#exploded bird primary

I have spent a long time thinking about this lady. Possibly too long. But here's what I've got.

She's a Bird. She *likes* Lion primaries, and she likes them in that way a lot of Birds do - Lions feel magical and moral and easy and good. That's why Gryffindor is her good-guy house, and that's why Gryffindors always get a pass when they do shady things. They were always doing it for good reasons, because that's just how Lion primaries are. They know what's good, just by kind of feeling it.

(obviously this isn't at all how it feels to be a Lion primary, but it can SEEM that way, if you're outside looking in.)

And so she likes Lion primaries, and surrounds herself with Lion primaries. And over time, seems to have filtered for the most fiery, if-you're-not-with-me-you're-my-enemy Exploded Lions imaginable. This could also be why she's not interrogating emotional pings when she really should. Like it's heartbreaking to read some of her essays - like, no JKR, that's not a reason, that's a trauma response you ought to be getting help for. But she thinks there's inherent goodness with going with your heart over your head.

Which is also probably why, for the last two decades, she's been slowly surrounding herself only with people who agree with her - effectively Exploding her own Bird primary. She is notoriously stubborn and difficult to work with, and I have that from first hand accounts... but just think how much better an editor could have made books 4-7. Or the Fantastic Beasts films. Or the Cursed Child (we all sort of collectively forgot about the Cursed Child.)

But I see the Bird! I see the Idealism, I see the mind that likes puzzles, and systems, and mysteries. And then I see her just kinda... be lazy about it. Not think though the implications. Be happy with only a very surface-level understanding. Not edit, or update, or interrogate her system. (We know that her worldbuilding is sloppy. We know she grabs existing problematic tropes and then kind of uses them as-is.)

The more I dig into to her, the more I'll come across bits of her system that just seem very... young. They'll be things like 'Good people have kids, or if they can't, then they take care of kids.' Or 'People with mobility aids are good.' That's one's so weird I just have to bring it up. It's very consistent, and comes with the reverse - 'People who use mobility aids they don't need are evil.' Barty Crouch jr. is the HP example, but that situation comes up like - a weird amount in her mystery novels.

(also, I can't prove it, but I think Lucius Malfoy got a much more sympathetic edit after Jason Isaacs started playing him with a cane. Of course that could also be just because... he has a kid... so he can't be BAD.)

Harry Potter, the character, is also very much a Bird Primary. When he acts on really strong emotions it's because they're - yep, trauma responses. Mostly he's trying to figure out his world, synthesize everything Dumbledore and the Weasleys and Hagrid and Sirius tell him, in order to build his own system.

And he's a really loud Lion secondary, the way I suspect JKR is too. Her response to all of this has just been to double down, do MORE, be LOUDER. If her royalties, or the reputation of her IP take a hit, she honestly does not seem to care.

the best way i can describe it is as playing sudoku. there are a few fixed points you start from--the numbers that are already written down--and you have to piece together and logic them out from there to get the full picture. not too bad, right?

except... it feels like i'm constantly swapping between puzzles. the fixed numbers you're working from are different from puzzle to puzzle, and so are the numbers you fill in the blanks with.

the three options you get from this are:

---

-refusing to ever play more than the one puzzle, which is how you get exploded bird. stagnating like that in a world that will always have more perspectives you hadn't considered is not good, for you or the people around you.

-embracing it and making zero effort to be consistent in your morals to any degree, the idea of which is upsetting and repulsive to me because down that path lies hypocrisy and untrustworthiness. it feels selfish, i don't at all like how easy it would be for me to give in to the urge, and it's a good way to make me lose all respect for someone.

-internalizing that all the different puzzles are part of a much larger puzzle, and you might just not see the connections between them yet, or know where to put them in relationship to each other on the board. this seems like the most realistic option to me, and the healthiest: accepting that there's potential to glean information from every system and digging for the fixed numbers lead to people building it, even if it's not at at all what the people who use that system want you to take away from it. not everything will make sense right away, and it's okay to be patient as you gather the knowledge and experience to look at something from the right angle to decide what it really means.

the problem is that this can result in

a) taking fucked up, harmful systems at face value and acting like they have equal validity as they are (hello centrism!)

b) being wishy-washy and refusing to do anything when people need you to act, because you believe all the systems fit together but you won't commit to one out of a misguided sense of humility

c) paralysis and scrupulosity over how you have to have it all figured out right away, oh god what if i get a detail wrong and harm people or let them down, i will never ever know how the pieces fit together but it's my duty to tear myself to shreds over it anyway. exploded bird, babey!

---

i struggle with all of the above, and it's just. frustrating. it feels like i'm a shapeshifter who's lost track of their original form, or maybe never had one in the first place, and i want to be able to say things with confidence for once without going 'ah god damn it' when my perspective changes the moment i commit to a point of view. :/

Being paralyzed by how much you don't know and unable to make a decision is a Bird primary thing (not knowing what to do can SOMETIMES be a Burnt Secondary thing, but in this context it seems it to be coming from the primary.)

The tricky thing always about sorting and identifying Birds is that they can build themselves a system that looks like pretty much anything, so you have to look at how they believe, how their beliefs are built, and how their beliefs change. Burnt Birds also have a way of looking like very miserable Lions... but yeah, this isn't an Exploded Lion ask. Exploded Lions don't doubt.

So, I’m fairly certain I’m likely a burnt badger with some bird tendencies, but as I have thought things through, I still wonder about that. The rest of my family all have badger and bird tendencies. I, myself, have a tendency to wear my heart on my sleeve and to love openly with the people around me. I’m usually the ‘team mom’ for my friends. 

Some Badger? Some Lion? 

But this said, I do struggle in groups, particularly large groups. Part of this, I’m sure, is just that I’m autistic, and grew up in a time where it was much harder for girls to get diagnosed. I didn’t have much in the way of a friend group in my early childhood, and tended to be ‘the friend everyone hates’ because I was the weird kid.

I know what it’s like to be the unfavorite friend. I *also* know what it’s like to find large groups difficult. For me it’s literally an auditory processing thing. I have a lot of trouble being around certain types of noise. But I love small groups of the right people, and pleasant environments! 

Even in my teens, I was ill at ease with my sole friend group in school, feeling like a bit of a third wheel at times. I took comfort in a fandom group on the internet, spending more time around adults in a Jedi community than around folks my own age.

Again, I can really, really relate. I went in a more Sherlock Holmes direction, but yeah. I imagine that there was probably a combination of things going on on that made it easier to make adult friends, but I’ve been there. 

I’m still friends with people I knew back then on that site. They encouraged me, in a way, to lean into my more birdish tendencies, as we spent a lot of time talking about philosophy, martial arts, religion, spirituality, and how all of this related to what it meant to be Jedi. When I started watching 'The West Wing’ in my teens, I got so into it that I also developed a fascination for American history and politics.

Just playing Devil’s Advocate here, but I haven’t read about any Birdish tendencies yet. Fun bird secondary model sure, and that’s super common for neurodivergent people. If anything, the focus on groups - in group, out-group, good group, is making me think Badger. 

Even prior to this, I had some admitted bird tendencies: I remember, in my final year of primary school, struggling to choose a project topic because I had so many different things I was interested in. I went from Shakespeare to medieval history to Victorian history to finally settling on Greek mythology.

Are you me? Even that list of topics is… very me. 

(this is still a fun bird model, though.)

I had educational computer games that I loved. I had books on earth sciences (I loved volcanoes and dinosaurs as a small child), and numerous iSpy and Dorling Kindersley books. Yet, all I wanted was to have friends. All I wanted was for people to like me. 

Oh my god. You’re making me think of high school me, and that persona I created that was deliberately impossible to be mean to. You wouldn’t be mean to me. That would be like kicking a puppy.

I tried – still try – so hard to be kind, to help where I can. Going to university and studying theology, I was in among older adults. I found it easier to talk to them. In our common room, we became something of a family. Going on, I’ve had a few friend groups in adulthood that had that same 'family’ feeling, although we always ended up drifting as life happened. I still have a small group of friends I consider to be my family.

You’re a really *loud* Badger secondary.   

hey!! so back in april i sent in a sortme submission, and you ultimately said that u think that i’m a slightly burnt lion primary + bird secondary (snake model). i just wanted to thank u again for taking the time to help me with that! but i just have some doubts still, and some more to say, i’m so sorry if it’s too much or all over the place!

i’ve always turned to other people in my life that i trusted and loved the most to help guide me in almost every situation, because i just get so indecisive, and i feel like i need an outside source to either affirm or deny my choice. but i feel like i usually end up going either with my gut feeling and feeling satisfied, or go with what “sounds” right but end up getting hurt.

If you didn’t say the thing about gut response, I would have described all this as Exploded *Bird.* If you really do feel better/safer/more satisfied going with your gut response, then that’s still a Lion. (Although I’m keeping open the possibility that you’re a Bird who thinks they need to be a Lion for some reason.)

but either way i just feel so guilty, like i can’t help wondering if i made the wrong choice or if i can turn around and choose the other one. so i feel like the whole process is just very burnt lion-y.

It does, yeah.

also, when i said that i felt like everyone develops some sort of improvisational model as an adult, i actually meant to say foundational (i think that’s the term?) secondary models.

I think you wrote the first submission early enough that the terms were still in flux. If you meant to say that you think all adults have learned to model built/prepwork secondaries, that’s completely different, and skews me in the direction of thinking that your Bird secondary might in fact be a model.

also, on my bird secondary, i feel like i might have some lion in there? when i was young, i was quite shy, but when i would get comfortable enough i wouldn’t think as much before i acted. 

That’s a human thing, but I’ll keep an eye on it. 

and then in middle and hs, there was this internal struggle of not being comfortable enough around certain people to be outgoing and social, to show that side of me to others, and i would be jealous seeing other people just be themselves so easily. 

This specific thing most likely relates back to your Burnt primary. Burnt Lion are often jealous of un-Burnt Lions, that’s a thing. 

A Lion primary burns because they are cut off from their ability to FEEL. A Bird primary burns because they are cut off from their ability to THINK. 

That’s why so many people are using “cult” as a go-to example for Burned Bird. Cults are that way - don’t ask questions, don’t think about it too hard, we promise it’ll all make sense eventually. This is also why Inspector Javert is such a good example of a Burned Bird. Fundamentally, he doesn’t trust his ability to reason. He is good so long as he follows the letter of the Law exactly. He cannot edit or adapt or even question his system, and when he realizes it’s flawed he shatters. 

In the same way that Burned Lions can look like stressed-out Birds  (forced to a rely on an outside system when all they want to do is follow their gut) Burned Birds can look like extremely stressed-out Lions (trying to be happy doing something just Because It’s Right, when really they want some ability to check their math.) 

An Exploded Lion is someone who has leaned too far into their primary and cut off their ability to grow and change. Their way is Right and Correct because it JUST IS and if you don’t feel that way you are the enemy. There’s a persecution complex to the Exploded Lion. People who disagree are Out To Get Them. 

In the same way, an Exploded Bird is someone who has broken their ability to take in new information. Either they are taking in everything, discounting nothing and getting stressed and overwhelmed (think Chidi from The Good Place) OR they find ways to discount any new info that contradicts their system. Think Conspiracy Theorist. There are a million ways to debunk “the moon landing was fake” but none of those sources count because they’re government lies, or fake news, or Illuminati lobbyists or whatever. Exploded Birds go hard for the Ad Hominem fallacy: I disagree with a piece of data, because I disagree with its source as a whole. 

I was having a shite time with understanding myself, trying to get why kid!me and current!me seem like such different people. The part about a Lion system changing to a (Burnt) Badger one? That explains So Much.

You know, I was filled with so much joy when I read this though, looking back at my life and seeing it through the lens of my Sorting, and suddenly everything’s so clear. I love the feeling of understanding after months of frustration.

And IDK why I didn’t consider Exploded Bird earlier, I went back and read the description and damn if it doesn’t fit me to a T. I think, the first time I read it I was too repulsed by the other type of Exploded Bird (conspiracy theorist) and just, having a mini crisis as I parsed through all my decisions and convictions to confirm that I wasn’t one. They make me super uncomfortable.

Lion Sec is obvious in hindsight, but they’ve always seemed too powerful and confident for me. I really do feel stifled in my current situation, unable to be truthful without the atmosphere at home becoming unbearable. Being bullied in the past hasn’t exactly helped either, I hate keeping my head down but there are times when I feel like it’s the only choice. I am trying to become bolder so that I may, one day, live unapologetically.

After I sent that Sort Me post, I had started changing my values to more Lion ones. But I really do like Badger morals, so I think I’ll instead focus on unburning that. And after that’s done, try to find a way to mend that exploded Bird Pri.

Also, sidenote, I read about Bird Lions becoming temporarily catatonic after their entire worldview being shaken, and damn if that wasn’t me after my sister told me about the Brain in a Vat theory. Bit extreme, but I spent  m o n t h s  trying to recover. Currently, I have a love/hate relationship with Philosophy.

Thanks for the lovely note, Bird Lion. It helps putting words to this stuff, and I love that I could help with that a little. I like your plan. It’s a good plan. And you’re right, Exploded Birds *are* tricky. Exploded Lions have a very distinct *look* to them, and so do Exploded Badgers etc. But Exploded Birds can make themselves nuts taking in all the information - or none of the information - and that looks very different from the conspiracy theorist type who has picked only *one* source to trust.

So I was thinking about Exploded Primaries in general and Nico di Angelo (from the Percy Jackson books) in particular, and it seems to me that fictional Exploded Lions and Snakes are likely to be at least somewhat antagonistic, Exploded Birds can go either way, but Exploded Badgers are more likely to be protagonists.

Exploded Lions are likely to trample over other people in their haste to do stuff for their Cause, which tends to make them disliked by the fandom even if they’re mostly meant to be “good guys” (e.g. Dumbledore).

Exploded Snakes tend to have that creepy stalker obsessiveness with their People (e.g. Snape) which also tends to make them disliked, although now that I’m rereading @swearingintengwar’s initial post about exploded houses it doesn’t mention obsession, just us-versus-them mentality

An Exploded Bird who is stuck in inertia probably isn’t doing much plot-wise, but I could see a Bird Primary sinking into inertia and then getting out of it as part of either a redemption arc or a fall into darkness. A Javert-style Exploded Bird who refuses to rethink their worldview is probably an antagonist for similar reasons to an Exploded Lion.

Exploded Badgers, on the other hand, seem to mostly be (unhealthy) protagonists, probably because “giving too much to other people” is something society usually considers good albeit misguided. E.g. the aforementioned Nico is definitely an Exploded Badger during House of Hades and Blood of Olympus, although he seems to have healed his primary between Blood of Olympus and the Trials of Apollo series (thank you, Will). I’m sure an author could write an antagonist who dehumanizes large groups of people and then puts too much of themselves into antagonistic causes, but that seems a lot less common.

But maybe this is me being biased (being a Badger myself) or just because I’m not thinking of counterexamples? Was wondering what you thought.