary + rapid fire/actor bird secondary

Hi! I’ve passively loved this system for a couple of years now but it’s only now that I’ve discovered that you actually do real people sorts! Anyway, I am pretty sure of being a Snake primary, but I’ll have you be the judge of that.

My Dad is a double Snake, however, my Mum I think is a Badger/Lion and this obviously creates a lot of conflict between them. I really care about both of them and though me & dad understand each other better on a fundamental level, he can also be quite a harsh and manipulative person (he has the typical Snake secondary thing where he tells you whatever you want to hear until you get close to him or he’s exhausted enough  to let the masks drop, and at that point he becomes quite harsh, which my Badger/Lion mum does NOT like, and she especially doesn’t like how “fake” he is), and my Mum always reacted very negatively to my behaving like him. 

A Double Snake and and Badger Lion could easily have periods of looking very similar, and very in sync, and then just… circumstances change and they couldn’t be more different. That’s a tricky one to navigate. So you’ve got a bit of cultural negativity surrounding Snake secondary, noted. 

So I kind of spent most of my life feeling torn because the two people I cared about the most had very opposing expectations of my personality

Definitely getting inklings of a Loyalist primary (Badger or Snake.) 

my Mum’s love in particular felt very conditional even though she was always very supportive of all my intellectual endeavors.

I spent the first 18-ish years of my life with “saying whatever I need to get what I want” as my primary strategy in life 

Definitely sounds quite Snake secondary (sounds a lot like your Dad’s Snake.) 

 and constructing a “cool, popular girl” personality that would give me enough social capital to get whatever I want.

Oooh, have we got some Bird secondary going on? Because this sounds like it could be Actor Bird. The very conscious way you went about building “Cool, Popular Girl” (even using words like “constructing”) and fact that this persona has a name, probably had a costume, and is purpose-built for a specific environment, not a specific person... sounds very Bird.

What I wanted, though, wasn’t anything particularly ambitious: I’m very conflict averse so I made shit up to avoid conflict. 

I associate this with Snake and Bird, the two “I move” secondaries. They’re water, flowing around obstacles. Lions and oddly Badgers are far more likely to pick fights. 

I wanted to be have strong “ride or die” friendships with people I could protect and who could protect me in turn (I first wrote “group of friends” but I now realize that I kind of struggle with groups of people - I just never have the feeling of being part of a group, just having ties with individual people, so I guess I want to be part of a group in the sense of having ties of affection and loyalty with several people who also have them with each other).

This is such heavily Snake primary-coded language, that I’m kinda wondering if that’s on purpose, and you’re looking for a specific answer from me… :) 

However, because what I got from my mum and, quite honestly, the media I liked was basically “my personality=villain.” I tended to seek out other people perceived as “villains” as some way because I felt that they would accept me more easily. 

I wish it weren’t the case, but you’re right, that’s a common thing. Especially if you’re a Double Snake or a Snake Bird, which I think are your two most likely sortings right now. 

I also really hated people who treated their friends badly or arrogantly and tended to bully them 

I mean that’s the human thing, but it’s definitely something that would bother a Loyalist (Snake or Badger primary) a LOT. 

there was this one swotty girl who was constantly looking down at her friends and treating them badly, and I just decided to make her life living hell because I was so morally affronted by it. 

I’d love to know exactly what your strategies were, because that would tell me a lot about your secondary. But there does seem to be a suggestion that there was a Mean-Girls-stye *plan* here, which kind of makes me think Bird. 

Another friend also abandoned us and found another friend group where everyone was basically in love with him and he was using them for attention seeking purposes and I also reacted to this quite harshly.

“Abandon” is a very dramatic word to describe a friend [entering a slight fuckboy phase?] and switching friend groups. 

The thing is, I also tended to abandon some people, which doesn’t clash well a Snake primary, I guess? One of my HS friend groups were really quite asshole-ish, and I ended up ditching them, but that was because I felt like they were treating other close people (of theirs, not mine) badly? 

Okay. So here’s what I think is going on. You’re a Badger. Hear me out. 

Yes, I think that your Badger looked like a Snake for a good long while. But you’re close to your Dad, and your Dad’s a Snake, and young Badgers will do that, look like authority figures or beloved people in their community. It really hurts you that your parents are not a united unit, not a community. A Snake would have an easier time just having separate relationships with each of them, even if they didn’t get along. Same thing with your friend that switched friend groups. That’s a very Badger way of looking at the situation. The Snake thing would be, well - he’s your friend, and it doesn’t really matter what group he’s him. But a Badger would want him to stay in the better group, the group that was better for him. 

You hate it when people mistreat their group. You hate bullies (Captain America style.) That’s all Badger. You also talk about multiple, conflicting groups of friends, and that whole “Cool Popular Girl” - I mean, it’s not exclusive to Badger primaries, bit it is definitely a very common way for High School Badger primaries to present. 

I had also decided to start taking school and stuff more seriously and I just kind of felt like their affection would be conditional on my bad bitch persona, got scared and ran? It was a long time ago, I don’t really remember.

This is Bird secondary thing. Getting “suck” in a persona, and worrying that people only like you / you only have value because of it. 

The turnpoint came when I met my first serious boyfriend, who is definitely a Snake secondary but I’m honestly not sure if he’s a Snake or a Bird primary.

The so far elaborately constructed web of lies and reputation building that was my life led to the downfall of our relationship, because it combined with some external circumstances made trust difficult

You have a complicated relationship with Snake secondaries, but you yourself are a Bird. “Construction,” “reputation building,” the web metaphor… it sounds like a Bird. That’s just not how Snake secondaries think. 

what I somehow got out of it was a deep fear of betrayal and abandonment 

and possibly Burned your primary a little bit (probably another reason you’re picking Snake for yourself, Burnt Badgers look like Snakes. 

and the impression that if I wanted people to love me and stay by my side, I should be very open about who I am (so that I’m sure that it’s me that they’re loyal to and not their personal image of me), and just try to be the kind of kind, morally upstanding person that people couldn’t fault for anything.

These are two mutually exclusive goals. If you’re totally honest and open about who you are (the Lion secondary thing) - then you will absolutely ruffle some feathers and rub people the wrong way. It’s a totally different approach than being the “kind [person] that people couldn’t fault for anything.” (Which is more of a badger thing.)

Forcing myself to act like this led to a plethora of mental health issues because being very open about who I am is just… not who I am? 

You also just set yourself for failure. There is literally no way you could have achieved what you set out to achieve. And how is “forcing” yourself to act a certain way more open and genuine? It sounds like you built a Badger secondary model out of fear, and just sat in it for a while.

And it was very anxiety-inducing for me. Even now, when my mental health is much better and I’ve settled into who I am, I like showing off my playfulness and wit and keeping the rest of my personality behind a neutrally charming mask.

And that’s… good? Normal? That’s also very Bird. Just have a charming, Badger-flavored ‘customer service’ face that you wear as you go through the world. Go into Neutral when you feel comfortable. (Birds go into Neutral very much like Snakes do, but the change usually isn’t as dramatic.) 

Also, my success until that point was based on a lot of improvisation and quick thinking, and while I kept that to a point, it also always led to a bunch of moral panic because in my head, being this kind of person is what gets you abandoned.

Rapid-Fire Bird. There’s a little bit of your Bird coming through here, in that you want a foundation, you don’t want to just do the Snake thing. 

Anyway, I was a psychology major (I always liked understanding how people tick and how to get them to see or do what  you want them to without having to explicitly argue with them or convince them)

Very Bird. 

but I felt alienated with the “bleeding heart helping profession!!” people around me.

I am not at all surprised that the profession skews Badger secondary, and that it did not feel at all good being around all those Badger secondaries... when you’ve got such a messy relationship with your Badger model. 

I eventually settled for doing research on children growing up in harsh circumstances who develop externalizing symptoms, but it was just because throughout my life I met a lot of people like that and a lot of my close people are “misunderstood” because they sometimes behave harshly due to their harsh upbringings, so I wanted to vindicate them in a way, as well as vindicate myself because I cared about explaining why people sometimes act less than morally and yet can still be loyal and worthy of love and not automatically “bad people”.

I love this for you. It seems like this would just fit into your primary so nicely. You’ve got a category of people, who are your people and you’re going to vindicate them, and protect them - especially from other people seeking to dehumanize them. It’s so Badger, but in that lovely universal way. 

In the meanwhile, I kind of developed a Badger primary model, I guess, in that I do dedicate a lot of my time to helping people

… or you were a Badger all along…

 and being kind and open and inviting

yeah, that has absolutely nothing to do with being a Badger primary. I’m serious. That’s just your neutrally-charming mask. 

but whenever this is put to the test my Snake loyalties always always come first. 

I honestly haven’t seen this so far. The only individuals you’ve talked about are your parents (who bothered you by not being a group, your fuckboy friend (who left the group) and your first boyfriend, who you broke up with. 

And I also still always get morally outraged when people are disloyal to their close ones or treat them badly, 

This your primary talking. (your why, what gets you out of bed in the morning)

whereas the general kindness and the work I put in towards making sure the world is a kinder, fairer place is just something that I do, no emotional attachment to it, and I don’t expect other people to do it at all.

This is your badger secondary model talking. (how you go about doing things, how you present to the world.) Both Badger, yes. EXTREMELY different. 

I honestly don’t think a lot about morality, aside from the generic “be kind and try not to fuck people over unless you really have to”

I mean, you did just say. “I also still always get morally outraged when people are disloyal to their close ones or treat them badly.” I think you just must not consider that sort of thing… really morality, in some way. But Badgers get their morality from their group. Their highest moral good is to make sure the group is doing okay. It doesn’t have to be more complicated than that. 

rationally constructing a system of morality or trying to arrive at some kind of internal hunch both feel kind of empty to me? 

Because you’re not a Bird or Lion primary? Of course it does. 

Now, as for the secondary, my knee jerk reaction is to say Bird because I’m in research, and ever since childhood I’ve always been a very logical person. I’ve eventually learned to be quite systemic in my problem solving process because I need it for research, but what I like about this career is the problem solving aspect of it, like you have a goal (for example, an effective psychosocial information or the acquisition of a certain kind of information) and you have to figure out how to get to that information. Basically the most efficient way of getting from A to B.

 I make sure to be systemic and thorough and analytical because it’s the most surefire way to get things right in my line of work, but I also take pleasure in kind of categorizing and putting information in order, and connecting it along different lines. I also really care about proper methodology and not half-assing things to get the results that you want, because I think that the results that you want are the results that are accurate and useful in the real world, not the ones that make you look better.

Wait, am I a double Snake?

Okay, now you’ve got ME worried - I must have really screwed up explaining something, because how can you write something THAT bird secondary, love systems as much as you do… and arrive at the conclusion that you’re a Snake? 

What I know for sure is that I absolutely do not identify with “knowledge for knowledge’s sake”, but I do have a really broad criteria for what “useful knowledge” is because I’m capable of thinking quite abstractly, so I can see the utility of almost anything.

That is very, very, very Bird. I’m starting to see the problem though. “Knowledge for knowledge’s sake” is an older phrase that owes more to the parent system than I would like, but it does essentially mean “no knowledge is wasted, the most useful way to solve problems is to preemptively hoard knowledge.” 

What I am really also passionate about is presenting things in the right way. I love writing, and I love public speaking, because I get to put myself in the other person’s shoes, imagine how they will “receive” what I’m saying and then tailor my presentation or short story or whatever to lead them to the conclusion that I want them to reach. But I dislike manipulating people with this: the conclusions that I want them to reach are the ones that I personally consider accurate, not the ones that benefit me.

First thing, you sound like an absolutely incredible person, and by pretty much any metric you want to use, a *good* person. (And no, that’s not because the way you’ve written this is manipulating me. This is my little game, I’m good at it.) 

What I can tell you that tailoring a presentation to an audience - that’s just a Rapid-Fire Bird who knows their stuff doing trick-shots, and I bet it’s beautiful to see. You are delivering information in a way that the audience can properly take in, because you know both your audience and your information well enough to do that, and that is incredible. 

My knee-jerk reaction is always to improvise, but I feel like this makes me come off as a “fake” person if I change my mind on what I said later (I change my mind A LOT), so I try not to say what sounds good in the moment because it will bite me in the ass later and lead to a reputation of a flaky, fake person, I guess?

Not 100% sure what you mean here. Changing your mind… is just a personality trait, it doesn’t really have to do with why you do things or how you do them. I think you would call tailoring your presentations improvisation, and I really wouldn’t. It’s not improvisation, it’s just looks like improvisation because you’ve come up with a hundred different ways to say this thing, and then on the day you can pick the one that works the best. If you had to do the same thing, but not in your preferred subject matter/environment, it would be basically impossible.

But I also really pride myself on my logical and thorough assessments of situations, and I tend to like thinking things through when I get the chance for it, often postponing decisions until I’ve thought about all the eventual longterm consequences of all the courses of action I might take. 

Bird. 

What trips me up is my trauma-induced fixation with being “honest” and avoiding “lies”, which are more about their eventual inefficacy and worthlessness and less about their moral rightness or wrongness (and also because manipulative=bad, as my Mum spent all of my life saying). My line of thinking is, “Things built on lies or self-delusion always crash down and burn, and it is right that they do so that more stable and honest things can take place”

What are you building on lies? If anyone’s work has a solid foundation, it’s yours. And as we’ve previously discussed, even IF you were doing your mom’s brash Lion secondary thing, wouldn’t that be in a lie in itself, because it’s not your natural presentation, it’s something you need to force yourself to do? 

but I also kind of use it to do shady shit - like I don’t feel morally wrong in hitting up a man in a relationship, because if he really cares about his woman the only person who’ll get burned is me and if he doesn’t I saved her the trouble of wasting more of her time on him?

This is actually a really interesting aside, because it’s you telling me how you handle a moral issue (that makes it a Primary thing.) 

Is it wrong to hit on a married man? Your answer is No: either you get turned down because he’s staying faithful, and that’s your own personal risk, or he cheats, in which case he’s kind of … dehumanizing himself? And therefore you are doing his partner a favor because she can now get rid of this unhealthy member of her community. There’s a logic there, and it’s a kind of ruthless Badger primary logic. 

So not sure if Snake or Badger secondary?

Bird. 

P.S. After some self-reflection, I realized that I’m probably not a Bird secondary

I’m listening. 

because I really hate following plans and situations where I have to rely on concrete skills and not abstract problem solving terrify me. OTOH I am very proud of my general ability to assess a situation and act appropriately.

Not sure how you’re distinguishing between “concrete skills” and “abstract problem solving.” From what you’ve been telling me, it sounds like you need the concrete skills before you can do the abstract problem solving, as in they work together. 

I’m also known as the person who changes PowerPoint slides in the middle of a conference based on whoever’s speaking before her and adapting her speech accordingly, which freaks the shit out of my coworkers, so I guess any “planning” type is probably out for old me 

That’s the most Rapid Fire Bird thing I ever heard. You made a plan. The PowerPoint and the speech exist. You’re just adapting them on the fly, based on previously-existing knowledge. I’m starting to think that you’re one of those Bird secondaries who is SUCH a loud Bird secondary, that it can be hard to get your head the idea that your skills are skills, and not sort of neutral abilities that everyone has. 

my latent distaste towards being a Snake secondary is my burny oppressive bullshit against anything that’s not “stalwart honesty and consistency” that I’ve been imposing on myself for years.

which I really wish you didn’t feel like you had to. 

Because I do love winging it and just saying whatever’s the most situationally appropriate thing regardless of how much it reflects me and I’ve just been treating any kind of play acting like a recovering alcoholic treats drink so I no longer even remember how it feels anymore lol.

I hope you find a way to play with your Actor Bird, at some point. One more little thing before I sign off though - thinking of actions as “situationally appropriate” is a very Actor Bird secondary thing to do. Snakes don’t go that big. Snakes think - what response do I want from this person, in this moment, and how do I get it? They also constantly reset. Snake secondaries have this “seducer” reputation because they generally are better one-on-one, or in small groups. Even Snake secondary actors will talk about the way they perceive the whole audience as one “person” … it’s all very interesting, but a very different way of approaching the world than the way you do.

[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.

[sablesroundthebend]

Grrrg. I want to post about this project but I have no clue where to start. I guess I should start outlining for the first part of the story, but I can’t get it out of my bones.

I’m gonna try a poll. I don’t know if anyone will see it, but I really need a starting point to post on here like I used to do on the platform I developed this story on, prior.

See my pinned post for relevancy!

This is pretty… general? I’ll get to it all eventually! It’s just I need a starting point, and it’s a lot easier to pick when there’s outside input. This blog is JUST to throw ideas at the wall and keep me interested in my own ideas, so it all has room to change after posting until the actual comic goes up. I do better thinking when it’s phrased like… helping others? I don’t like talking to air or brick walls.

First two options will probably get secondary or tertiary polls, because those are still very broad! There’s three groups, plus the out groups/origins, then the architecture, members, roles, culture, food, etc.! I’m not going to be revealing everything about these broad topics, but I really wanna deep dive into these ideas again. Love the topic of food, in particular, but it would be a little dumb to start gushing about it without giving a grasp on the world. These topics ARE heavily important to their respective arcs, though, so either are good starting points.

General world history will get you some art pieces, concept sketches, and an overview of the main source of conflict for the first “arc.” It would be revealed really early, anyways, so there’s no issue thinking it out loud here. I’ll make spoilers tag for each topic, anyways! Basis for basically the whole saga. Early world history, a war, an overview of religious and cultural beliefs, regional differences, stuff like that. Very fun stuff.

Finally, world flora + fauna / geography would likely offer various artwork, concept sketches for possible plants or creatures, a couple maps I need to get onto a page, and labeling for important areas and landmarks for each of the arcs. Again, love the topic of flora and fauna because it heavily relates to foods. A possible deep dive into species anatomy is probable.

I believe all of these are pretty fair stating points. Old Kingdom is 1st arc location, the Packs are highly important to 2nd arc, world history is world history, and the geography and animals are just the basis for the entire environment. Grounds everything.

Help lol

[the-phoenix-heart]

Oh this is beautiful. And so correct.

I love the way you talk about idealists vs loyalists in the series. It's one of the more obvious themes in the books and makes a lot of sense. When the world is tearing itself apart, what is more important? More vengeance and power or more connections?

Sejanus as a Double Lion makes a whole lot of sense. I would add that the glee he feels leaving the capitol (and his family) reads very idealist, as well as the way he specifically falls into a cause in District 12, not a specific group.

I had never considered what Dr. Gaul's backstory was like, but WOW. You really got me with it. Not only does it make sense, but it handily explains how she could become so incredibly radicalized.

Badger Snake Tigris is literally perfect and I'm so glad you sorted her. I think it's also why Coriolanus is immediately so taken with Lucy Gray. He knows Snake secondaries and he likes them.

Sorting More Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes with Sorting Hat Chats

This post uses the Sorting Hat Chats system, originally created by @sortinghatchats. It’s a personality system, sort of like mbti or enneagram, except it developed right here in fandom for talking about and analysing fictional characters.

SHC is about two things — your motive (called your primary) and your method (called your secondary). You can read a full explanation of the system over here (thanks, @wisteria-lodge!)

@the-phoenix-heart has already done a great post on Coriolanus and Lucy Gray over here, which I recommend you go and read if you haven’t already! But since I have A Lot Of Thoughts about this book (and am currently writing a longfic about it that’s going to end up at 200k+, whoops) I figured I’d chat about the sortings of a few of its other characters.

Also, good lord this ended up long for a post just about three characters. Like, grab some snacks, grab a glass of water. The rest of this post is below the cut, to protect your dash. You ready? Let’s go!

Sejanus Plinth — Double Lion with a Badger primary model and possibly a singed secondary

Starting with his primary — Sejanus is a good example of how Badgers and Paragon Lions (that is, Lions with Badger values) can be really difficult to distinguish from one another, especially in fiction. People are people and this means something to him, in a way it doesn’t to either the Capitol or his father. It’s a Badger ideal, but it’s not exclusive to Badgers. Although Sejanus is so incredibly heartfelt about it that I do think he’s a Felt primary (Lion or Badger).

There’s his angst about leaving Two, his community that he still considers an incredibly important part of his identity, that could be a Badger primary thing… but it also could be a human thing. And it’s so tied up in his guilt for his father’s actions during the war, and I think any primary could be hit hard by a parent producing munitions for a war against their own people. (And later using the money from said munitions to save their own skins and move away from home. Sejanus has reams of survivor’s guilt, and that’s just a person thing.)

I could still be convinced either way, I think (and if anyone reading has strong opinions, I’m curious to hear your thoughts!). But I’ve come down on Lion for him, and that’s because of the way he talks so readily about systems and what’s right, not just the Badger that’s a person! stuff. When Dr. Gaul says it’s the Capitol’s right, to treat the Districts how they choose, he doesn’t come back with they’re people, how could you? but meets her at her level, Idealist to Idealist. “You’ve no right.” Everyone is born with life and freedom, and “they’re not yours for the taking.”

There’s also the way he lives for so long in the Capitol without giving an inch. Badgers are External primaries, meaning they tend to adopt the values of their larger communities. I’d expect a Badger to have more… doubt, more misgivings. Or to dehumanise the Capitol more, as a way to cope. But Lions have a way of digging in their heels and saying no, I know what’s right. They’re also, classically, the most at peace with being loners. And Sejanus isn’t happy being alone in the Capitol… but you get the sense he’d choose it every time over compromising his ideals.

I also think having him as a Lion creates an interesting read on the way he bonds so easily with Coriolanus and not with his father, despite the two being really quite similar people in a lot of ways. Sure, Coriolanus is charismatic and trying to be liked in a way that maybe Strabo isn’t, I’m sure that’s part of it. But Coriolanus, fellow Lion primary, also seems to just… get it, where Sejanus is coming from with his ideals. Coriolanus doesn’t like it — Sejanus is rejecting everything that his Lion has been fighting for most of his life. But he gets the innate drive, because he’s the same way with his own success, his safety and control, his family’s power. So he slots it into his calculations about how to act around Sejanus and moves on. Whereas I get the sense that Strabo probably doesn’t understand Sejanus in quite the same way.

(External primaries — Badger and Bird — have this knack for just deciding to like something, or to be alright with something. In parents, this can often manifest in expecting their kids to be able to do the same thing. I don’t think we have enough information on Strabo to conclusively sort him, but I do wonder if that’s what’s going on here.)

All that being said — groups and his community in Two, forming one with the rebels, are important enough to Sejanus that I’m going to say he has a full Badger model, rather than just being a Lion with Badger ideals.

As for his secondary, he’s a Lion, through and through. He goes the direct route, he’s unapologetically himself. He can do the Lion secondary “dimmer switch” where he stays quiet about parts of himself or his ideals — he would have had to learn that, to survive as long as he did. But the moments where he’s at his most powerful… I’m coming back to that conversation with Dr. Gaul again. He stands his ground and says “You’ve no right”. It might not get him anywhere in the text itself, but as a reader that’s a powerful moment. Even Coriolanus is grudgingly impressed by his pluck.

In this he’s like Katniss, another Lion secondary. She’s at her most powerful when she can stand her ground, speak her truth, and shoot straight for the problem at hand. It’s the berries, it’s speaking from the heart in her propos, it’s shooting Coin. But it’s also such a dangerous thing to be in Panem, and Collins is keenly aware of that. It so easily could have gotten her killed. Sejanus is a case where it did.

An Aside on the Way Collins Writes Idealists vs Loyalists That Has Become it’s Own Section as it’s So Damn Long

The contrast between Sejanus and Katniss is also a good example of the way Collins tends to write about Idealist primaries (Lion and Bird) vs Loyalists (Snake and Badger). When Collins writes Idealists, they have a tendency to sort of… careen off some edge or another, for their drive, or their ideals, or their philosophy.

Coriolanus loses himself in his drive for control, safety. He makes himself someone who will thrive in the Capitol, because he values his own comfort more than he values the snatches of empathy, of another way forward, that he ponders throughout Ballad. And so he murders the part of himself that cares. The boy who told Lucy Gray that he should be like Sejanus and try to quit the Games ends up trying to kill them both. This is his tragedy.

Gale loses himself in his drive to defeat the Capitol. He makes himself someone who has what it takes to help win the war, because he values justice and perhaps revenge more than he values the human life on the ground. And so he murders the part of himself that cares. The boy who told Katniss that he’d protect their families above everything gets Prim killed. This is his tragedy.

Coin you can read as either or both of the above, depending on how much you think she believed in rebel justice vs her own security and power. We’ll get to Dr. Gaul later on, but she’s also an example of someone who cared more for her own safety and philosophy than the lives of the people she has power over.

It’s not as simple as “good Loyalists, bad Idealists” — certainly the Idealists in this series are written sympathetically, even when the text disagrees with them. We understand Coriolanus wanting his family to be safe and fed. We understand Gale wanting justice. But surviving in a dystopian dictatorship, under that kind of violent oppression, is hard, and enacting meaningful change is even harder. Every single character has to grapple with that, but the Idealists tend to get the worst of it. Whether they choose to submit for personal gain like Coriolanus or fight fire with fire like Gale or Coin, they lose something of themselves in the process, and it drives them to tragedy one way or another.

And then there’s Sejanus. Sejanus, who knows the risk of loosing himself, who’s seen his father do the exact same thing and who knows what the cost of that has been. He will not murder the part of himself that cares. He will not even pretend. But he doesn’t know how to move forward for his ideals, without that first act of self-mutilation, and he can’t live with himself for that.

And… this is speculation, but I think maybe he’s terrified that he’s destined for it anyway. “What makes you think I could do that?” he asks Coriolanus, when Coriolanus says he can do good with the Plinth fortune when he inherits. There are lots of reasons Sejanus might say that. Maybe it’s just unthinkable to him to say that sort of money could do good. Maybe, in SHC terms, it’s a sign of burning on his secondary, that he doesn’t think he’s capable of his own actions doing good. But I also think it’s possible that he really doesn’t think he’ll get that far with his whole self intact, after the pressure exerted on him by his father, by the Capitol. That he thinks either his compassion will die young, or he will. So he nearly looses himself to despair, instead.

But to be a Loyalist, in this series, is to have something that grounds you. It protects you from loosing yourself the same way. Peeta is aware of the risk of self-mutilation. “I don’t want them to change me,” he says, before his first Games. But he’s a Snake primary, and the way he keeps hold of himself is his devotion to Katniss. To change him, Coriolanus must remove this devotion — the hijacking — but even this cannot last. Katniss, likewise, is kept focused and steadied by her own Snake primary, by the people she fights for. It’s still difficult — wars have a way of coming for the people you love. But even when Katniss is at her lowest point, her love still centres her. When she kills Coin, it’s “for Prim”.

The text is saying — yes, the world is big and you are very small. But if you can help one person, that means something. If you can fight for one person, that means something. And those small acts of kindness and love are where change comes from, in the end.

This is how I think Lucy Gray manages to be the rare Idealist in this series who doesn’t careen off some edge or another. Because that sort of small-scale love is her ideal. She’s focused, she’s grounded, she cares for the Covey and her own personal freedom and the impact of her own actions on the world.

And she’s flexible, about her ideals. When Coriolanus and Coin and Gale and Dr. Gaul careen off that edge it’s sort of… it, for them. There’s no coming back, they’re too committed for that. Sejanus, if I’m right, is terrified that will be him, too. Lucy Gray is no stranger to becoming morally grey. She’s a victor, she’s killed people. But, to her, this does not prevent her from doing the work to walk on the right side of the line. This does not excuse her from doing the work to walk on the right side of the line. It’s her life’s work and she will see it through.

And then we have Coriolanus. And the thing is, he starts off with these sort of small-scale ideals, too. He cares for his family, he cares for Lucy Gray, and he prioritises them over a lot. And you could read that as being a performance, or that he only cares for what their wellbeing could do for him. I know a lot of people read him that way. But there’s another reading where it’s at least a mix. I’d argue even his care for Sejanus winds up being at least halfway genuine. And in that reading… you get the sense that his care for them could have been what saved him, if only he had let it.

Dr. Volumnia Gaul — Double Bird

Double Birds in fiction are classically either the (mad) scientist or the mentor figure. With Dr. Gaul being both, is it any wonder this is her sorting? @the-phoenix-heart already mentioned her sorting in their post, but as that was a quick one-liner and I have Many Thoughts, I’m going to chat about her here for a little bit!

So, Bird primary — the way she mentors Coriolanus (and to a lesser extent the other Hunger Games mentors) is very Bird. She lays out the evidence of her system, her worldview, and expects this will be what convinces people to follow suit. @the-phoenix-heart wrote that Coriolanus probably built a Bird primary model for her, and I absolutely agree. And then there’s the bit where she says that what she loved about the war was that it proved her right… which is such an Idealist thing to say, but maybe swings a little more Bird, too. There’s that Bird drive for truth, as opposed to for a cause (which would swing Lion).

As for her Bird secondary, that’s obvious too. She loves plans, she loves tools, and she’s always working on tinkering with both to make them better. Her mutts are a beloved tool. The Games are a beloved tool. Coriolanus, fellow Bird secondary, takes a little while to come around to her ideals, but the Games as a tool? Control as strategy? He gets that immediately. “So obvious. Too obvious,” he says, about controlling the eternal war.

There’s an interesting thing about her Double Bird, mad scientist vibes, though, that I think separates her from the classic Double Bird scientist who gets so caught up in their scientific shenanigans that they don’t realise or care how “mad” they come off.

This is pure speculation, but — what do we think she was like, growing up? She’s sadistic, a “nerd”, quite probably some form of neurodivergent. What are the odds she was the “weird kid” in her class? Which is a hard thing to be under the best of circumstances, but in the Capitol? It must have been brutal. Thinking of her this way unlocked a lot about her character and motivations, for me.

No wonder she decided it was true that humanity is brutal, vicious, at constant war with itself. No wonder she doesn’t take on evidence that questions that truth. No wonder she loved the war, when everyone else suddenly saw what she did. No wonder she loves the Games, which specifically use children as an example of the brutal nature she sees in humanity. Finally, something to point to when people tell her that children are innocent.

And no wonder she values control so highly. I think she probably learnt quite young — at school, maybe at university — that fear is a powerful means of control, of personal safety. It’s one of the main tools she passes down to Coriolanus. Getting back to what I mentioned about her Double Bird, mad scientist vibes — in SHC terms, I think this is an Actor Bird costume she’s built for herself, as well as being reflective of her actual sorting. Everything “mad” about her seems so carefully calculated to manufacture a reaction. The nursery rhymes when she starts a conversation, that she drops the moment things get truly serious. The carefully planned encounter with Clemensia and the snakes. She’s using the trope itself as a tool, because she knows “the mad scientist” is something that scares people.

Tigris Snow — Badger Snake with an exploded Badger secondary model in Ballad and an Actor Bird secondary model in Mockingjay

Unlike every other character in this book who’s been sorted so far, Tigris never talks about ideals or truths or philosophies or causes. She talks about people — her family most of all, but others as well. Lucy Gray is a person, and that instantly matters to her. She’s definitely a Loyalist, but I could see Snake, I could see Badger. She’s a minor enough character that you could pull her either way. But I’ve come down on Badger for her for a couple of reasons. Apart from Sejanus, she’s one of the main mouthpieces for the “the districts are people and that matters” argument, which as I’ve said before isn’t exclusive to Badgers but is a Badger thing.

And it’s a small thing, but there’s the way she refuses to hear anything bad against her boss, Fabrica, as Tigris is so grateful she gave her a position in fashion. I think a Snake would be more likely to say that no, she doesn’t owe Fabrica anything, if Fabrica is going to treat her like that. But Badgers take their obligation to the group seriously, and they can run into problems with dismissing their own worth in the process.

As for her secondary… there’s definitely some Badger there. She’s the main caretaker in the Snow household and caretaking is classically a Badger secondary thing. But the fact that this is something she’s had to learn how to be makes me think it’s probably a model she’s picked up for that specific purpose — which then exploded, this girl seems to always be up all night working.

The biggest example of her problem-solving is Coriolanus’ Reaping Day shirt, and from that we learn that she’s adaptable. Take the fabric from an old pouch, exchange favours with the maintenance man, tell your boss her curtains need bleaching so you can slip in the shirt while you’re doing it. Rapid-fire Bird, Snake — she’s in her element, fashion, which makes it hard to distinguish between the two. But there’s the way she looks around at her environment for cues. The tesserae she takes from the walls on the maid’s bathroom for buttons.

And there’s also the playful way she seems to have of coming up with little words and phrases on the fly, as a kid. Nicknames like Coryo and the Grandma’am, and the mantra Snow lands on top. I think she’s a Snake secondary, the balance to Coriolanus’ Bird that made them such an effective team growing up. It’s the same thing we see with him and Lucy Gray, another Snake.

But then we arrive at Mockingjay, and Tigris feels so incredibly different. She’s this very carefully constructed persona of a tiger, enigmatic and silent with a purr when she talks. In SHC terms, it’s an Actor Bird costume, it’s too obviously constructed to be anything else. As for why she made it… that’s anyone’s guess. But it’s such a break from the way she presents herself in tbosas that has to have been part of the point.

One thing about that costume, though? She can’t take it off. It’s literally tattooed on her skin. And if there’s one thing Actor Birds (whether innate or modelled) don’t seem to like, it’s when they get stuck in one of their roles.

[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.

[wisteria-lodge]

Really excellent, succinct breakdown.

ugh i am so confused on my secondary :/ the one that i know im not is lion because i do the face switching thing with every person i talk to- even via text. its not a conscious thing either, it just happens & has always been this way & i enjoy doing it! but im unsure if its snake face-switching, badger mirroring, or actor bird. i just take someones energy and reflect it back at them- but the snek neutral state does resonate with me. there's a "me" under all the layers but its still... (1/2)

(2/2)..but its still very actor-y/mirror-y. the only time im not putting on any layers/pretty blunt is when im super apathetic or sick. im kind of a shitty improviser in certain areas but good in others, if that means anything. kinda makes me sound rapid-fire birdy or just a built sec in general lol. i do the bird *unconsciously hoarding info* thing haha which is nice, but im also usually suprised at my good rep/how much people seem to like me. any tips on telling between these 3? thanks paint!

Last ask before I crash for the night -w-

I have a couple asks about similar stuff, how to tell these kinda similar-looking secondary tools apart... let's talk about it for a bit here. Hopefully I'm not too asleep to make sense. I was just gonna write a quick post about it, but being concise is hard >.<

Courtier vs Actor vs Rapid Fire vs Snake (bonus: vs Lion)

Courtier Badger mirroring

Showing someone the parts of yourself you think they'd find most relatable. They end up feeling liked and accepted by you because they feel you're similar to them.

All of this is genuine on your part, at least in the moment--you're kinda bad at faking it. It's difficult or impossible to mirror someone you really dislike.

Actor Bird masks

You can play a role ("professional," for instance) or turn the volume up on some of your traits (e.g. "friendly/extroverted/music lover/charismatic") to make a mask. This is a way you can act, and it doesn't have to be as genuine as a Badger's mirroring, though it probably takes less energy if it is.

Once you've gotten into character for a mask, it can take a bit to change out of it. It's kind of a mindset shift, and it's hard to fluidly change into a different behavior set without seeming to contradict yourself. Masks don't easily adjust on the fly.

Rapid Fire Bird bricolage

You have background knowledge, skills, experience, and/or resources related to a whole lot of different topics. You're creative, resourceful, and good at recombining past tools into current solutions.

You might also use Actor Bird masks as part of your toolset. Actor + RF Bird doesn't = Snake, but can seem similar at first glance.

Snake improv

You're making this up as you go along, and you're totally cool with that. You're not really afraid that things will go wrong, because you know you can recover and just pivot into something that will work better. You're willing to experiment with different tactics, watch them work or fail in real time, and adjust on the fly.

You don't mind acting differently toward different people. Your act doesn't have to be genuine, the way a Badger's would. It doesn't have to be prepared, either, and you don't get stuck in it like an Actor Bird might. You're great at using whatever resources are around you, but you didn't necessarily prepare any in anticipation of needing them. You may or may not start out with a plan, but you have no problems with dropping it if you see an opportunity come up that you want to take.

If you're dropped into a situation where you have no clue what's going on and no prior experience and no tools and you don't know anyone, you're probably still fine. A Bird in those circumstances would either panic, or withdraw and become an observer until they feel they've gathered enough information to know what to do.

Lions being Lions

All this talk about code-switching and changing how you act is uncomfortable. Why would anyone want to do this? How can you get good results like this??? Nope. Nope.

You kinda just do stuff. You're resilient, even stubborn. You don't go in for half measures. You don't give up easily. Snakes pivot all the time, but you don't--you bulldoze a straight line through your projects and problems, without necessarily thinking ahead. It usually works out, which confuses the heck out of other people sometimes, but hey, it's just how you roll!

Final note

You might model or perform any of these in addition to your actual secondary. (Info about models and performances can be found near the bottom of this page on the SHC WordPress.)

You could be a Badger who's specifically learned to use Bird masks, for instance. It's up to you which words you think best describe you and the tools you use ^^

[reds-burrow]

Atv anon here! Im ok! Just very accident prone. Focusing on others in a crises is instinctual. When i vent, i worry about how the other person feels afterward. I crack jokes when things get weird or to put someone at ease. I adjust my approach based on the vibes i get. I like to think of myself as a constructed badger primary. Im a philosophical rebel that will tackle any ethical question but my real life decisions are based on the needs of others instinctually. Im lost on my secondary, though.

Atv anon again again! Sorry for the follow up to the follow up... but i did want to say thank you for your concern. Its very kind. I dont talk to a lot of people openly bc i like being a mystery to others, really. There is ONE person that gets the real me no matter what. All the time. He knows i have the "other ppl first" tendency to an extreme degree at times and he makes sure i take care of myself. :) thank you again!

Sounds like you're confident in your Badger primary, in which case it seems, like me, you have a tendency to Explode. I wish I had better advice on how to deal with it, but I already gave my best advice: having someone who knows to check in with you. I'm both glad and relieved to hear you have someone in your life like that! Also, venting is a healthy, human thing to do, so try not to feel guilty. I'm sure you have plenty of people who vent to you, right? Your troubles aren't worth any less than theirs!

Anyway, for your secondary, adjusting "based on the vibes" you get from others is classic Fluid secondary (Badger or Snake). Cracking jokes to make everyone comfortable could point toward a Courtier Badger doing their thing to keep social harmony, but in your case it may simply be an extension of your Badger primary. Depending on how you go about "not talking to people openly" may hold the answer. Is it simply leaving things out of conversation? Or do you feel like you put on an act or armor when you're around others? Is the you people meet on the street still you (Badger) or just a mask you use to put everyone at ease (Snake)? Do you need time to read strangers before vibing with them (Badger) or do you put on the charm right away and make adjustments on the fly according to their reactions (Snake)?

But okay, that's only about how you solve the problem of socialization. You may solve non-people problems differently, especially if you have models. Try asking yourself about about how you solve problems at work/school, or how you go about learning new things, or what you do when a problem hits out of nowhere. Another trick is to think about what fictional characters you relate to and check them against The Great Living Sorting Doc. And if you need more help, I'd be happy to try and parse it out with you. Don't worry about spamming my inbox. (It's nearly empty right now anyway.)

[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.

[kaz-with-hat]

on the topic of your badger vs lion secondary post, what are some differences between badger and snake secondary? the (harry potter) stereotype is that theyre completely different, but theyre more similar than people give them credit for in both being fluid secondaries. and i understand that badgers are a prepwork secondary, but ive heard badgers say that they can thrive in improv situations because their prepwork is in the people around them. thoughts?

This ask is ironic because Snake is the one Secondary I do not understand at all. Lion? Bird? They're not who I am deep down but I get them, they make sense to me, I can use them in a pinch - Bird is both fun and useful while Lion is my "break glass in case of emergency". Snake? Snake is some sort of wizardry beyond my ken.

My suspicion is that Snake and Badger might be a case of Secondaries that can look very similar to the outside observer but are coming from fundamentally different places. Like, the fluid thing - I can easily imagine that this can be hard to tell apart for someone watching. Especially if we get into Exploded Badger, where you can in fact shift pretty strongly and contradict who you were earlier to match the other person. That might look pretty Snake!

But the thing is that a Courtier Badger is not acting. In that way, Badger is more similar to Lion than Snake, IMO - you're always being authentically you. It's just that "you" is a fluid concept. Certain parts are magnified and others tucked away depending on who you're talking to and the overall vibe of the group, but to a certain point that just feels natural? And at least for me it's not really happening consciously, I don't decide "oh I think this person I'm talking to needs an extra dose of tech geek Kaz and extra emotional intensity but to go minimal on sarcastic Kaz" or whatever. You just sort of see how the person acts and automatically shift to bring out the parts of yourself (or, when Exploded, create the parts of yourself) that suit that. My understanding from what Snakes have said is that their shifting is a lot more deliberate and calculated and there's a lot more distance there.

(more on Badgers improvising on familiar territories and how "integrity of method" can actually include some Snakey elements below cut)

The improv thing is interesting, because the analogy I actually want to draw here is to Rapid-Fire Bird. Namely: I think the Built secondaries can be capable of quick shifting and dealing with things on the fly, but it needs to be in an area where they have something built already. From a Badger perspective, it's like - the stronger your foundation, the less necessary it becomes for you to build and plan every little detail of what you need in advance, the more likely a rough idea of where you're going is enough, and the more likely it is that you can react to something quickly because you're on such familiar ground. Like, when I'm at work, I know that I got this. I have the skills and background, I've built up the expertise, I know that if I don't know something right away I know where to find it out, I have the trust of my teammates... so I can roll with the punches and try out various tactics to solve a problem, and also leave stuff unplanned knowing I'll be able to figure it out when it happens. This sounds similar to what you're saying about Badgers thriving in improv because their prep work is in the people around them, and this might look Snake to the outside observer? But it's extremely situational, it's only possible because we're in my territory here. I have absolutely no clue how Snakes pull this off without that basis. My Lion model is pretty much actively terrifying to use due to that lack of something to draw on, it feels like I'm jumping in the deep end - and at least that's straightforward, you just pick a direction and start going. Snakes just, like, do the adaptability/try a bunch of different tactics/find a path around obstacles thing in completely unfamiliar situations? I... but... how.

One last point where I think the two might look similar but get there in completely different ways: what exactly the Badger's "integrity of method" is can vary a lot. I think a lot of people who hear this might think that it's always about throwing more and more effort at the problem to solve it. But the Right Way to solve something can include "don't reinvent the wheel, make sure there isn't an existing solution you can use for this before you start solving it yourself". Or "try a few different approaches to make sure you've found the best/most efficient/most elegant one." Or "don't sink too much effort into trying to find the absolute perfect solution right off. It's more important to get something that works in place now and then come back to improve on it over time." To an outside observer, this could look Snakey - you're stopping and trying different things before you settle on the best way to solve something, you're borrowing things other people have done to save yourself effort, you're showing up with rough solutions that handle the problem but could really be refined. But it's coming from a very different place, with Badger doing these things because it's the right way (and, therefore, likely to do things like try different approaches even if the first one worked OK, or go to a lot of effort to make sure there's no solution already available even when making their own wouldn't be that hard), while the Snake is more goal-oriented and doing these things because they're trying to find the path that gets them to their destination quickest.

(...rereading the above paragraph I'm like: how obvious is it that I'm a software developer...)

Conclusion: even if in certain contexts the end result looks the same, Snakes remain magic beyond my comprehension. Sorry anon!

[wisteria-lodge]

It is a sort of interesting hypothetical to say "is it possible to have a Snake secondary and a Courtier Badger secondary that look *identical* from the outside?" Because... gee, maybe. At which point, I would look at how they problem solve when they're not directly pointed at people. Improvisational vs built secondary is the cleanest, most obvious divide in the whole system (at least for me.)

But characters are simpler and more *condensed* than people, which does make them easier to sort (and harder because you can't read their minds and  usually have a lot less data to work with.) In fiction, Snake Secondaries... lie. They manipulate, they trick, they use their environment, they read people and they do it on the fly. Jack Sparrow, Captain Kirk, Meg (from Hercules), Odysseus, Ferris Bueller, Sheriff Woody.

Badger secondaries use their community, and their reputation within that community (which is also why I say Badger for Hanako, he seems to be part of a lot of groups.) They become what they need to be at that moment, which mostly means matching the energy in a room. Especially in fiction, while a Snake's face-changing will feel sparkly and exciting, a Badger's face-changing will feel comforting, sweet, calm, trustworthy, reliable. Also Badgers tend to be underestimated, which was something else you mentioned about this character.

Sortinghatchats Hanako-kun

I always seem to figure out the series and the characters better when I write these. Toilet bound Hanako kun really makes for great display of different secondaries.

Hanako is such a screaming snake secondary I haven't seen in a while. He is always smiling like he is on to some big crazy joke no one is getting. The way he loves to tease people with harmless but pointed jokes and insults. The way he shifts to fit the person he talks to, going from serious leader roles with the other wonders to friendly carefree ones with people, to warm and moving ones in emotional moments. A trickster by heart, but in the best way. The way he can laugh in face of danger or crack a joke like it's nothing, act so cheerfully in critical situations calms people down and makes him incredibly reliable. He doesn't come off as powerful and dangerous as he is, which also makes people underestimate him, but it's also because he wants them to relax and be comfortable. Because that's the way he wants to win their trust and that's seriosuly sweet.

Keep reading

[magpie-of-a-birb]

@paint-the-ravenclaw tagged me in on sorting Sanders Sides characters (that post is here), and I decided to make a whole new post for it. Here we go-

Editor Magpie here! It's a good thing that I made this a post of its own, cuz boy is it long. Patton's section took up three pages hand-written, if that tells you anything.

(Also, beware spoilers. If you're not up-to-date, I may reference things you haven't seen yet)

Patton

I'm starting off with Patton because, quite frankly, what he's got going on is fascinating. Sad, but fascinating.

He's a very obvious badger primary, but he also has a badger performance layered over top of it. If you've seen The Good Place, or listened to the @sortinghatchats podcast episode where they sorted TGP characters, you'll be able to see that this is the same as what Tahani did.

Patton's primary is for his community, but he also has an idea of what his primary should be. Not "should" as in aspirational, but "should" as in expectation. So he makes a badger primary performance, something that says "look at me! I'm a good person!" but creates self-loathing because he believes that he isn't living up to that performance. And here's the kicker:

His performance is exploding.

He thinks that, to be a good person, he (and Thomas, by extention) has to sacrifice everything for others. That is the badger primary performance that he thinks he should be.

Disclaimer: this is an unhealthy example of badger primary. No house is inherently healthy or unhealthy. There are many healthy, thriving badger primaries, and they are beautiful, just as every other house is.

And his exploding primary put a lot of strain on his badger secondary (he's a caretaker and loves courtier badger). He has to work hard and show up for everyone all the time and he... can't. It's not possible.

The fact that he cannot humanly live up to his own expectations makes his secondary start to burn. You especially see that in the courtier aspect of his secondary. He feels like he should be the "optimistic, goofy dad-friend" and he loves using courtier badger for it. But he burns out from being there for everyone, that face becomes unreliable in courtier badger because he can't feel it all the way down, he's not happy. So his badger starts to burn, and what does he do?

He takes up an actor bird model to handle the strain. He's used to the "happy, goofy dad" mask that it's easy for him to shift it from courtier mirroring to an actor role.

And whew boy, is that actor bird obvious in Selfishness vs Selflessness Redux. When it's clear that the others aren't siding with him, Patton isn't able to shift to match the change to make a stronger argument - as a snake or mirroring badger could - so he doubles down on his role.

"Remember, guys, I'm morality. My role is to make correct moral choices. Look! This is my good and helpful mask! I'm good and helpful!"

He does that all the way until he's sure that it's a lost cause, and that's when he snaps. But his snapping isn't drawing what he knows of the others, it's not using things that he knows will hurt them, not as we expect him to (especially since he uses similar tactics to manipulate Thomas into doing the right thing).

He transforms. Because he can't be angry. He's not allowed to be angry. Being angry is wrong. If he's angry, according to his exploding primary performance, then he's not a good person.

So he transforms. Because he can only be angry if he isn't himself. Patton chooses not to be Patton. He chooses to be a monster. Instead of translating his thoughts to fit the role (like with his dad role) he's using the role to justify the feelings.

Another disclaimer: like with primaries, no secondary is inherently healthy or unhealthy. There's even an example of healthy actor bird later in this sorting.

Logan

First off, his bird secondary is obvious. He loves collecting and using things. He loves lists and plans. His insecurity stems from his tools not being enough. He is a bird.

His primary is a bit more difficult because he doesn't usually make decisions from a moral standpoint, that's not his job. It's clear that he's not a felt primary, and due to the lack of intensity in general, I think snake can be ruled out. So, bird primary.

Virgil

His system is very lion primary. His gut says that something is wrong and he acts immediately.

His tactics are very bird secondary, preferring to construct a reasonable argument about why Thomas should be anxious over forcefully shoving panic at Thomas (which he does do when he sees the situation as an emergency and he needs Thomas to stop/do something now, but it's not his preference).

On top of that, Virgil has a birdy mask up at the beginning of the series. It's one born out of duty (lion primary), so he embodies the role that he's expected to play as anxiety (a bad guy who's goal is to make Thomas scared) instead of being himself (someone who's trying to keep Thomas safe). So he plays the role until he's shown that he doesn't have to.

Also, look at how he acts in the debate between him and Logan. All of his snap-back retorts are of the same type: general, playground insults. They're predictable and formulaic, like a default response a bird may have when they don't know how to respond while in a given mask. Basically: he's falling back on pre-set common phrases that the character he is embodying would say when he's not "translating" his thoughts into those of his character fast enough.

On a side note, I think that's how you differentiate between actor bird from the other forms of masks: playing a role with a tangible name.

Anyways-

Roman

LION BIRD LION BIRD LION BIRD

He hoards music, plays, movies, and musicals like a corvid and references them like nobody's business. His quick wit is in wordplay ("panic at the everywhere" much?) which, while not indicative of a bird secondary, is bird-flavored icing on the cake.

He lives in actor bird, and while his role isn't always applicable, I think that Roman is an easily-visable example of healthy actor bird. He loves and takes pride in his roles and doesn't solely use them as a shield (like Patton and, to a lesser extent, early Virgil).

He's a bit of a glory hound, he's attracted to the glamor that being a well-known creative and a hero entails, and that feeds into his default Hero/Prince in Shining Armor role. But it's wrong for him to pursue that at the expense of those he loves being miserable (see: Selfishness vs Selflessness).

Remus

Remus shares his primary with his brother. However, he's a horizon/fey lion. Everything that is fun is good which, when combined with his loves-to-mess-with-people snake secondary, spells pain for everyone else in a garish neon-green sign that smells vaguely of a landfill and intentionally leaves glitter everywhere.

Janus

Janus is a double snake. His person is Thomas, and anything is okay (especially deception) if it's to protect him.

Bonus sort: Thomas

Thomas is an interesting character. Because he is a character, within the context of Sanders Sides, that is. Sanders Sides!Thomas is not the same as Real Life!Thomas, even if the former is heavily inspired by the latter. As such, I think that there's enough to sort Character!Thomas.

Character!Thomas is very much a badger primary. It makes sense that he'd match primaries with Patton, his morality, but more so, the entire premise of the show has heavy healthy badger messages. Most episodes are about choosing the right thing to do, and Thomas makes that decision depending on what his community (the Sides) think. He's clearly a felt primary, but if he were a lion, then the "get input from others" aspect of the show would not be as effective.

His secondary is less obvious, but I have to go with bird. Most of the Sides have bird secondaries, and as they're aspects of Thomas, that would logically reflect his secondary to some degree. And he has many of the same hoards as the others, joyfully drawing on and pointing out references to things.

There may possibly be a badger (particularly courtier badger) model in there, but I can't confidently say that it's the case.

In Conclusion:

Patton: badger primary with an exploded badger primary performance. Semi-burned badger secondary with an unhealthy bird secondary model (specifically actor bird)

Logan: double bird

Virgil: lion bird

Roman: lion (glory hound variant) bird

Remus: lion (fey/horizon variant) snake

Janus: double snake

Thomas: badger bird with a possible badger secondary model

[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.

[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

[wisteria-lodge]

“a Snake will turn themself into someone appealing to the other person, while a Badger will turn into someone relatable to the other person. The Snake is choosing from a whole bunch of different ways they can act, and the Badger is just selectively showing the parts of themself that the other person will find most similar to them, most likeable.”

This is an *extremely* good way of articulating this. Also, my thoughts on the subject. 

Could you do a post detailing the differences between Snake Secondary and Badger Secondary like the one you did for the Snake / Lion Secondaries please ?

Hmm, I don't know if I'm up for another giant one like that yet. And the Lion/Snake one does include a little bit about Snake vs Badger. Maybe you have more specific questions, or you're willing to send in some info about yourself or the character/person you're trying to Sort?

Here's something. Snakes are adaptational, right? If you're a Snake and you're around a lot of Badgers all the time, you probably spend lots of time vibing with them. Maybe you start to look like another Badger in order to make them feel comfortable.

Also, if you're a Snake primary and your important people strongly value one of the secondaries, you might pick it up as a model. That's pretty tangential to your question though.

As mentioned in more detail in the Lion/Snake post, Snakes and Badgers both adapt to the people around them. But Badger adaptation looks more quiet, personal and genuine than the playful costume-swapping done by Snakes.

Plus, there's the end result of the self-adaptation. I don't know if it was @wisteria-lodge or someone else who pointed this out first, but a Snake will turn themself into someone appealing to the other person, while a Badger will turn into someone relatable to the other person.

The Snake is choosing from a whole bunch of different ways they can act, and the Badger is just selectively showing the parts of themself that the other person will find most similar to them, most likeable. (Once upon a time I thought I had a bit of a Snake secondary performance. Turned out it was just my hella loud Badger model, doing this.)

Also, Badgers really like the steady work and growth of their projects and watching the effect on their community. They're patient and unflagging with the things they care about. Snakes... not so much.

Moist von Lipwig (yes, I know, his name is a joke in canon too) goes absolutely stir crazy at the start of the second book he's in, because his dangerous lady (and Important Person) is out of town and he's tied to a desk job. He's doing maintenance work on the organization he built up in the last book, and even though he cares about it, it's soul-achingly dull to him. He starts finding dangerous, exciting things to do (like climbing the outside of old buildings with no safety equipment), just to relieve the boredom.

Some Snakes deal a lot better with this kind of situation, but you're extremely unlikely to find a Badger abandoning something they're dedicated to out of boredom.

I'm going to leave this here, anon, and if you want more than that, I'll have to ask you for more specific information about what you want. Hope this helps!