I started the test but then I super confused myself so I started again xD
After much contemplation, it felt the truest for me that I model Ravenclaw primary and a burned Gryffindor primary
Ravenclaw Primaries have a constructed system that they test their decisions against before they feel comfortable calling something right. This system might be constructed by them, or it might have been taught to them as children, or it might have been discovered by them some point later in life (a philosophy, a culture, a legal system, a religion, a story). But it gives them a way to frame the world and a confidence in their ability to interact with it morally.
Ravenclaws do not lack an intuitive sense of morality or gut feeling about things, but they distrust those instincts and have a need to ignore or to dig down deep and dissect those internal moral impulses. Living within their built moral system is as important to a Ravenclaw as to a Gryffindor; it’s the source of the morality that differs between them– what they trust.
Ravenclaw House is the house of logic and knowledge, and Ravenclaws use those values to help them determine what the right thing to do is. If you model Ravenclaw Primary, you also value these things and like to live by them-- but you wouldn't feel guilty for ignoring what your logic tells you in the service of your own priorities (whether that's sticking by your chosen family, preserving your community values, or crusading after a cause that calls to you). But you'd like to value the structured morality of a Ravenclaw. It's good, solid, and satisfying. It would be nice if the world was simple enough you could solve it with logic alone-- but you have other, most "felt" motivations and morals to fall back on.
Gryffindor Primaries trust their moral intuitions and have a need and a drive to live by them. They feel what’s right in their gut, and that matters and guides them. If they don’t listen to and act on that, it feels immoral.
We call Gryffindor morality “felt” but that doesn’t mean they’re all impetuous, emotional hellions. Gryffindors can still be intelligent, deliberate creatures who weigh their decisions and moralities carefully. Reasoning, intellectualizing and debate can be support for a Gryffindor’s felt morality– but those things can never make a fully satisfying morality in themselves. Some things are just wrong, no matter what pretty words you use to explain them.
A burned Gryffindor still thinks it’s important to try to do the right thing. They just have some doubts, insecurities, or cynicism around the idea that anyone can know what “right” is. The world would be easier if they could trust their gut, but they know they can’t. They still strive to do what they can, and often build a constructed morality system (or adopt an external legal, philosophical, or religious code) in order to live as well as possible. But unlike a Ravenclaw Primary, who would be satisfied and righteous using this external system, a burned Gryffindor will always be disappointed and even guilty using this out-sourced moral system.
The secondary was easier and I got Ravenclaw which sounds pretty close to me!
Ravenclaws are collectors. Dedicated to knowledge, to facts, systems, tools, or skills, the things they have already learned are what they call on when things get tough. They can collect useful skills, build complex clever systems, invent vitally useful things, or just learn everything there is to know about the birds of South America.
Ravenclaws’ efficacy often relies on what situation they are in: what the problem is they have to solve and whether or not they’ve prepared the proper tools for that problem. While Hufflepuffs and Gryffindors can apply their skills at stockpiling trust or inspiring passion to attack various situations, Ravenclaws’ tools are necessarily task specific. Do they know how to ride horses? Speak Greek? Do they have contingency plans for earthquakes, zombie apocalypses, or a surprise visit from the in-laws?
If they’ve already built themselves a tool set for a situation, they’re likely to excel at it. If they have not, they’re likely to blink a few times while they try to either invent something new for themselves or to cobble up something approximate from their existing resources.
Ravenclaws, like Hufflepuff Secondaries, are at their best when they can prepare before the problems show up, not improvise or invent in the moment. Where Hufflepuffs invest in reputation, community, and effort, Ravenclaws invest in tools. These tools can vary from detailed knowledge of modern Romance languages, Mesopotamian history, Gothic architecture, and US civil court legal procedures; or mastering the skills of carjacking, gourmet vegan cooking, juggling, and staying level-headed in crisis; or keeping internal (or external) databases on their friends’, allies’, and enemies’ likes, dislikes, connections, obligations, fears, weaknesses, strengths, and goals. Some of these are more useful than others. Ravenclaws can collect their tools with the aim of eventual usefulness, but are likely to also collect knowledge just for the sake of knowledge.
set by MJ
After much contemplation, it felt the truest for me that I model Ravenclaw primary and a burned Gryffindor primary
Ravenclaw Primaries have a constructed system that they test their decisions against before they feel comfortable calling something right. This system might be constructed by them, or it might have been taught to them as children, or it might have been discovered by them some point later in life (a philosophy, a culture, a legal system, a religion, a story). But it gives them a way to frame the world and a confidence in their ability to interact with it morally.
Ravenclaws do not lack an intuitive sense of morality or gut feeling about things, but they distrust those instincts and have a need to ignore or to dig down deep and dissect those internal moral impulses. Living within their built moral system is as important to a Ravenclaw as to a Gryffindor; it’s the source of the morality that differs between them– what they trust.
Ravenclaw House is the house of logic and knowledge, and Ravenclaws use those values to help them determine what the right thing to do is. If you model Ravenclaw Primary, you also value these things and like to live by them-- but you wouldn't feel guilty for ignoring what your logic tells you in the service of your own priorities (whether that's sticking by your chosen family, preserving your community values, or crusading after a cause that calls to you). But you'd like to value the structured morality of a Ravenclaw. It's good, solid, and satisfying. It would be nice if the world was simple enough you could solve it with logic alone-- but you have other, most "felt" motivations and morals to fall back on.
Gryffindor Primaries trust their moral intuitions and have a need and a drive to live by them. They feel what’s right in their gut, and that matters and guides them. If they don’t listen to and act on that, it feels immoral.
We call Gryffindor morality “felt” but that doesn’t mean they’re all impetuous, emotional hellions. Gryffindors can still be intelligent, deliberate creatures who weigh their decisions and moralities carefully. Reasoning, intellectualizing and debate can be support for a Gryffindor’s felt morality– but those things can never make a fully satisfying morality in themselves. Some things are just wrong, no matter what pretty words you use to explain them.
A burned Gryffindor still thinks it’s important to try to do the right thing. They just have some doubts, insecurities, or cynicism around the idea that anyone can know what “right” is. The world would be easier if they could trust their gut, but they know they can’t. They still strive to do what they can, and often build a constructed morality system (or adopt an external legal, philosophical, or religious code) in order to live as well as possible. But unlike a Ravenclaw Primary, who would be satisfied and righteous using this external system, a burned Gryffindor will always be disappointed and even guilty using this out-sourced moral system.
The secondary was easier and I got Ravenclaw which sounds pretty close to me!
Ravenclaws are collectors. Dedicated to knowledge, to facts, systems, tools, or skills, the things they have already learned are what they call on when things get tough. They can collect useful skills, build complex clever systems, invent vitally useful things, or just learn everything there is to know about the birds of South America.
Ravenclaws’ efficacy often relies on what situation they are in: what the problem is they have to solve and whether or not they’ve prepared the proper tools for that problem. While Hufflepuffs and Gryffindors can apply their skills at stockpiling trust or inspiring passion to attack various situations, Ravenclaws’ tools are necessarily task specific. Do they know how to ride horses? Speak Greek? Do they have contingency plans for earthquakes, zombie apocalypses, or a surprise visit from the in-laws?
If they’ve already built themselves a tool set for a situation, they’re likely to excel at it. If they have not, they’re likely to blink a few times while they try to either invent something new for themselves or to cobble up something approximate from their existing resources.
Ravenclaws, like Hufflepuff Secondaries, are at their best when they can prepare before the problems show up, not improvise or invent in the moment. Where Hufflepuffs invest in reputation, community, and effort, Ravenclaws invest in tools. These tools can vary from detailed knowledge of modern Romance languages, Mesopotamian history, Gothic architecture, and US civil court legal procedures; or mastering the skills of carjacking, gourmet vegan cooking, juggling, and staying level-headed in crisis; or keeping internal (or external) databases on their friends’, allies’, and enemies’ likes, dislikes, connections, obligations, fears, weaknesses, strengths, and goals. Some of these are more useful than others. Ravenclaws can collect their tools with the aim of eventual usefulness, but are likely to also collect knowledge just for the sake of knowledge.
set by MJ