#bird primary vs snake primary

[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.

#submission #shc #sortinghatchats #badger bird #badger primary #burnt badger primary #bird secondary #bird secondary vs snake secondary #actor bird #rapid fire bird #wisteria sorts #sortme

[sunnyhatchats]

sorting the gang: mac

Previously: Dennis

We started with a non-obvious sorting so now let's move on to one of the easier ones.

PRIMARY: Snake (extremely dysfunctional), Bird model (extremely dysfunctional) (or the other way around?)

OK maybe it isn't THAT easy. Honestly you could go either way on this. I think part of it is that Mac's character gets written really differently depending on the episode/season (and a lot of fans LOVE complaining about this, "omg they ruined Mac's character" etc., despite both sides of his character being there early on)

Mac obviously is pretty attached to his worldview, usually his religion. He builds his entire identity around it and spends a lot of energy trying to work out the contradictions, the biggest example being being gay vs. being Catholic. He is very proud of how he can view the whole world through whatever lens he has glommed onto at any given point.

science is a LIAR sometimes

Idk I had an entire paragraph here about how everything he says in that video is wrong and how malleable these identities actually are for him in practice until I thought maybe that was still what Birds do especially less mature ones so idk. (Full disclosure I don't really "get" Bird primaries so I might not just be good at recognizing them?)

But I think a picture speaks a thousand words, especially when it is a picture that contains a thousand words:

"just like everyone else in the group" lol ok mac

Mac is a Snake whose people don't give a shit about him. His people are his dad, his mom, Dennis, and to a lesser degree Charlie. "The Gang" isn't really a thing for him as a unit, those are the only people he cares about. And he really cares. ("We're like the best friends in the whole goddamn world and goddamn them for making me think otherwise!")

It isn't a good kind of caring. On his end, they are deeply codependent up to the point where he smuggles drugs for his dad because he's his dad, calls the cops on Dennis when he is out of the apartment for an hour, poisons Dennis to try to make him dependent on him... (Can you be Exploded about more than one person?) And obviously on their end all these people either openly hate Mac to an abusive extent or only give a shit insofar as they can use him. And Mac is deeply in denial that this is possible for his people.

like, even just the idea that OBVIOUSLY Luther wants to see this picture of his mom because OBVIOUSLY she's really important to Luther just like Mac is OBVIOUSLY important to him because OBVIOUSLY he would also care as much, that's how relationships OBVIOUSLY work...

And most importantly, the idea that other people in the world have things to offer does not register. It's not on YouTube but there's a legit tragic scene in the last season where Mac meets his uncle Donald. Donald is a family scapegoat for all the same reasons Mac is, and he is lonely and eager to connect. He is the perfect father figure for Mac, who desperately wants a father figure... and Mac doesn't give a shit about him. He sits through all of this with total disinterest. Charlie sits there the entire scene getting increasingly frustrated: "You have everything you've ever dreamed of right here, but we're gonna just blow right past it, aren't we?"

SECONDARY: Lion (Snake model except he is bad at it?)

This is the easy part, I mean like do I even have to explain it? Mac reacts to things. He reacts to things like a bomb does. Or like whatever the most badass and/or powerful action is at the time. ("Mac sees himself as the boss in most situations and the gang constantly complains about his bossiness.")

it like personally offends him that the mafia does things other than be badass at people

There are three common Mac plots. One is that Mac and someone else (usually Charlie) escalate each other into chaos. Two, someone (almost anyone) manipulates him with zero effort. Three, someone (usually Dennis) attempts to do a scheme with him that he derails loudly. Basically Mac is earnest, in a way that only Charlie really matches. I think that's probably part of why they're the two members of the Gang most likely to be interpreted as kinda-maybe-salvageable deep down even when they objectively do just as bad things as everyone else.

This is Sunny so Mac has a baseline ambient level of lying and scheming, i.e. lowkey Snake modeling. Notably he got a double dose of that model from hanging out with the Gang and beforehand from growing up with career criminals as parents. But he's the worst person in the Gang at scheming and it isn't remotely close. Which is not to say that he doesn't try to manipulate people, he just....... fundamentally doesn't get the concept:

"Oh shit... right, don't give away the information." feel like I'm using all my memes on these

Obligatory disclaimer that again this is the most exaggerated and cartoonish and just incredibly dumb version of Lioning so just like if you're a Bird secondary don't be offended about sharing it with a serial predator, don't be offended about sharing Lion with this incredibly dumb individual

#iasip #sortinghatchats #shc #it's always sunny in philadelphia

[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.

#sortinghatchats #ask answers #lion secondary

[1ore]

Now that I have internet i can spring this on you from the ask meme C:< (edited the wording on it for my own personal clarity LOL) 23. Introduce an OC that has changed a lot from your first draft of them

Oh man. Okay here's a long one because I’m going and going and going and g

Old Mora has the funniest visual development I think, just because she’s as old as Moribund itself is, and you can tell just how badly I struggle to nail down her design. I think I’ve finally gotten the challenging bits out of the way, but I need to draw her more to get everything else in order.

In Moribund, there’s this concept of the world being birthed and given motion by the interplay of two ur-beasts, an osprey and a snake. It’s not technically correct to say that Old Mora is the definitive osprey, but she rhymes with it, if that makes Any sense at all. So designing her is kind of like designing that in terms of “need to be getting it right”

In her earliest drafts (early ~2014 above) she looked a lot like the ur-snake, funny enough. The defining features of her face came to me all at once, like it should be impossible to tell which side is up and which is down, she should have a jowl window that doubles as an eye, a throat that doubles as an iris, streaming light-tears that are like threads in the eye of the needle, an arrow-shaped beak, etc. And I was really attached to this specific face for a long time, but the rest of her body wasn't coming to me.

like this is very cool but this is not my beautiful wife. (also 2014)

At some point, I went in the fucked up handbird direction, and I stayed there for a longo time too.

These wyvern-y ones are from 2014 as well. I remember the bottom one being kind of a bolt of inspiration re: uncanny feethands and winghands, but looking back she does just look like Smooth Lugia here.

2014/2015 was when Moribund started to find its way in terms of like, cohesive vision and feel of the world, (and also just me as a visual artist finding my way to drawing what I really liked to draw) and I think one of those growing pains was Mora moving from slippery handdragon to giant death bird.

Then I finally knocked the silly beak horns off her face.

Then in 2015 Iuhhhhhhh

violence magenta and indigo blue became morb (TM) blue-black and red. her beak is extremely funny here. you can tell i was struggling so bad, but I forgive her. I still like this piece.

she kind of middles around here for a while. She is pretty much quadruped for all of these; I experiment with making her handwings into seperately-motile coverts and primaries.

During this time I am so very concerned with wings and with the launching power of birds vs. pterosaurs and with figuring out a quadruped Mora.

Long story short: Birds can only get so big, because there’s a tradeoff between having more wing muscle and having more leg muscle. Your legs aren’t what you use to fly, so as they get bigger, they’re better for launching but heavier and more unwieldy while flying. If you get more wing muscle to compensate for carrying them, then that means you are now heavier and need more leg muscle to initially get you in the air. Eventually, you hit a ceiling where you either can’t launch, because you don’t have enough power out back, or you can’t fly, because the clap of your asscheeks keeps alerting the gravity. But pterosaurs can get Absolutely Ginormous because their wing muscles are also their launching muscles and AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

and then I get over it, because I like birds and mora looks cute but kind of dorky on all fours. (^ 2016)

(2018 ^) She’s allowed to get more organic over time. At some point I ditch the feethands completely, but I still choose to struggle with her beak teeth.

Oh, yeah. I forgot. that’s a design issue I had with her from day one. Drawing Mora from the front was a logistical nightmare because she’s so... shape (^ 2018)

I flirt with giving her perforated nostrils and making her more condor-like. (^2019)

doesn’t seem to stick. im still not giving up her beak teeth, but they’re still causing me problems. I want to go back and fix this piece actually, because it’s so recent but she looks sooooo dorky here. (^2021)

From here I think her most important additions are a.) extremely big feather boots and b.) moving the beak teeth up to her jowls. which fixes everything, for some reason

she's been one of those design journeys where a lot of the ideas were cool in isolation, but had to be abandoned because they just weren't serving the actual character that she is: a really big death bird who is also, like, just a woman.

now i just have to make good on drawing her more. and not at two in the morning. waw.

#THANK YOU REED!!! #now if youre asking about which character changed in writing the most over time thats a very different question #for lore who is not awake at two in the morning #i think ill do that aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa tomorrow #uncaptioned images tag #sorry about that i have no brainmeat left #Tomorrow. tomorrow. #mora tag

[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.

#sortinghatchats #typology #ask answers #enneagram #mbti

[reds-burrow]

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

#pretty sure she was a Bird/Lion + Badger model #our other roommates were a Double Badger and Double Snake #they're still my bffs #Bird primary #Badger primary #idealist vs loyalist primary #sortinghatchats #sorting hat chats #personal

[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

#moogle hat talks #the double edged sword of going out for a walk to Think #you will get lots of productive thinking done right up to the point where you decide you're done walking #and get exhausted on the way back #i meant to walk for like 20 minutes and ended up being out for an hour and a half rip me #most of it was bird primary vs lion primary; the bleedover between snake and badger secondary #how i think some snakes are actually very easy to manipulate ourselves #because we're all about redirecting momentum; ours and other people's #and it's easy to pull a reverse uno card on a young entertainer snake in particular and swing us in the direction you want us to go #i feel like this is probably different from the way some badger secondaries can be Easily Swayed #although very closely adjacent #because a lot of the time we'll be very aware that we're being redirected from our goal #and screaming internally each time we get swung wide of it again #(i think a lot of our socialization is very goal-oriented tbh) #(it's just that a lot of the time it's something like 'make a nice conversation happen') #(but sometimes it'll be to convince someone of something etc etc) #related to which i love woody from psych very much and i'm starting to think it's because he's a very badgery entertainer snake #snake secondary #entertainer snake #badger model #psych tag #woody strode #'rest your brain' i say and then proceed to write a bunch in the tags #anyway i got some neat responses and i am excited to answer them #and also am blessed by kurt fuller and all of the characters he plays

[dragonsaredorks]

How do you tell the difference between a bird primary with a snake primary model vs an actual snake primary?

Context: Hello everyone! @wisteria-lodge asked the shc community if we would like to help answering some asks, and a number of us volunteered, so this is a reply to one of those asks.

Bird primary with a Snake primary model here! I guess the difference is that the Bird learned the Snake from somewhere, like from a group/family culture or a loved one. Meanwhile, for a full-scaled Snake primary, putting yourself and your People first is much more instinctual. Personally, I also have a good amount of reasoning behind when and why unquestioning loyalty is good, which I wouldn't be surprised if that's Bird primary thing.

#Sortinghatchats #Bird primary #Snake primary model #Snake primary #Ask

[wisteria-lodge]

Is it okay for a snake with bird primary to have no one fully in their inner circle since they're also snake secondary and behave differently with everyone, thus can't know if any of the potential-inner-circle-material people accept all of themself which is one of the criteria for being inner circle?

Hmm. Snake secondaries in the community correct me, but that... doesn't sound like how Snake secondaries think about their shapeshifting. Since the process is automatic, every mask you wear feels like *you.* If anything, that particular angst of 'they don't really like me, they like one of many parts I play' is more Actor Bird.

(and I dunno.... going by this mini-ask... that primary sounds preeetty constructed. I would look into Bird, both primary and secondary, as possibilities. You might be a Double Bird who looks like a Double Snake, like Blackbeard.)

#sortinghatchats #snake secondary #bird secondary #bird secondary vs snake secondary #bird primary

[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.

#sortinghatchats #hp thoughts #anonymous #answer #my thoughts #peter pettigrew #remus lupin #sirius black #james potter #severus snape #lily evans #regulus black

[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

#first post in a while huh folks #gotta remember how to tag... #ravenclaw primary #gryffindor primary model #slytherin secondary #gryffindor secondary model #asks #paint speaks #sortinghatchats

[sevilemar]

Hi Sevi, this is that another anon who sends you walls of texts. I saw you've got covid, how are you? Do you have food and entertainment? Covid sucks so just take your time to recover and fuck anyone who would rush you back to office, okay?

Now to get to why I'm here, shc is weird, isn't it. Mostly where does the line fall on sorting vs just human nature theme.

The question if something is relevant for sorting, or just human nature, or something like mental or physical illness, or a differently wired brain, etc. is the main reason why I am not really comfortable sorting anyone at the moment. I can make observations, and sometimes the clues come together like for the tea snake anon. And sometimes, they do not.

But wouldn't I be a hypocrite if I had different standards for myself and the outside? Why would it be different standards, plus I know I'd hate it if someone were valued more or less with different standards in mind, not that I wouldn't be faltered by someone thinking I'm great at something or better. I noticed people don't hold similar sentiments as I do, so I already grew tired of it, but I find it keeps me grounded, and when it falls, everything crumbles. This might have nothing to do with shc btw, it's okay. I don't know what information would be useful, and tried to give anything I could think of.

I did not mean people should use different standards for themselves and for others; in a way, most people do that already. What I have never seen before is that you think you only deserve to love yourself if you meet your standards. It means that if you do not meet your standards, you are not worthy of love, and that feels very dangerous to me. Like it can all crumble and fall down at the drop of a hat, and then what?

Also, how much grace do you allow yourself? Is one failed situation enough to crumble, or two, or three? I just, I don't know. It's your way of living, and I know nothing about your life. It's just different for me, and that's why I don't know what to do with it in terms of shc.

I know when I have some value in mind, it's there, and when I don't, my mind is empty and left wondering where it all comes from.

I think that's a pretty big-picture (idealistic) concern to have? Or maybe a burned one? Because for unburned concrete people (loyalists), our morality is right there in front of us, and there's no doubt about it.

But the worst part is me, not only thinking I know what quiz answer correlates to which sorting, and still doing it time and time again thinking this time something will change, inside or out, but also me somehow corrupting my submissions, either just writing from an emotional standpoint of that a person with a sorting I think I am in that moment would, or being inconsistent or who I am literally and expressing myself differently every time. I try to be honest and myself every time, because then what's the point, but it always seems to be somehow wrong and not me, with something missing from the picture, with me adding something that is not there. I want to believe I'm doing it accidentally, but I'm not sure anymore.

The thing is, no matter how hard you try, it will always be you that's clicking or typing the answers. So no matter what you write, who you are shines through. And depending on how much experience the other person in the conversation has with reading beneath the lines, they can find and decipher these clues regardless.

Take yourself, for example. I don't think you like to think of yourself as an idealist; your first ask to me was if you could consider yourself a snake primary because you like snake primaries. And I'd be completely OK if you just chose snake as your primary and be done with it. But the question is not as easy for you, or you wouldn't be writing to me like this. You want the truth, and you are looking for it outside of yourself. That either means you're a bird, or whatever your primary was is burned, and you would like to build a snake model because it would give you protection from what burned you.

When i started to become an adult, which I don't think that process is over yet, I found out for myself, that I can say just for the spite of it, because someone expects someone like me with the vibe and face that I have to say yes.

Saying no and protecting boundaries is extremely important.

Don't worry, I think I was sorted as every house except badger secondary, so that's a plus right? I feel something familiar looking back at me from both burned badgers, but I'm probably called by a burned house status and feelings of carrying it, rather than the house itself. You'll probably never see me wanting to work on anything hard, and a thought of looking at every person and seeing them as much valuable to you and your world as your family or your friends, being loyal to them and being kind gives me chills somehow. How can you be loyal to what constantly betrays you?

And that's what makes me think burned badger, or idealist whose badger values burned away. You got betrayed by humanity somehow, and snake primary feels safe, because you only have to be loyal to a few people you can vet and choose.

Only family has that privilege, not even friends. Family already trains at least some of us that our boundaries can be crossed, not even friends get this kind of treatment, but it's unhealthy so let's just keep it in the family shall we.

That's deeply sad, nonny. It feels like your family destroyed something vital in you, and I hope you can reclaim whatever it is. If thinking of yourself as a snake helps, then you're a snake, and very welcome in the snake pit. We'll get you your starter kit right away, and somewhere around there's always milk and cookies. If thinking through this some more, and figuring out if you really are a burned badger or burned idealist will help, and then how to unburn, the shc community is helpful there, too. There's no wrong choice here, nonny.

Yeah, snakes are nice and cool, hands down. I'm probably some kind of idealist and it sucks a little bit. Excuse me for all of the curse words I used.

They're not so bad. Three of my people are idealists, probably four, two are badgers, and only my mum is a snake. We as persons and the world in general needs both, big-picture and small-scale thinking, abstract and concrete moralities. And the best part for idealists is that they can adopt any belief, so they can also look and feel like snakes if they want to.

I hope your cup of chamomile tea is still warm or just about to be made. Get well soon, okay?

Doing my best. That reminds me, need to make another pot. Thanks, nonny <3

#sortinghatchats #ask answers #snake primary

[laufire]

The funny thing about Bela and Charlie is that Bela is a Snake Secondary and nothing about her feels fake while Charlie doesn’t feel natural (though I don’t know how you sorted her).

Bela spends most of her time onscreen pulling some con or another, is introduced to us IN DISGUISE, and only reveals herself (to the audience, NOT any other character) in her final moments, and yet everything about her feels genuine and personal and unique to her. She opened up new avenues in the 'verse, and istg other writers tried to recapture her je ne se quoi later on, largely failing.

Charlie is supposed to be this super spontaneous gal that fits seamlessly with the characters and is adored by all of them instantly and yet she sticks out to me like a sore thumb (a complaint that some fans had against BELA, which is hilarious xD, especially as her last chapter contradicted every single one of their arguments).

I think part of it is a early seasons vs. later seasons problem. It doesn't happen with every one, but, here's the thing: for all the problems of the Kripke era when it came to secondary characters, I think the vast majority of them feel like they have their own story, that they're not just add-ons to the Winchester's -even those that are treated terribly by the narrative. Meanwhile, there are too many characters post-s5 where I get the feeling they stop existing once the brothers leave the scene, EVEN when we hear a sentence to tell us what they've done in the meantime xD

Another issue is that... well, Charlie is EXTREMELY manufactured, more than your typical character (everyone is manufactured xD). She was tailored to please the audience: cool agreeable nerd girl who favours Dean, is a lesbian aka not a romantic threat, a bit of a dog when it comes to women but in a fun!! way!!!... etc. etc.

Regarding her sorting... I'd have to rewatch to be sure, but I'm inclined to say she's a Bird secondary. I go between Lion or Bird primary, but rn I'm favouring the first one. Her hunger for adventure, specifically to have her own Hero Journey in the Oz episode... that's a very Lion fantasy LMAO.

But like I said, I have to rewatch (her & apocalypse!Charlie's scenes too, because most doubles I see house-share even when they're very different). Double Bird is still a possibility, and it'd be interesting because in that case, she and Rowena are the only example I can think of where Double Birds interact. It's interesting, especially as that scene (+ her incredibly self-centered way to see hunting/her potential hero journey, with her excitement at the idea that travelling to Oz could be dangerous -"promise?") are the two moments in her entire journey where she felt real to me.

#anonymous #replies #talking to the void #my thoughts #spn thoughts #bela talbot #anticharliebradbury for ts #just in case ig #i'd self reblog with her name to keep my tags in order #supernatural #the writing tm #sortinghatchats

[sortinghatchats]

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

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

INTERNAL

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

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

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

EXTERNAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#Anonymous

[magpie-of-a-birb]

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

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

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

Patton

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

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

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

His performance is exploding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Logan

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

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

Virgil

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

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

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

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

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

Anyways-

Roman

LION BIRD LION BIRD LION BIRD

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

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

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

Remus

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

Janus

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

Bonus sort: Thomas

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

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

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

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

In Conclusion:

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

Logan: double bird

Virgil: lion bird

Roman: lion (glory hound variant) bird

Remus: lion (fey/horizon variant) snake

Janus: double snake

Thomas: badger bird with a possible badger secondary model

#magpie speaks #magpie sorts #sanders sides #patton sanders #logan sanders #virgil sanders #roman sanders #remus sanders #janus sanders #thomas sanders #long post #tw long post #sortinghatchats

[repetitionsings]

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

43. Favourite SHC hero-antagonist dynamic

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

44. Favourite SHC sibling dynamic

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

58. Sorting most likely to be a spy

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

#sorting hat chats #til binary systems run #askbox games