#rapid fire bird secondary

[wisteria-lodge]

*slightly* exploded bird primary (badger-flavored system) (unhealthy badger primary model) + rapid-fire/actor bird secondary

Hi Wisteria! I’ve been loving your thoughtful and in-depth analyses and no one else in my life is familiar with the SHC system, so it’s been hard to get some outside perspective. English is not my first language, so please forgive my grammar/awkward phrasing at times. For my sorting, I am thinking Bird primary, though I’ve considered Lion and Badger primaries. I think I am not a snake primary. I have never felt there was an intrinsic moral hierarchy when it comes to people I care about. I still care for them, but at the end of the day, I think we are all living conscious beings who deserve equal treatment, rights, and consideration.

Definitely getting Idealist primary here (Bird or Lion, and I see why you're thinking Bird. Your whole position is well-thought out and well articulated.) I will say that 'all living conscious beings deserve equal treatment' is kind of the Badger mission statement,' but when we're in generalities that big, that thought could just as easily be coming from a Bird with some Badger in their System, a Paragon Lion, or even a really expansive Snake.

I also think prioritizing your own group is often dangerous.

This bit here could describe a Snake or a Badger equally well, depending on how we're defining the "group" we're talking about here.

A Loyalist would probably say that protecting the group is the only thing you know for sure you can do well, and when things get too big and Idealistic, they become unreal, hypothetical, and unsafe. But you seem perfectly fine with that level of big-picture stuff, so I'm happy to say Idealist for you. Also, there's an undercurrent of... suspicion, directed at Loyalists.

I guess I could be a snake that only includes themselves, as I do act in self-preservation a lot of the times

That's a human thing. If someone is *struggling* with turning on the self-preservation, that's a problem, and probably a sign of Burning, or a very immature Badger.

and struggle to trust people.

That can also come from a lot of different places.

I sometimes have an attitude of turning people bad in my head as soon as they act against me, or in a way that reveals their “true character”

Honestly, this kind of sounds like it could be a *Badger* thing?

Because Badgers have opt-out morality, they will often do this thing where you're one of their people, until you break the rules (or the social contract) badly enough. And then you're out, because you're a threat to the rest of the group.

(this is often a projection) and then tend to self-isolate.

Hmmm. And now you're back to being philosophical. Distancing yourself from the emotion of cutting people off. Much more Bird.

I thought bird primary because I do change my ideas about the world and morality quite often and refine my worldview as I discover new ideas. I am also very receptive to scientific ideas and do put logic and reasoned morality above intuition.

You also seem very chill about this whole process, which makes me say Bird again. (Not Lion. The process just tends to be a lot messier and a lot more emotional with Lions.)

However, my tendency to prioritize the perceptions of the group, my need to serve a larger purpose and my desire to be useful to society do feel quite badger-y.

They do. "Prioritize the perceptions of the group," especially is a very Badger thing to say. Badgers also like being useful to the group. But 'need to serve a larger purpose' is a big enough statement that it could work for almost anyone.

What Badger and Bird have in common is that they're both External primaries. What the world thinks is important, and you care about that in a way that Lions and Snakes just kind of don't.

As for lion, I do often act based on heuristics, especially if I haven’t thought out a specific issue yet.

Yeah, this isn't lion. For one thing - you used the word "heuristics." For another, you're stressing about the way you only rely on these "well xyz worked in past" mental shortcuts when you haven't "thought a thought out a specific issue yet." Implication being that, in a perfect world, you would have time to think it out completely every time. (Birds hate having to make snap decisions.)

I can also pretend to be more rational than I am, and tend to live life in automatic mode, by relying on assumptions and facts that sound good. I think I do this less than other people, but that is still a flaw I’ve noticed.

You rely on these "automatic" shortcuts less than other people, but think that you should use them less, and feel bad that you use them at all.

I wonder if you're a Bird primary living in a very Badger community. Or the flip, a Badger living with a bunch of Birds.

As for my secondary, I am a little bit lost. I am very much in my own head and not very action-oriented, so I feel like I lack the data to identify my secondary, or I am burned and just using whatever works. I usually just use stress to motivate action and procrastinate until the last minute.

Oh, the neurodivergent special. Save the non-preferred task for the last minute, and then use the adrenaline that generates to hack your brain into getting it done really fast. Definitely not the only person here doing that.

Childhood: As a kid, I was extremely quiet, sensitive, and introverted. From early on, I remember being very artistic and curious. I would dress up and improvise plays in front of my family. I also loved to draw, write poems, walk in nature, and learn about the world (I was especially fascinated with animals). I also loved to get lost in imaginary worlds, and I remember writing fantasy stories, and believing I had magical powers or was an alien/magical creature.

When I was in school, I remember not connecting very well with my peers. I think people could feel I was different. I was soft spoken, sensitive, and I excelled at school.

I mean so far, *I*could have written this. And I'll take it all into account, but this isn't a system for describing personality, so much as it is one for describing method/motivation.

I didn’t like sports like other boys, and it wasn’t acceptable to hang out with girls, so I just kept to myself. I was already doing good in school, so I just kind of developed that aspect of my identity. I didn’t get along with many other kids and ate lunch with my teachers a lot. I still had friends, but few of them were close.

You're describing constructing your identity in a very deliberate, conscious way, which is more Bird than Badger. It's honestly Bird secondary - like this how you get Actor Bird, deliberately developing one 'version' of yourself because it's useful in certain situation. I'm hearing you enjoyed acting and costumes, and (flash forward to present day) you "pretended" to be more rational than you are. I think you might be an Actor Bird.

It was validating to be so good at academics, and to get teachers’ and parents’ approval. Even if some other kids resented it, I didn’t care because it gave me worth.

This hits every child to some degree, but it hits External primaries very hard. This could describe a young Bird or a young Badger equally well, and now I'm wondering if any of these authority figures especially Birdy or especially Badgery?

Getting good grades, being the perfect child, being “mature for my age” were a big part of my personality.

"Perfect Child" is often an Actor Bird construction. "Mature for your age" is something I usually hear said about young Badgers. Are you maybe a Bird primary, with a very Badger-flavored System? It would fit everything I've read so far.

I also knew deep down I was queer

oh thats brutal

but I eventually became really good at self-editing, and I began to embody a version of me that was acceptable. I was the successful, responsible, smart kid, and I eventually started playing football in high school so that of course meant I was straight. I fully made myself believe the mask I was putting on at that time (badger-like?). In high school, I was tired of being an outsider, so I tried fitting in. I became much more agreeable, sociable, and started becoming more popular. Honestly, it felt good to be appreciated by my peers, and I did play into the character I was projecting. I was still hyper-focused on academics, but for the first time, people actually liked me.

Okay, so I do see why you're saying Badger. Badgers (especially young badgers) can just adopt the group's identity, and lose sight of their own individuality in the process. But I don't think that's what's going on here.

To me, this sounds like it could only be Actor Bird. I know English isn't your first language, so I'm not reading too too much into the word choice... but you do refer to this "Acceptable Self" as a "character," that you "embody." Building this "mask" was a deliberate, conscious process, and it sound like you lived in this persona for a while. Also, not ignoring the fact that... it worked. Wanting to be more popular, and then building a persona that is more popular... that's not something everyone can do.

This actually makes me think of a sorting I wrote for Blackbeard of Our Flag Means Death, and the Actor Bird-specific angst of building a character, spending a little too long in that skin and then feeling that people only like you/you only have worth because of a role you play... and then becoming trapped, because your character is too simple, and it's stifling.

I eventually came to accept my sexuality and had a friendship that made me confront the lack of authenticity of the mask I was putting on. After that, I explored my authentic self while still enjoying my newfound social skills and ability to attract people.

I love that. You built a "popular" persona, and then realized that you din't have to wear it all the time.

I also started getting interested in social justice, philosophy, and politics, which made me question a lot of preconceived notions and ideas I held true about the world.

Oh that's a very Bird primary list of interests right there.

As I became more informed, ethics and morality became a big corner stone of my interactions with the world. I was always interested in finding the “right” way to be, even as a child,

This almost seems like a version of the "book fantasy," which is something I've heard from several Bird primaries at this point: "When I was younger, I wished that there was a magic book that would tell me the 'right' way to act in every situation."

but this meant I could figure out what that meant in more objective terms, and for myself instead of what adults thought. Paradigm shifts were exciting (and still are).

I absolutely love that for you. Bravo.

Family dynamics:

In terms of family dynamics, I always went along to get along. I was checked out emotionally, especially since a lot of family members would say homophobic things, and I never felt completely comfortable with them. I stuck with easy topics and didn’t go into my personal life, and I was content with the image of the golden child they had of me. Even with my parents, whom I love, I never felt I could completely be myself. This led to a lot of secrets and lies to conceal my real self. I was never that rebellious or troublesome to begin with, and I kind of acted like a little adult.

Okay. That makes sense. Sounds like you built a pretty robust Badger primary model that was useful for keeping the peace with your family. (It also sounds just, incredibly necessary.) This explains why a lot of your descriptions of your younger self read as super Badger primary to me: "little adult" "mature for your age" "farming the approval of authority figure."

I also thought a lot of their views were outdated, although I rarely argued with them. My dad had the idea he had to be strict, which was just not the best fit for me. I learned to be extremely secretive, sneaky, and find ways around the rules. I was not very wild to begin with, but I did value my freedom. I just kind of passively agreed, and then did it behind their backs.

Sounds possible you might have a little bit of a snake secondary model?

Although my dad was very sensitive and affectionate, a thing that hurt me a lot was his inability to deal with others’ emotions. I was not allowed to express negative emotions or cry, and he justified this as him being “old school”.

Ah yes. As we know, boys should only have Cool emotions, like Anger and Science. Wondering if your *Dad* might be a Badger primary, with this focus on Tradition and Rules.

This was extremely frustrating to me, as I never understood how tradition could be a valuable reason for anything, or how sticking with old values and refusing to adapt was acceptable.

A little bit of that Bird primary 'make it make sense' thing.

My mom, though more accepting of my sensitivity, was also very critical. She used the status quo to judge what I did, which was also very frustrating. If something I did was weird or impolite, she would use a kind of circular reasoning (this is bad because it’s not socially acceptable, and it’s not socially acceptable because it’s bad), which was also confusing to me.

I love that you can now identify that as classic circular reasoning.

I just wasn’t super interested in developing a strong connection with anyone in my family. I just felt that it was all too arbitrary,

Definitely don't think you're a Loyalist, because I don't think a Loyalist could do a break this clean. There'd be some sense of something... some guilt, some emotion, some residual thing.

and I was more interested in exploring my friendships with people who understood me more deeply. I felt my parents’ (especially dad’s) rules didn’t make any sense, and I wanted my freedom as soon as possible. Since I moved out, our relationship has been a lot better, though I still hide aspects of my life from them.

Very true that just not needing to be around your family 24/27 makes things so much better and easier to deal with.

Problem solving: In terms of problem solving, I like to think I am strategic, and a good contingency planner. I generally understand things well, and how they work together, and am quick to find a solution. When thinking about solving a small problem, I will usually think of the “goal state” first (i.e., what is the ideal I am trying to achieve in this situation). Then I can break down what I need to do. This usually starts with evaluating resources at my disposal (i.e., time, space, material, or mental resources), and what is in the environment. Then, I can come to a solution implicitly by connecting the dots. Finally, I will mentally play out the situation and see if it works, or if there are any roadblocks. This all happens quickly though. Planning is fun, but so is throwing away the plan or finding a clever way to get out of the situation.

What a fantastic breakdown of how to solve a problem. It's also extremely Bird secondary. If it happens fast enough, and you're comfortable enough with it, it looks like it even gets into Rapid-Fire Bird territory (probably why I was getting a little Snake secondary energy up there, Rapid-fire birds can look extremely Snake.)

Am a little bit side-eyeing your decision to call yourself "not very action-oriented" up there. You seem perfectly comfortable with problem-solving to me.

Whenever the unexpected happen, the path becomes really obvious to me. Priorities become salient, and things that are useless fall to the side. It’s more in situations where I’m forced to make a controlled decision that I’m a nervous and indecisive wreck.

Bird primaries HATE making snap decisions.

I can get stressed out if there is missing information, or if the expectations aren’t clear. Travel is especially stressful because of the number of unexpected events that can affect the rest of the trip.

I mean, no one likes missing information or unclear expectations. But it really gets to Birds. (Both primary and secondary honestly. and I'm really thinking that you're a Double Bird.)

With all the information, even if it’s bad news, I can manage and find a solution. But my brain will keep spinning scenarios if I don’t know for sure. Even at school, uncertainty was always worse than bad news.

I hear this. It really goes back to that classic Bird primary fantasy: "but I want to know EVERYTHING"

Not knowing where I stand with someone, with a group, or with a supervisor also makes me nervous. I like knowing what they think of me and what people need from me so I can provide it (or not bother if they dislike me for no reason).

I do think that you have a Badger model, or a Badger flavor to your system. Honestly, you very likely have bOTH. You took in the parts of your parents worldview that made sense to you: it IS useful to know what people want from you, and to know that you aren't making any social faux pas (that way, if someone is acting weird at you, you know it doesn't have to do with you.) But you also have this much more performative Badger model: this is who my parents expect me to be, I don't agree with it, but I can put it on and let it run.

In terms of interpersonal problems, this is where I am most terrible. I am often an absolute doormat and will not vocalize problems and internalize everything. My issue is that I don’t feel confident that I am right and doubt my ability to argue my point and stand up for myself without absolutely ruining the relationship.

Unfortunately, I can't say I'm *surprised,* since you grew up in an environment where arguing was very frowned upon, and it's not like you can win an argument with someone depending on circular arguments and logical fallacies.

You also built a large part of your *identity* around this Perfect Child, Invisible Badger who just does not cause problems. In the language of this system, you built a very intense Badger primary model as a coping mechanism, and now it's run out it's usefulness... but is still hard to punch through, because old models get sticky.

If something bothers me, I will mull over it and eventually let it go because it becomes too late.

Okay, *this* is why you thought there might be some Burning going on. There's this aspect of the way you relate to people that just feels very unsafe, and so you... shut it down.

I think the problems here are uncertainty, and lack of control. When I am in a situation where I know all the elements, have resources, and plenty of time, I am good.

That is absolutely Textbook Double Bird. But (as I'm sure I don't have to tell you)... it's also a fantasy. Very often, you will be lacking in either resources, info, or time. This is why a lot of Double Birds build models, or look like Lion secondaries whenever they don't have time to prep.

If there is an unknown, I can’t do anything.

In the language of this system, that's a Bird primary that's Exploded a little bit, this idea that you can't possibly act if you don't have all the information. It's very Chidi from The Good Place.

In social situations, I can’t control the volatility of relationships or other people, so I just control my reaction.

Pretty much all you can control, so good.

Often, instead of doing something when something is bothering me, I will basically force a paradigm shift to see the situation in a better light, and then move on.

Bird primaries are known for the superpower of just being able to *decide* to like something, or *decide* to be interested in something. That is absolutely what you're doing here. It's *a* way to solve that problem, I guess. But it doesn't seem to make you feel free/powerful.

I kind of have an addiction with the process of solving, and an intolerance for doubt. When I was questioning my career choices, I would reflect on all aspects of my personality, of my goals for the future, I would take endless career quizzes, read the descriptions of jobs over and over, would ask my friends what they thought I should do, etc. I would run in circles, never deciding. I even started deconstructing the philosophy of work, to determine if it was even possible to make a good decision.

Very Bird. Very *exploded* Bird. Of course you went from "what job do I want" to "is the concept of work philosophically moral."

Other questions: My future plans is to live a relatively quiet life out of the public eye, surrounded by books, and having plenty of free time to research or practice my hobbies. I want a stable job, with money so I don’t have to think about those things, and I want to be intellectually stimulated and to be able to add value to the world in the best way I can. I want two dogs, a partner who is fine with my need for space. I also want to live in a walkable city that has an interest in art and culture, and access to nature.

That sounds lovely.

Mostly, I want to be satisfied that I am a good person and be able to do what I want with relative freedom. Now, to be honest, I am very unsatisfied about the real world. It seems so monotonous, and I have always had the secret desire to escape into a fantasy realm. Unfortunately for myself, I don’t believe in the supernatural.

It gets better. There are a lot of cool things out there, and it all gets much less linear once you leave school. I would probably say though - knowing you and your tendencies - maybe a little less focus on being a good person (because that's a can of worms) and maybe a little more on doing things that are a net positive to the world around you.

I feel most powerful when I surprise myself. I once prepared for a grad school interview by reading hundreds of questions and preparing answers for them. When I practiced with a friend, it just came out forced and clunky, and I found myself trying to repeat exactly what I had written. I had accepted I just wasn’t going to get in. When I went to the actual interview though, I just went off script and took risks. I told personal anecdotes while maintaining the image I wanted to project to them, which got me an offer.

You are absolutely a Rapid-Fire bird, which is very cool.

When I speak up in class, when I stand up for myself, when I make impulsive decisions, and especially when I do something scary, I also feel this way.

I like it. Lean into that Lion secondary energy. I know a lot of Birds, especially Double Birds, find it extremely helpful.

I also feel powerful when I feel competent. For instance, when I fix issues at work, when I get good grades, when I manage to problem solve in a clever way.

All of this is very Bird secondary. And honestly, a very effective-sounding Bird secondary.

In high school and during the pandemic, I also was obsessed with personality systems and would read and introspect for hours trying to determine my type. But there was never an answer satisfying enough because the process of introspection was the addictive part of it, and even a sliver of doubt would send me into another rabbit hole. There is a kind of poking at it until it becomes mush effect. I literally made excel sheets with my results on different quizzes, over multiple weeks, to see if there was a pattern. By focusing so much on figuring out who I am, and the intricacies of my own psyche, I just end up losing the big picture and not being able to contextualize the information I’ve gathered. Sometimes it even becomes hard to identify anything since I’m focusing on such a tiny part of myself, and the human mind is so kaleidoscopic and changing, so it stops making sense and just becomes a big blob of behaviors and thoughts. I’ve had a hard time figuring out my MBTI and enneagram because of this as well.

I have been there before, trying to navigate the difference between what is useful introspection and what is navel-gazing indulgence. I accept that people are incredibly complicated, and any categorization system is inherently imperfect. I also accept that words to describe your inner workings are extremely helpful, and honestly, necessary. One thing I like about the system is the cleanness of it. So much of it has to do with cutting through the noise and the *presentation* we are presented, and just going - okay, how do we work, why do we work?

Thank you to Lorangutan 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.

[painted-crow]

so, I'm a discovery writer, which is a traditional improvisational secondary thing... but I build the core motivations of each character before I start, then write by following how the characters would logically interact with each other. Throughout the process, I examine what I wrote and figure out why I wrote it, to find themes and such so I can do them on purpose instead of accidentally. (1/2)

Analyzing why I wrote what I just did is also super useful for keeping track of how my subconscious is doing. I think this is a good example of a rapid-fire bird being internally nothing like a snake despite looking like one (2/2)

Oh definitely, that's peak RF Bird. Thanks for sending this in!

[mist-the-wannabe-linguist]

Hot take

Night furies are actually perfectly evolved for hunting and killing other dragons and the only reason they aren't a dragon-hunting species like the death song or deathgrippers are is because DreamWorks couldn't have their adorable main character dragon be a "cannibal"

(below I'm gonna try to summarize what we've figured out in a convo with friends on discord)

(also tw animal death via predator)

First of all yes I'm aware that pretty much every decision made about their design was with consideration of the effect it would make on human audiences but hear me out

Night furies are most iconically known as dive-bombers. They are built for speed, high maneuverability, night-time camouflage and for striking targets from above. If we remove human settlements out of the equation (which would not have existed long enough to actually influence night fury evolution, come on), what does that leave us with?

They aren't built for catching fish for sure, they aren't very hydrodynamic and their head is round, wide, and their teeth are dull. Honestly, the monstrous nightmare is much better suited for catching fish, with its long neck, almost pelican-like jaw and rhamphorhynchus teeth

Compare to

Yeah the jaws look kinda like a porpoise of some sort but for that the whole body would have to be a lot more aquatic imo. The light fury looks a lot closer to an aquatic diver, it has a sleeker body, rounded fins instead of spikes, and a long neck.

I don't really see them hunting land animals either, they just don't look like they're adapted for that minus the resemblance with large felines and even then, they're too large to effectively hunt in forests.

The one thing I can kinda imagine them hunting is large mainland megafauna, but we're working with a setting that takes place pretty much exclusively on islands. And overall, dragons are the only abundant species there with the exception of fish and human-bred sheep and chickens.

In general, night furies have duller teeth, smaller claws and are smaller than most dragons. Disregarding the movies making Toothless weirdly OP, a night fury would be disadvantaged against most dragons in a 1v1 fight and besides, it has four huge weak spots that would highly discourage it from a direct physical fight - the primary and secondary tail fins. One unlucky rip in the membrane and the night fury is fucked.

The night fury however noticeably resembles falcons, given their dive-bombing ability and high maneuverability.

Falcons too have smaller beaks and weaker claws compared to most birds of prey, and for that they compensate by simply picking up speed, balling up their talons and Punching. Really. Hard.

And they use that ability to kill other birds, even much larger ones, by knocking them right from the sky.

Here, the night fury's plasma blast works the same way as a falcon's punch. Dragons are fire-resistant, so what the plasma blast does is really just a densely packed bolt of energy that has the effect of either stunning or outright killing prey by damaging its spine. And what the plasma bolt doesn't do, rapid contact with the ground would finish. And if even that doesn't do it, the night fury's wide jaws and dull teeth are just fine for simply clamping around the unlucky dragon's neck and strangling it, like a lion or a pitbull.

The night-time camouflage allows the night fury to soar for extended periods of time perfectly unnoticed in the night sky, and by the time it strikes, the dragon wouldn't even know what's coming.

Unless

Say the hunting night fury is aware of other dragons sleeping under the trees, as most dragons probably would at night (village raids aside, most dragons seem to be diurnal), so how does the night fury get them in position where it can use its signature attack? Well, there's That Iconic Screech Of Death. Since in the movies it tends to appear not just during dive-bombings but also when charging up a blast, I imagine it's something the night fury is able to control to some degree. So by simply fake-diving in close proximity to sleeping dragons, it can effectively terrify them into leaving their hideout and fly out into the open where it can easily take them out.

I dunno, the possibility of night furies as predators to other dragons just makes so much sense to me, I really don't know what other reasons there would be for them to evolve these particular adaptations.

And one more little headcanon to add to this whole rant - since night furies are significantly smaller and less equipped for dragon vs dragon fights and are primarily speed-based predators, I imagine there is this very likely scenario:

There is one dragon who resembles a hyena, a lil bit

Ok, rant over

[mysticalenthusiastvoid]

Rapid Fire Bird vs. Storage Bunker Snake

I'm posting this because my reply got eaten by Tumblr and I'm too lazy to go looking for it again.

A couple of summers ago, I went out of state for a friend's wedding. Because of not knowing the area as well and the possibility of drinking, i decided i would drive to my hotel and use Uber to get around the area.

Of course this could be my bird model at play as well.

[reversemoon255]

XVX-016RV Gundam Aerial Re:Verse XVXSU-01BP GUNDoll Re:(B/P)eat XVXSU-01BTh GUNDoll Re:Bir(d/th) XVXSU-01ED GUNDoll Re:Mol(e/d)

As a Gundam mechanics person, I'm really not that attached to any of the suits from G-Witch. Most seasons try and do something new with their mechanics to set them apart, but almost every unit in G-Witch recycles elements from UC, X, or Turn-A. As such I have very little interest in straight building any of them because I just don't find them that interesting. That being said, I think they're great custom fodder, and I plan on making several more custom G-Witch units in the future. Because I bought a lot and I have to use them for something. (Also, I do think the show is great, I just don't like the robots.)

The Details: The Re:Verse itself is a straight repaint of the Aerial Rebuild with no physical modifications. I painted it with black as a main color, amethyst as a secondary, and gold as a tertiary; a bit of a change-up to my usual black/gold/pop. I actively tried to change-up its color separation as well, dividing the limbs in half down the middle, changing up the head, chest, and skirts' color division, etc. I also painted the Shell Unit parts metallic red because I wanted to use the prepainted red chest elements since there's no paintable detail without it.

The Re:Verse doesn't have any default weaponry, as it's meant to be more of a control console for all its GUNDolls. The term "Shell Unit" has a lot more meanings for this one.

Onto those GUNDolls, the name being a combination of GUND-Bit and Mobile Doll; they all borrow the same color scheme as the Re:Verse, with all the venting on the under side being metallic red.

Re:(B/P)eat is made of the Rebuild's shield minus the two bottom parts, and is meant to be a stag beetle. It's a heavy artillery Bit, able to combine with the main unit to increase its fire power.

Re:Bir(b/th) is made of the the original Aerial's shield with its parts rearranged, and is meant to be a bird. It's a defensive Bit capable of projecting a beam shield, but also has a set of blades so it has some offensive capabilities.

Re:Mol(e/d) (which I made a few weeks later) is made of the Lfrith's shield and backpack and is meant to be a mole. It's capable of rapid, lower power beam fire, as well as being more armored and having better melee capabilities than Re:Bir(d/th).

I'm surprised the names worked out as well as they did.

Overall, not the most interesting combination of parts, but I'm very happy with the colors and layout, and I'm happy with how the GUNDolls turned out.

[blurred-inventory]

Sorting: Kokichi Ouma (NDRV3)

Based on @sortinghatchats system! Primary is the why, secondary is the how.

***Spoilers for NDRV3***

Badger Primary

Kokichi’s extraordinarily empathetic, much as he deliberately masks it at the start. He upholds two major principles - “Don’t kill” from his DICE backstory, and “Lies can be good/kind” from the Salmon Dream Team. His overall goal is to end the killing game, and he’s willing to do it at the expense of a few lives if necessary. He stirs up trouble, but the biggest trouble is aimed to air out potentially dangerous secrets (ex. accusing Kaede of dangerous optimism with the escape game, or revealing Maki’s Ultimate talent) or with the end goal of stopping the killing game (cooperating with Monokuma to find out more about the outside world). He’s extremely pragmatic that way, if a touch too cynical and distrustful of everyone else. Kokichi’s hella people-oriented for someone who distrusts so much - his talent *is* Ultimate Supreme Leader, and well. He cares, a lot. (The pranks and the constant lying? It’s infuriating but astonishingly not really malicious in such a dangerous killing game.)

Kokichi feels too people-oriented to be an External Primary. He has such strong ideals that he doesn’t feel like a Snake to me. Even loving Shuichi doesn’t mean he trusts or relies on or prioritizes him. 

Bird Secondary - Rapid-fire/Actor, Snake performance

Kokichi’s been shown to be very very good at predicting players, and seems to rely most on planning ahead. That understanding of what will happen allows him to take preemptive action (a teetering balance in a reactionary death game). He collects information - exploring the school, snatching key items, and generally investigating on his own. His room is such a Bird thing - the scribbling and clues organized everywhere.

Liar, liar, pants on fire. Kokichi is so skilled at understanding what will happen and how players will act/react to such minute detail that it feels like a Rapid-fire Bird skill (how fitting that he fell in love (”stole the heart”) of Shuichi Saihara, someone a bit more unpredictable). But yeah, I think his lies can be seen through with a bit of logic and understanding- part of his skill comes from the whiplash of switching masks/emotions so quickly, and another part is grand, grand lies with grains of truth. He exaggerates/overreacts quite extremely in important, more emotional moments, and that feels a bit telling.

(He matches with Shuichi, who’s most likely that classic detective Bird secondary, which is pretty cute!)

[wisteria-lodge]

I LOVE this. LOVE thinking of him as a Burnt Lion, that makes total sense, and the fact that he's the only Built secondary of the bunch explains basically all of the tension he has with the rest of the gang. I would probably argue that what looks like Dennis' snake secondary model is probably just... very Rapid-Fire Bird secondary. We see him kinda loose it when he's not able to prepare, and he *prides* himself on being the only one who follows through on plans, and uses it to justify his self-image of being the "Brains" of the operation.

(please please please do the others! I have thoughts, and I can't wait!!)

Sorting the Gang, Pt. 1: Dennis Reynolds

OK so this is the one I expect to be the least obvious so let's get it out of the way first.

First of all it goes without saying that literally nobody on this show is a healthy or morally sound example of anything, and everyone is also highly exaggerated and generally is going to be the sociopathic version of whatever they are. They almost never help anyone without ulterior motives, themselves included. Everyone on this show is also in a Snakey environment with an codependent, crabs-in-the-bucket influence on one another. Most of them are going to have that model and I think two people in the Gang are double Snakes. Dennis isn't one of those two people though.

Primary: Burned Lion (Snake model)

I think I read somewhere that Patrick Bateman was a burned Lion primary? Same thing with Dennis.

The way I think of it is, every character on the show has their Thing. The thing that defines how they are personally messed up and causes them their angst. Someone like Mac, his unreciprocated relationships with other people and his continually sabotaging them by being himself is a big Thing for him. And Dennis's supposed lack of feelings is a big Thing for him in a way that it just isn't with the rest of the Gang. ("This is crazy -- I'm having feelings again, like a 14-year-old boy. You remember feelings, right?" "...Yeah? I have feelings every single day of my life.") He has some of the other Lion stuff going on, like his being OK with being or feeling separate from others (semi-joke example) if something offends or disgusts him, or his insistence that he is always right with no reasoning besides obviously he is and why would you even dare to question him? But his internal emptiness is his Thing.

It's pretty clear that Dennis doesn't actually have no feelings ("I have big feelings!"), just has zero ability to deal with them besides exploding into a rage or posturing that they don't exist. It causes him a lot of angst, which manages to peek out from the rage from time to time. The "God hole" scene is an example of this assuming you think it's sincere:

(This scene also demonstrates the modeling pretty well, probably Snake given the hedonism and also given that he loves to keep people dependent on him, much like Frank.)

Secondary: Bird (Snake model)

The Snake model here is pretty obvious. Dennis loves scheming and manipulating and charming people and generally gets off on the thrill of wearing another man's skin.

But let's look at how he actually does it. Everyone else in the main cast. is an improvisational secondary Dennis is not. This causes him no end of frustration:

We immediately escalate everything to a 10. It's ridiculous. Somebody comes in with a preposterous plan or idea. Then all of a sudden everyone's on the gas, and nobody's on the brakes, nobody's thinking...

By contrast Dennis thinks of himself as the only smart person around and the quintessential Renaissance man ("The question isn't what do I do -- it's what don't I do?"), with a lot of skills he loves to demonstrate and give literal presentations on. He has a distinct system for seducing women -- and, as of season 16, a separate distinct system for seducing men. He has kept a dossier on every member of the Gang since childhood. He keeps "a bunch of weird tools" in his car for unclear future purposes and carries an onion with him in case he needs to cry, and When Dee shows up with a giant lump on her head before a TV shoot, he offers to help because he knows how to cover up blunt force trauma. (Obviously these are all tools for being sociopathic and/or predatory, which, see the disclaimer above.)

The other part of this is that if even literally a single thing is out of Dennis's control, bad things happen. 90% of Dennis plots involve either someone else in the Gang or circumstances in general screwing up his plan, at which point, within seconds, he becomes untethered LIKE THE CRASHING OF A THOUSAND WAVES. (The fact that he has speeches prepared for all these things...) Or else he is forced into a situation that he can't plan for, in which case he completely falls apart. One of many examples below:

[ethereal-skye]

Bird Secondary (Rapid Fire) // Ravenclaw Secondary

“If a Bird is deeply embedded in their zone of expertise or area of comfort, they can problem-solve so fast that it looks like they’re improvising… but they’re not. The Rapid-Fire Bird just has a lot of knowledge and resources to call on. Move them to a different arena, where their knowledge and resources aren’t applicable, and they flounder.” - wisteria-lodge’s post

[spaceyspaceysarah]

Today’s pondering of my secondary: Am I a Snake who spends a lot of time in neutral? Am I a rapid-fire Bird?

My Badger performance seems so very Snakey (let’s convince authority of how sweet and kind and trust worthy I am so they like me and I can “get” things!!). I also am comfortable acting different with different people.

But I truly love learning and absorbing information, and then using it, and can’t tell if I have an aggressive Bird model or am a Bird…

[reds-burrow]

My Sister (Badger secondary): *walking into the room* Bad news, we don't have enough eggs for... the cake... Oh... No. No no no no no--

Me (Snake seconary): *already spooning mayonnaise into the batter* It's just egg and oil! Egg and oil!

[painted-crow]

Undertale. Badgers and Undertale.

Actually, now that I think about it, like the point of Undertale is you're deciding if the monsters count as people or not, and getting the best ending means involves making friends with everybody. You can easily go to a ridiculous amount of effort to send a dog you just met to college for no immediately apparent reward, and it's glorious.

Might need to start Sorting video games at some point, lol. Celeste would be a good candidate if I'd go back and finish it... it's probably Lion secondary, given that you basically just have to keep trying over and over and over and over to get the same sequence of jumps perfectly.

Which isn't true of all difficult platformers! Hollow Knight is a loudly rapid-fire Bird secondary game. You go through the game collecting charms and tools and abilities, and they change the gameplay a lot. If you're really having trouble with a boss, there are usually combinations of charms that will help. Plus there are often different ways to get past stuff, some easier than others.

You can still play it like a Lion, but it's set up for you to Bird. It's so good at making you feel like you know what you're doing, and then you react to the situation based on what you know about the fight/area and what charms you brought.

Celeste doesn't do that, from what I've seen so far; there's one way out and it's through. You just have to develop that fast-twitch reaction and focus until you're not really thinking. Also, Madeleine herself doesn't seem to have much of a plan, and at least one other character criticizes her for it. She's just climbing, and she's going to climb no matter what they say.

Person: Why do you always go on all these side-quests and play your character like a goody two-shoes?

Me [tearfully]: BECAUSE IN VIDEO GAMES I CAN HELP EVERYONE

[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.

[painted-crow]

hi! I hope you're well. I've been thinking about my primaries and secondaries a lot lately. I'm always interested in people and I'm very good with understanding them too: it drives most of what I do, from my job to my choice of education to what I do for fun. ethics in my mind are also a bit contextual because of this: I can't really evaluate an act without knowing more about the person and situation//it's never black and white for me. I'm not an idealist, I think? (1)

I'm already giggling at this. You are such a loud Bird. "Evaluate an act" is an incredibly Bird lens. I think you might be associating Idealists with rigidity, or with certainty. Healthy Birdpris actually make a lot of space for uncertainty and for being able to say they don't have a good conclusion for whether something specific is Right yet.

And Birdpri systems are complex and built gradually over one's life precisely because there's so much nuance to be had in different situations. Not everything is going to run up against the core axioms of your system (things like "human life is inherently valuable" and "unnecessary suffering is bad").

Idealists can value people too. Birds tend to really value understanding others, it's a highly prioritized form of empathy for us, but not everyone works that way. Someone else might say, "I don't understand but I feel for you," or "I don't understand but I want to help, so you tell me what you need." Other primaries value understanding too, but for a Bird it's the first thing we go for--we feel pretty lost if we don't have some model of what's going on.

secondary-wise, much of the understanding of people thing happens sort of subconsciously--I figure out what's happening w people or how they're thinking or what they really want right 99% of the time, and it's always without really thinking about it. when it comes to other things, though, I usually work like this: I plan a thing/reach a solution for a problem, check w one person I trust about whether it works, then I execute. (2)

You've basically written me a flowchart. You lean heavily on plans and processes. Birdsec.

Having a skill down to the point where it works without you thinking about it doesn't make it not a skill; this is a Rapid-Fire Bird thing, not an Improvisational thing.

Checking your work with someone trusted doesn't make you a Badger; in this case it makes you a very meticulous Bird who's using your resources effectively.

I'm guessing at badger primary (I think just ensuring *everyone* is understood well matters the most to me? so it feels like a better guess than the rest rn), but very uncertain about secondary. feels a little gryffy sometimes but not really? I am anti-charging or plowing ahead--plans keep me sane and calm. I also read through multiple posts about shc cross-verifying traits and analyses and had to feel like I was getting nowhere before I sent this, if that says anything? thank you for this! (3)

Again, the "everyone needs to be understood" thing is a Birdpri trait. Why does everyone need to be understood? So that you and everyone else can factor the full context into your personal decision-making systems, of course! If you care about someone, you have a mental model of their needs and priorities and favorite ice cream flavors, right?

Badger language tends to be more like, "everyone needs to be cared for, their voice heard, not forgotten about--they deserve to get the help they need because they're people." But understanding is so important to Birds because a lot of our identity is often wrapped up in our systems, which we see as a thing that can be understood--and not everyone has this intricately defined worldview that they think about a lot and can explain to other people.

Plans keep you sane and calm and you've been problem-solving your Sorting by doing tons of research and cross-referencing everyone's different writing to come up with a mental model of the system to work with. Also, for all the reading you've been doing from probably a variety of different posters, I was the one you chose to write to--probably because my extremely double Bird writing voice sounds comfortingly familiar.

Welcome to the birdhouse, nonny.

[shutthedord]

Sorting Undertale

Right, so this is using the sortinghatchats system. It used to use Harry Potter terms, but a certain Rowling can go [DATA EXPUNGED], so some people now use the mascot animals instead of the House names, which I will also do.

Anyway, the "primary" is one's motivation and the "secondary" is one's method. There's also models and burning and other complications, which I'll explain when I get there. (Now, if you do know the system, this is being written by a Bird/Bird (rapid fire) with a Badgersec model.)

Also, Undertale spoilers for every corner of the game, including the best ending, various neutral endings, and the... let's call it the Having A Bad Time route.

Toriel - Lion primary, Badger secondary

Now, you'd think that the kind mother who loves her children would be a Badger, right? And yeah, she's an incredibly stereotypical Badger secondary. She literally introduces herself as a caretaker, she loves baking, she's already set up a room for you, and she wants to be a teacher.

But what happens when she sees Asgore declaring that killing human children was the only possible way to proceed? Her conscience cannot bear the idea of her being accessory to atrocity, so she leaves.

It's not because he betrayed her. It's because he's doing something wrong.

Papyrus - Lion primary, Lion secondary 

Idealistic, loud, direct, and earnestly inspirational, this guy is a double Lion as classic as they come.

He believes that he is awesome, but he just as unfailingly believes that you are awesome too. He believes in the ideal that all people can be good if they try. Undyne knows about the steadfastness and power of this ideal - this is why she can't let him join the Royal Guard (for fear of him being reduced to "little smiling shreds"), and why she later enlists Papyrus to teach Alphys self-esteem (having faith that he can convince her).

He wants friends - and popularity and acceptance, not ideals, are his reasons for wanting to join the Royal Guard - but he's not desperate for affection the way a sad Badger or Snake might be. Sans and Undyne help a lot here. 

Now for the Lion Secondary. How does he try to join the Royal Guard? Why, by going directly to Undyne and demanding to join. (Her own Lion Secondary recognizes and admires that gumption, which is why she takes him in.)

And his response to you doing mass murder is to stand in your way, refuse to move, and tell you that he forgives you and believes that you can do better. No ego, no (outward) fear, no aggression. He just states what he believes in, and then forces you to either turn back or cut him down.

Undyne - Badger primary, Lion secondary

Nominally Undyne works for the Royal Guard. But what she actually works for is the people of the land. All of them, from the littlest children all the way up to Asgore and everyone in between. "Our hearts beating as one" and all that. The thing that convinces me that this is a Badger and not a Lion is that this care isn't just in the abstract: when a Monster Kid she doesn't know shows up, she tells them off and drags them away... not for interfering with her job or causing false alarms, but to keep them safe. Even when she has been mortally wounded, she's more worried about getting the kid somewhere safe than about herself. That and, in some of the endings, she visits schools just to interact with (and bench-press) the children.

Secondary? Lion. Lion lion lion. If the problem can be brute-forced, she will smash facefirst into it at full speed. The green soul mode prevents you from escaping and forces you to take danger head-on, making you fight on her terms, the way she is comfortable with. She doesn't bother telling you the traditional history of this world like she's supposed to do before fighting you, because she's going to kill you anyway so what's the point?

She positively radiates determination, both the metaphysical substance and the concept. Her Lion secondary shines so brightly that it's possible you may never have noticed the Badger underneath.

Alphys - unhealthily self-effacing Snake Primary, Bird Secondary. Burnt Badger Secondary Model? (less sure about this one)

Alphys created Mettaton's body as a favor for a friend. Asgore asked her to be the Royal Scientist and told her that he wanted her to work on DT and human soul magic. She doesn't do her science for a noble abstract cause, she does it for people. And unlike Undyne, it's for a few specific people - everyone else, she pushes away.

The trouble is, she thinks she is not on the list of people that deserve to be cared about. She tries to "trick" (?) you into being her friend because that's the only way she can think of to feel less awful about herself, but I don't think that's conscious.

The fact that she just stops answering the phone for fear that it's the demands of people she doesn't know is a kind of anxious paralysis that could theoretically also be a super burnt Lion or Badger, but a common Snake failure mode is to wall oneself away from the world at large, so it's probably that.

Her Secondary's pretty clearly Bird. Her plan for making friends with you is to plan and stage everything ahead of time; when caught off-guard she panics and tries to pull out other information she already knows. (Just turn off the power to the entire section so the grid of lasers becomes safe to cross, why don't you.)

Her genuine love for anime is what sustains her. It's what she cares about 100% at maximum power, according to Undyne. But it's not a blind passion - it's a discerning thought-out one. She has reasons for not liking Mew Mew Kissy Cutie 2. Trust the bird secondary to be able to write an essay at the drop of a hat. (Yes, this is a self-own. I wrote about 80% of this post in a fugue one night... I barely even had to do any research...)

This being said, when her DT experiments go wrong, she doubles down and keeps going. And she never stops taking care of the Amalgamates. I think she feels an obligation to be a Badger, because monster society is positively brimming with them, so she got very good at imitating it. It's not just a Performance, either, because she does it when no one is watching and there would be no real consequences for failure. So that makes it a Model.

... but she also thinks it's an obligation that has long since proven that it does nothing but hurt her and everyone around her. It's just her going through the motions. That's why it's burnt.

Mettaton - Lion (Glory Hound subtype) Primary, Snake Secondary 

Mettaton is a performer. He wants to be seen, to be talked about, to have attention, to have fans. There doesn't seem to be any other underlying emotion about acceptance or whatever driving that; he wants eyes on him as an end in itself. Even the way you spare him involves convincing him that he's already got more than enough fans where he is, ones he has no competition for.

The Glory Hound Lion is a nonstandard presentation of Lion whose fundamental intuitions - instead of being something noble and moral - are solely and entirely pointed towards Being Seen. Smells like Mettaton. 

His Secondary is classic Snake. He is whatever the show needs him to be. And if the show turns out to be a wrestling-style battle to the death - something he has never done before and will never do again - he becomes someone who can do that, immediately and flawlessly. 

Asgore - Burnt Badger (Traditionalist subtype) primary, Badger secondary

Asgore's primary is hard for me to pin down because he is very, very burned, and is now leaning almost entirely on his secondary to mask his despair. There is almost no motivation left for me to make any observations of. He is too traumatized to make any decisions. Which, fair, the death of both of your children in one day will do that to you. But let's see the few times he does.

He feels an obligation to follow what he said that day, even though it was a momentary fit of passion where he promised to commit seven murders, because that's what promises are. Is that a good clue? No, I think promises are just valued that highly in monster society. See also the scene in the MTT Resort restaurant where Sans mentions that if he hadn't made a promise to keep you safe, "you'd be dead where you stand". To monsters, promises are life-and-death things. 

He declared war on all humankind after the whole thing with his children, which is classic Badger dehumanization: when things go terribly, terribly wrong, a Badger reconciles their need to care about everyone with the clear evidence that they can't by deciding that These Are No Longer People. But I don't really see him shrinking his circle of care like a typical burnt Badger.

See, Asgore is a Traditionalist Badger, rather than the more typically seen community-driven Badger - one more dedicated to customs and traditions than to the people involved. I mean, when you're that old, investing yourself in fleeting life after fleeting life can get kinda difficult. So if a Traditionalist Badger burns, that means they've lost faith in the idea that anything can or should be upheld.

And indeed: in a Neutral ending, he is convinced surprisingly easily to spare you, to turn his back on the entire hundred years and six murders he has already committed. Promise or no promise, he's just tired and wants to stop.

Now, he's a clear Badger Secondary, which he shares with his ex-wife Toriel. He distributes presents to children in Snowdin. He waters the flowers. Under the burden of utter despair he just keeps plodding along faithfully, doing what needs to be done. 

Flowey/Asriel: Burnt Snake primary, Badger secondary

Asriel loved his family. Flowey is tormented by his inability to feel love, and believes that this means he has no emotions left. But, like, he does show emotion! He demonstrates glee and resentment and fear! But they are not the love that used to be the central driving force of his life, so they do not matter. He can't care about people, so therefore his life no longer has meaning. 

And so he retreats into solipsism as a defense mechanism. All people are fake and he is the only thing left that matters. Classic Burnt Snake.

Now for the Secondary. When he is in your face he is certainly terrifying... but first and foremost he is persistent and patient. He's continued for dozens, possibly hundreds, of resets. He says he tried every way he could think of to get Asgore to show him the souls. He didn't drag you straight to Asgore; he watched you bumble and fail and experiment, occasionally snarking at you.

So, Built Secondary for sure. Now, which one? The methodical and absolutely exhaustive nature of his investigation ("what would they do if I said this/gave them that?") points weakly towards a Badger. But the real tiebreaker for me here is, it would be so poignant for the child of Badgers to also be a Badger, and to have kept that part of himself despite everything...

Sans - Lion primary with Snake primary model, burnt Bird secondary

All right, so people love the Megalovania incident, and I'll get to that. You're probably wondering why he isn't completely burnt, and I'll get to that too.

First, the easy part. His secondary is the remnants of a Bird. Sure, he no longer believes that he can accomplish anything, so he's long since stopped trying. But he already thought of passwords for just in case he ever encounters a time traveler. He reads at least one quantum physics book for fun, disguising it as a joke book to make himself seem less intimidating. He sets up elaborate pranks across time and space. And he knows the metaphysical laws of his reality and how to exploit them, to the point where he can effectively turn physics itself against you. Yes, he did almost all of that before he Burnt, but this little stub left of the Bird Secondary that he once was still lets him act when he absolutely must.

He doesn't care about much, but he does enjoy bad puns, his brother, and hanging out at the local bar drinking... uh... Anyway, his brother is the one thing he loves more than life itself, and on the rare occasions that he gets scary it's because you've threatened him. If you kill Papyrus, he just straight-up disappears from the rest of the game. So, extremely sad Snake?

This is not a case of burnt-badger-looks-like-a-snake: he does not and has never showed any signs of caring for monsterkind on a macro level. I think all the despair has only really burnt his secondary: the reason he's so depressed is because he believes that nothing he does matters. Everything will get reset. The machine is unfixable. He will never achieve anything. So, he has decided that the one thing that can give his life meaning is the one person who makes him genuinely happy. Snake gives him a purpose and something to stay alive for - and it's not even especially burnt, because it brings him real joy. That's it. Right?

Indeed, he's a Snake primary 99% of the time. But there is a glimmer of something underneath. It could be him going through an unburning character arc entirely offscreen, but I don't think he's spending the whole game contemplating and questioning the true basis of his morality. That would be effort, and Sans does not do effort. So, what's underneath it?

Think about the way he shows up in the Last Corridor. Despite saying that he will judge you, in the neutral route he just defines some terms and tells you to contemplate how it feels - and then he says that as long as you're honest with yourself and your feelings, that's all that matters. (At least the first time round.) At the end of the neutral-pacifist route, he says "as long as you do what's in your heart, I believe you can do the right thing". He still completely trusts that "what's in your heart" is, fundamentally, the best guide for what is moral.

And finally: the circumstances under which he pulls out the Megalovania. He could lie down and let the despair fully consume him, and in almost every neutral ending he does. But when it's either his promise to the lady on the other side of the door or the fate of the world... he chooses the world.

Underneath all the depression and despair, just like his brother, there is a Lion.

[mysticalenthusiastvoid]

Lion Secondary with Bird Model or Snake Secondary?

If anyone see this, I’ve read about SHC for a long time, but never posted until now. I already know I’m a Lion Primary, but I’m still not sure what my secondary is, other than I have an improvisational secondary with a bird secondary model and a badger secondary model/performance.  If I am a Snake, I don’t do multi-player well, but I do wonder if I just exist in neutral most of the time or it’s just battering-ram Lion or some kind of rapid-fire Bird.. Examples of single-player problem-solving: While cooking, I don’t always follow the recipe or I’ll substitute with what I have. One time I was making stuffed peppers and accidentally put too much tomato sauce into the rice. I ended up throwing out that batch and substituting salsa instead for the tomato part. It’s also not unusual for me to throw together random things for soups, stews, etc. If I don’t feel like cooking, I’ll just keep things on hand for wraps and sandwiches or premade things like carrots and dip as a side. The skin on my hands were dry and I had run out of lotion. I ended up using facial moisturizer as it was the middle of the night. In high school biology, we were supposed to create a model of the inside of a cell. The night before the assignment was due, I got the idea to buy a cookie cake, some frosting, and spent a couple of hours creating a cell. I hope these are good enough examples, but I can clarify or answer more questions if anyone has a question or even sees this, lol.

[ten-of-imps]

Not me trying to sort characters of The legend of vox machina lol, but hear me out. Vax should be a double snake right? And not to be confused, I'm just getting into the actual dnd playing and I'm talking about the animated show. His character is a double snake archetype. But he's not.... Idk, I get a lion vibe from him, somewhere, idk where its coming from. I may write a sorting post after some time and I'll see what I will actually find with an actual research and active looking, but why is his character feels so noble when the archetype shouldn't be?

The other character who is throwing me of, is, surprisingly, Scanlan, as he also should not be what he is. He's either a bird or a snake secondary and that is throwing me off as I can't actually tell these two apart, cause you know, personal reasons (points at myself). For a primary, you could stick him anywhere and it would fit for whatever reason, maybe not badger, and probably not bird either.

I think Vex house shares with Percy snake bird, but they come from totally different standpoints in their primaries. Although bird secondary seems a bit too easy of an answer for Vex, she might be a bird secondary, rapid fire bird to be exact. Grog, I think, is either badger lion or just a double lion, and he's very enjoyable to watch (fight me). Vax 'smells' like he has a lion somewhere, and I wouldn't be surprised if that would be a secondary, or at least a strong model of either primary or secondary for Keyleth. I think she's either badger or lion primary with a built secondary and I'm leaning on lion badger. If she is doing everything so she could prove herself and get back to her community, she's a badger primary. If she actually wants to prove herself, doesn't know how to, and she's going around and learning things, reacting to stuff, she's a lion. Maybe a bird, because she did get used to the new community and the values of her new surroundings. A badger might have a bit of an inner conflict with the fact that they have a community they want to go back to because they felt they belonged there, and this community now that found and they fit and love too, which one to choose and where to stay. Pike to me is a straightforward secondary with an internal primary, and given that a snake would not feel guilty by standing by her friends and not her religion, she's a lion. Her conflict is very internal, and it was dealt with internally.

So yeah, that's my short sorting. I hope I'll get back to this and update and actually write my reasons why lol.