#bird secondary vs badger secondary

[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.

[reds-burrow]

Most common disconnect between my Badger Secondary Mom and my Bird Secondary Dad: My dad likes to know things for the sake of knowing them. My mom prefers to know things that she can apply to real life and finds other tidbits extraneous.

Another disconnect: My mom prefers to dive into working on projects. My dad likes to research things first to make sure he's using the most efficient method.

Another difference (but not really a disconnect): When my dad tells stories, it's often based on facts he's learned. When my mom tells stories, it's mostly based on her experiences and anecdotes she's heard from others.

[sevilemar]

I think I realized I am a Bird with Lion secondary. It was difficult to figure out because not many things about Lion secondary resonated with me - when I read the description, I always had an image of a very straightforward, muscley kind of guy who goes 'No, this ain't right' and blasts off his enemies with guns, who is a truth speaker to a fault and is incapable of subtlety and who can only be more or less intense without shades. All this couldn't be farther away from the truth for me. So I and an idea... What if a secondary isn't about truth vs lies and isn't even about wearing a mask (bear with me, I know it's unusual reading). It's JUST about tailoring yourself to people and just that. A person may be a liar to a fault, and still manipulate people via their general perception of them (correct one) instead of 'tailoring' and a person may be a complete truth teller and tailor everything they say to an audience. Lion secondaries can be detached tricksters and liars but this tricksterness is cold and a bit aggressive. It challenges people instead of genuinely enjoying playing with people like a Snake secondary would. Many eccentrics actually Lion secondaries. Philosopher Diogenes comes to mind. Dude was smart and sarcastic and definitely a trickster but he challenged people and didn't tailor his message to anyone. I call this type 'Sphynx Lion' aka Deadpan Lion who isn't necessarily overly emotional or passionate or straightforward.

Congrats on finding your sorting, nonny! 👍

The image of lion secondary you had made me laugh, because I know a lion, and they are neither male nor muscly, nor do they own a gun as far as I know. They can do subtle, hate conflicts that are left unspoken, they can be intense, they can be playful, and so much more. They are also very kind and one of the most reflected people I know.

I don't think secondary has ever been about lie vs. truth; every secondary can lie. It's the primary who decides if it's OK or not. Masks are only a thing if you're an actor bird using roles/masks.

If I read it right, what you call tailoring yourself to people is essentially being fluid and fitting yourself to match the situation. I speak truth most of the time, yet I tailor everything. It's why I'm snake secondary. If you don't do that, you're probably very much a lion. And yes, lion secondaries can definitely be smart and sarcastic and deadpan and a trickster. So can birds, or badgers, or snakes. There's no trickster sorting, or smart sorting, or sarcastic sorting. There's also no sorting that's especially emotional or unemotional. All of this depends on the person, not on their sorting.

There are stereotypes, because shc was a system for sorting fictional characters first, and fictional characters are always stereotypes of some kind. But when you sort real people, you need to look beyond that as best you can. I'm glad you did, nonny, and found what fits you.

[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]

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 ^^

[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.

[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]

A very comprehensive list of very good questions to ask yourself if you’re having trouble figuring out your secondary

Do you have any tips on how to distinguish between Bird Secondary and Badger Secondary please ? Whichever I have , I also model the other very strongly , but I don’t know which one was the original one .

I had the same problem!

There are a handful of questions you might ask yourself, in trying to figure this out:

1. What do you fall back on?

If you're in a pinch--you have a stressful or time-sensitive problem--do you:

self-adapt into someone who can deal with the problem

ask others for help

use privileges or resources that are available to you because of previous hard work

try empathy and negotiation to deal with anyone who might be against you

Or are you more comfortable doing these?

first, understand the problem and the restrictions/limits that your solution will have to accommodate; try to figure out the system and look for a loophole

use a skill you've learned, a tool you've collected, or resources you've stockpiled

ask others for advice

do heavy research on the problem before you decide how to solve it

Of course, you probably do some of both, but what are you more comfortable with? Which methods do you usually have more faith in working?

2. What were you like as a kid?

Can you remember collecting things? Obsessively learning about certain topics (and this includes more than just book reading)? Did you have projects about things you were curious about? --say, keeping a caterpillar until it matured into a butterfly? Did you like taking notes? Liking school is definitely not compulsory to being a Bird secondary.

Or do you remember making lots of friends, and being their peacekeeper? Alternatively, maybe you had certain projects you approached with constant dedication: a plant or garden you watered on a very regular schedule, perhaps. Maybe you practiced an instrument every day. Maybe keeping your room nice was important to you, so you always made your bed. Or that didn't matter, but you were super dependable when it came to something else you cared about.

3. Do you mostly learn/collect things because they're useful?

Bird secondaries often pick up things just out of interest. You've probably read about this already from the sortinghatchats article about Bird secondary.

4. What happens when one Burns?

First of all, yes, you can burn a model. Been there, done that.

I realize that not everybody burns their secondary as often as I do, but this is worth examining. Have you ever lost faith in your ability to get things done? Have you ever been so exhausted that you've had to switch methods? What did you do then?

Also, if you're Burned right now, you're going to have a really hard time answering your question. If you've Burned one of your two and you know which one it is, and they both feel about equal, then the Burned one is probably your actual secondary. (Don't worry, it can come back; here's an article by a double Bird who's spent time thinking about how to regain your confidence. Might be a bit Bird-oriented. If it really clicks, that might be a hint.)

Incidentally, that thing I just did? Reaching for something I've read to support a point, without thinking about it? Having a collection of stuff I've read to draw from? Very Bird secondary. Not the only way to be a Bird secondary, but an obvious one.

I'm a Bird secondary with a loud Badger model. I can't not be a Bird, even burned, because I'll keep doing stuff like that on automatic. I just won't value it as a means of solving problems or as an important part of building things that are worthy.

A burned Badger, in turn, might sigh and keep putting in work and effort even if they believe it won't do any good and it's just a silly habit.

5. Which one is easier?

This is an obvious question, but it kind of bypasses some Burn damage. You might think that one is more impressive, more worthy, more effective... but the other one? That's too easy, it's not "real work," it won't do anything. Doing things is hard, so if it's easy, it's not really getting anything done.

None of that is true. All the secondaries are hard. All of them take effort. The one that's yours will take less effort, because you're good at it. It doesn't make it less effective; quite the opposite. But if you're Burned you won't see that. Not everyone is like you, not everyone finds your toolset easy.

Though, I should point out that if you're thinking Bird isn't easy because you can learn stuff easily but not enough to be really good at it, and especially if this really upsets you... you're probably a burned Bird.

6. Which one feels like you?

Also obvious, and possibly more useful if you're a Lion primary and/or not Burned. If you are Burned, try to set aside any disdain you have for yourself.

Which one is more fun? Which one feels safe? Which one do you *want* to turn out to be? (This seems backwards, but it isn't for someone who isn't Burned. It could reverse if you are, though.)

If you're thinking "I'm this one but I'm shitty at it," you're Burned and that's probably your secondary. Hugs.

7. Is it possible you picked one up from someone close to you?

If someone you grew up with or are very close to now values one secondary or another, you're likely to lean towards it because of them. That doesn't mean it wasn't your secondary anyway; you could have picked up the other as a model for a variety of reasons! But it might be a clue about why you value one or both.

---

I'll also tag @wisteria-lodge as someone who also has this secondary/model combination. You're really good at analyzing this kind of thing. Anything you want to add or correct?

You, anon (and anyone else who relates), are absolutely welcome to add on to this, share your experiences, offer advice, or go on long monologues about the system. I love reading them. Do not worry that you're talking about yourself too much. If you have questions directed at me, tag me or send another ask.

Hope this helps!

[magpie-of-a-birb]

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

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

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

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

[wisteria-lodge]

when friends (or heck, even acquaintances or strangers) fight, i usually try to mellow things out and ask for each of their perspectives, then explain to the other party etc etc and try to reach an agreement or apology etc. thats badger sec right? except im a bird sec (too?) can you have two secs or am i modelling one?

"Explain to the other party" ???? Nah, that's just Bird. A Badger secondary would NEVER think about it like that, or put it in those terms. I think you have a very similar Bird secondary to Disney's Pocahontas.

[solcomfortssouls]

what's the difference between a character mastering lots of different fighting techniques because they're a badger vs if they're a bird?

I'm no expert on badgers secondaries, I'm a bird secondary myself though, so this is how I understand it:

Birds will learn all the techniques, cause they are collecting all the tools they see as needed for a situation. Or for fun, it doesn't all ever have to come to use. It's about expanding their toolkit.

A badger character would learn all the fighting techniques, because they are a hard worker. Because they want to show up and do the work, and if it's their duty, their job, the need of their community, they will go and master all there is to know about it. They wouldn't do it for fun or in cass, but to fill an actual need. To be diligent, caring and honestly there for those who need it.

Hope that helps!

P.S. please send sortinghatchats asks to my writeblr @writingonesdreams in the future, thank you!

[ethos-logos-pathos-blog]

That is such a good point that I didn't consider; thank you @sevilemar ! The fluidness with which Snake and Bird Secondaries can utilize their masks/personas/tools is only limited by what their Primary views as acceptable conduct, meanwhile Lion and Badger Secondaries do have limitations inherent in their nature.

Lions do not like personal inauthenticity, and Badgers do not like inauthenticity in their work. This definitely changes how they might interpret the ends vs the means.

A Lion Secondary only really accepts face-changing in the form of raising or lowering their intensity, and outright lying is something they naturally shy away from (and/or directly reject). But it isn't really a moral issue for them (although it's entirely possible they do have personal qualms about lying, but that would be a primary thing); it's about how uncomfortable it is. To a Lion Secondary inauthenticity is unnatural. It's not their safe state; it's not their preferred state. It doesn't fit them, and I've been told it can also be quite stressful.

For a Badger Secondary, cutting corners and inauthenticity in their work is also uncomfortable and unnatural. They don't like it - not because it's morally wrong (although, depending on the situation, they may also have moral qualms about cutting corners), but because it isn't the way they are most comfortable doing things. Cutting corners and doing work that isn't authentic to their skills and time spent working doesn't make them feel accomplished or like they gamed the system. It makes them feel bad.

On the other hand, while the means of Snakes and Birds are only technically limited by what their Primary dictates as right and wrong, they definitely do have preferred means. As a Snake, if you told me that I had to sit down and write out a speech to accomplish a goal, I would groan. "Let me just jot down some bullet points and do the rest on the spot, please!" I would plead, because I'm terrible at giving rehearsed speeches, and I'm at my best when I can improvise things on the spot. Many people are horrified when I tell them that, but I genuinely love public speaking as long as I don't have to recite something. Recitation makes me feel off-kilter and anxious; I usually overanalyze everything I'm saying as I'm saying it and begin to feel disconnected from the moment. Improvisation, however, makes me feel comfortable and stable in the moment. If "the ends" are my ideal goal, but "the means" are utilizing the skills of a secondary that is not my own, then the ends very well might not justify the means, depending on the situation. Similarly, if you asked a Bird Secondary to deal with a situation they have absolutely no tools for nor prior experience with, then they're probably also going to have trouble justifying the ends with their unsatisfactory means.

I think the common theme here is that for all secondaries "the ends" are less likely to justify "the means" if the means do not aline with their preferred secondary. A Snake Secondary would not like having to do things the Badger way, just like a Lion would not like having to do things the Bird way.

Instead of using "the ends justifying the means" as an anology, which is a little too morality coded for a discussion on Secondaries, perhaps thinking about things in terms of a cost-benefit analysis would help?

Does the "cost" of this goal force me to work outside the natural scope of my Secondary? Is the "benefit" worth that?

If the "cost" of a goal is face-changing, a Snake Secondary would probably say, "Yes, that works for me." While a Lion Secondary might say, "No, the benefit of this goal isn't enough to justify the cost of having to face-change."

I would love to hear some more perspectives on this. Especially if any Badger, Lion, or Bird Secondaries would like to comment, since I only have my personal Snake Secondary experience and what I've read about the other Secondaries to cite.

Is "the ends justify the means" a circumventing secondary saying?

It can be... depending on the person. I hesitate to agree fully because this is usually a saying that involves ethics and that ventures into Primary territory. I've had plenty of conversations with Bird and Snake Secondaries who have strong negative feelings about lying, manipulating, or other skills, so they do put limits on their means.

I think a better (or at least more neutral) motto for Circumventing Secondaries is "Work smarter, not harder."

[sevilemar]

I got curious, if you're comfortable talking about it could you tell us about the point your friend made about shc?

They made several:

- They referred to this post, and said that nonny was right, and that loyalty is, of course, also an ideal, so our classification of idealist vs. loyalist doesn't work because one is essentially a more narrow subset of the other. After a bit of discussion we agreed on calling them abstract/big-picture (lion, bird) and concrete/small-scale (badger, snake) primaries instead.

- Also, they pointed out that I have not really defined what selfishness means to me, and that I maybe confuse it with self-care, and attribute it to snake primary when it's indeed just a human thing and has nothing to do with sorting at all. And that I do this because I might still be in survival mode myself, and need an excuse for basic human self-care.

- And branching off of this, they showed me that selfishness is indeed a value my society holds, but only for certain groups that use selfishness to shit on marginalised people. And how my arguments for selfishness/self-care would look from the outside when we switch from fandom to political discourse. It's why I deleted the post in question because fuck that.

- That's one of the biggest scepticisms they have for any kind of personality sorting, actually, that we take basic human things and only attribute it to a quarter of the population instead. And I have come upon that problem a lot in my shc posts. It's the reason why I do not feel confident in sorting anyone at the moment.

For me, shc is more art than anything else, a nifty little tool to use for getting to know myself a bit better and heal a bit. It's not scientific, it's not based on facts, it's a vibe thing. It's always in flux, nothing is ever set in stone, and I'm only using it as long as it's helpful. But I think sometimes I need the limitations of the system pointed out to me so I don't do more harm than good to myself and others in the community.

- They also called me out on something I've been waiting to be called on ever since I mentioned it, and that's my assumption that playfulness = snake secondary. Turns out I mean a certain kind of playfulness, and I was curious from the beginning if this was a sorting thing, a me thing, or a human thing that has nothing to do with secondaries and more with what kind of humour you prefer.

[laufire]

how would you sort the legacies crew?

I've had this ask + an anonymous one asking about Lizzie's sorting for nearly a year in my inbox ^^U. My plan is to still wait until the show is over to properly sort the characters (likely with you and @missbrunettebarbie's help :D), because I think hindsight is essential to Plecverse sortings... but I thought I'd post the ones I've thought about so far, some with Artemis' and you as well, because otherwise this would never get answered lol.

-Lizzie: hers I'm probably most sure, by gut feeling alone even -Double Lion. The Lion secondary POPS xD, and Lion primary makes the most sense. And, although I can feel this ~omg they're soooo like me/project onto characters with sortings don't have anything to do with me own... there's something about fellow Double Lions :P

-Josie: Artemis and I think it's possible that, like Alaric, she's a Snake Bird with a Badger model/a Steffie kind of uncomfortable Snake primary. Shake that up girl, it'll be better for you in this 'verse xD. Sidenote, but Artemis and I were debating the possibility that Jo Sr. was a Lion Bird, and we love the idea of the twins being a crossed match of Jo and Caroline <3 (or Jo and Kai, who I personally think it's yet ANOTHER Snake Lion lol).

-Hope: I think we all thought about Snake Lion for her, and I still think it makes the most sense. Besides, her conflicts with Lizzie very much read as Lion secondary vs. Lion secondary to me xD

-Landon: Double Bird makes most sense to us, with how he collects trivia and uses it to solve problems and I LOVE it. Make that boy a phoenix again, cowards!! (also this way we can be sure we won't get ANOTHER extended death and resurrection plot... I want this to be the last one, pls).

-Kaleb: we think he's another possible Snake Lion, with how he's more impulsive/improvisational + his way of prioritizing Cleo vs. the others.

-Cleo: possible Lion Bird. Leans more towards collecting items and strategies and planning, and her impatience over Hope's Snake-y love for Landon felt very Lion to me xD

-MG: I remember you had him as another Lion Bird, and I'd agree.

-Alyssa: I put her as another Snake Lion and I'd stand by it, with her rashness and how appealing to her using her bond with her parents was a surefire way of working.

Some I haven't thought of yet where I'd welcome your thoughts: Rafael (I'm inclined towards internal primary though. Or very introverted Badger, but eh), Clarke (another possible Snake primary, maybe?); Ted (on instinct I'd say Lion primary but we'll see lol); Jed; Dorian (universal Badger, maybe? He could be a Badger Bird I think); Emma; Finch (internal primary would be my first instinct); Penelope; Sebastian; or Wade.

[painted-crow]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Primary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secondary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope that helps!

- Paint