This is a draft of a piece I’m working on about not-yet conventional ways of validating chart information, your own as well as other people’s.
A caveat is that these don’t work all the time, although using several together can be a powerful tool. Validating the chart of someone with opposite influences is especially tricky. For example, a king with a discarnate server essence twin and artisan casting does not look as kingly as a king with a warrior ET and scholar casting. Still, if a person is a king, that should be evident, at least eventually. Also, if a person’s secondary traits mostly line up with another role, that can be hard to sort out without channeling, such as an artisan with a scholar ET, double scholar casting, and neutral overleaves.
This may seem obvious, but in my experience, few people explore this all the way through:
Your role is your primary way of being, the most core thing about you. To determine whether your primary way of being is inspirational, expressive, active, or assimilative, consider which trait would cause you the most suffering if you had to do without it. Would the worst thing for you be the inability to feel inspired and inspire others? Or would not being able to express yourself be worse? Do you chafe most when you can’t act? Or do you languish when you have little to assimilate?
If you’re clear on the axis, then you need to validate whether you’re cardinal or ordinal (other than for the assimilation axis).
The progression from ordinal to cardinal increases the compression of soul energy. Servers are the least compressed and therefore generally the easiest to be around, in the sense of their energy not demanding much from you. Kings are the most compelling and commanding: being in their presence is galvanizing and stimulating--they make your blood run faster. If others rarely feel intimidated by you, you’re probably not a king.
As with all these litmus tests, you might have to factor out other influences, such as overleaves and imprinting. Again, with role we’re looking for the *core* influence. Many traits can make a person bossy, for example, other than the role of king, such as dominance, power, or aggression.
WHAT IS VALUED MOST
Sages value insight (why), whereas scholars value information (what).
Servers need to be needed. Priests need to make a substantial difference in the lives of others.
Warriors must do. Kings crave large accomplishment.
Artisans are compelled to create or rearrange forms; scholars like to analyze and understand them. (People like engineers often have both artisan and scholar influences.)
Which of the seven roles’ negative poles is most true of you at your worst? Negative poles are more obvious than positive. If you don’t sometimes get coercive at your worst, you’re probably not a warrior, unless you’ve already done a lot of work on that tendency. Of course, the negative poles of overleaves and the chief obstacle also play a part. The negative pole of power mode, oppression, superficially looks similar but comes from a different place.
How many do you have? Do you ever have a sense of more than one thing going on in you at the same time? If so, you probably have more than one.
Are you continually trying to unite your current reality with either the common or higher good? If so, you are probably a server or priest.
How good are you at concentrating? Warriors and kings, with one input, don’t usually have much of a problem with it. It can be a serious problem for artisans and sages.
How much do you like adhering to rules and external structures, or imposing them? A scholar might love military school. It’s hard to imagine a sage or artisan loving it. Servers like rules that seem to be for the common good, or at least they can take them in stride.
Sages and artisans also tend to resent heavy-handedness from parents and bosses more than the other roles. A feather may work better for them than a two-by-four. Sages and artisans can benefit from some discipline but need less than the solid roles.
Warrior and king children tend to be a handful, and need strong structures. They challenge them ceaselessly, but, in the end, need them in order to feel safe. They respect shows of strength from others. Because sages and artisans are so sensitive, they are more likely to hate shows of strength and conflict in general.
WHO YOU’RE ATTRACTED TO
You can sometimes help validate a person’s role if the role of her/his partner is obvious. You often see the following pairings:
If, for example, you don’t tend to be attracted to servers and warriors, you’re probably not a king. If you don’t get crushes on artisans, you’re probably not a sage.
This is assuming positive-pole behavior; negative pole behaviors, by definition, get on your nerves. Orating sages, woebegone servers, and droning scholars, for instance, are less attractive even to their ideal mate material.
People are also often attracted to those who have the same role as their essence twin (ET). You don’t often see artisans mated to scholars except those with a scholar ET, which changes everything.
YOUR GUT REACTION
Observe your habitual reactions to the roles, whether it is instant attraction or something else. For example, as a sage with sage casting and some sage overleaves, I am almost always immediately comfortable with artisans. Sages think artisans are adorable. Warriors may think they’re flaky, although admiring what they can do. Priests and warriors, on the other hand, are likely to think scholars are adorable, cute, comfortable, or something else positive, whereas other roles are more likely to see them in their neutral light. Attraction is subjective, based on where we sit, how our energies interact with others’. Artisans, the #2 role, and sages, the #5, equal seven, and complete each other vibrationally. Artisans see sages as great playmates and stabilizers for them.
Warriors often feel the urge to kneel before kings. Artisans may feel the urge to flee them.
In general, the solid (one-input) roles are cooler and think of other solid roles as being strong, reliable, and having common sense. They may see the fluid roles as unstable, weak, or overly emotional.
The fluid roles are warmer and may think of the solid roles, especially warriors and kings, as being rigid and lacking in subtlety, maybe as arbitrary rule enforcers, while regarding other fluid roles as open and approachable.
Servers and scholars may be exceptions. Scholars like shades of gray, although they can be drier emotionally than the fluid roles. Servers are the most down-to-earth of the fluid roles.
Cardinal eyes are pointy; ordinal eyes are blunted; neutral eyes (scholars) are neither--I think of them as Van Gogh-ish.
King eyes could cut you like a knife. Both king and warrior eyes are cool and metallic. Blunt, earthy warrior eyes sometimes communicate “Don’t mess with me.”
Priest eyes are the second most pointed, being the second most cardinal. Priests get the most comments about their arresting, fiery eyes. Server eyes are warm and doe-like.
Sage eyes are pointed in a more intellectual, often amused way, and can twinkle. (Sage correlates with the higher intellectual center.) Artisan eyes have childlike expressiveness. Mediating between the warmth of inspiration (emotions) and the coolness of action, the expression roles are in between, but tilt warmer because they *express* emotions as well as thoughts.
Scholar eyes, like those of the other solid (one-input) roles, are also cooler, but can be especially influenced by bleedthrough and casting. A scholar with a discarnate priest essence twin looks like a watered-down priest. The neutrality of the role can manifest as a watered-down quality in general. Scholar eyes seemed filtered, as if observing behind sheer curtains. Those whose role I cannot figure out often turn out to be scholars. Priests with discarnate warrior ETs, and vice versa, are also hard for me to guess.
SMILES AND LAUGHS
Sages tend to laugh a lot and think many things are funny. Sages’ smiles are mischievous, a bit devilish, whereas artisan smiles are angelic.
Warrior smiles are earthy and hearty. They laugh a lot when playing, but are serious when working. Kings feel a lot of responsibility. They can be humorous in public when, say, doing public speaking, but be grave in private.
Priests and servers tend to be serious, although I’ve seen some notable exceptions (as with everything here). Having a sage or artisan ET and/or casting can especially lighten their temperament.
Sages have particularly expressive, often rubbery faces. Artisans range from serious to goofy. With their five inputs, artisans in their positive pole can often be radiant, which is not the same thing as the innate spirituality of the inspiration axis. Those with one input are much more able to shut down incoming stimuli than those with five or three. Artisan auras therefore tend to be expansive and diffuse; when filled with light, they are radiant. The solid roles’ auras tend to be close to the vest.
Warriors have flat, battering-ram faces. Kings have wedge-like faces.
Servers have sweet, sincere faces. Priests can be striking and soulful-looking.
Scholars run the gamut.
Warriors tend to have low voices, reflecting their being the lowest frequency role. Note especially female warriors with throaty, earthy voices. On the other hand, it’s not unusual to see female artisans, the highest frequency role, with particularly high voices. Secondary role influences make a difference, as always.
*SECONDARY ROLE INFLUENCES*
Often essence twin bleedthrough, especially when the ET is discarnate, and/or casting strike you first. Be careful of jumping to conclusions based on first impressions, and look deeper.
ET bleedthrough has the actual energy of the role as a secondary. Casting only has the flavor. For example, warrior bleedthrough imparts some of warriors’ instinctive drive and earthy life force, whereas warrior casting may make the person behave like a warrior (productive, practical, hard-working) but not *feel* like one very much.
Also, don’t judge a book by its cover, such as mistaking glasses for a scholar, a Roman nose for a king, or efficiency for a warrior. In addition, don’t be thrown off the scent by a sage who is relatively quiet--it happens. Look at the whole picture.
*MALE/FEMALE ENERGY RATIO*
High male energy, as that is defined by Michael through me, often results in workaholism.
High frequency, as that is defined by Michael through me, can be buzzy and effervescent, or quietly ethereal. Life experiences come faster.
People in reevaluation want to be alone more than is typical for their role and soul age. People in growth tend to be busy and focused on whatever might bring growth, rather than on the needs of others unless they are part of their growth.
Those in discrimination are sometimes stereotypically refined and even snooty, but many do it in more subtle ways. (In general, positive poles are harmonious and harder to spot; negative poles stick out like a sore thumb.)
Those in acceptance tend to be “nice guys” and are most concerned about the needs of others, which can look serverly. They also tend to try to learn social skills if they lack them, and may try too hard to be accepted and accepting. Being the sage goal, they try to help others get along and understand each other.
People in submission can be passive. They serve a specific cause or person rather than humanity in general. People in dominance tend to end up in charge whether or not they consciously want to be.
Lifetimes in flow can be a bit of this and a bit of that. It is often mistaken for acceptance, since both are easygoing. Flow makes for a lifetime in which things work out externally (like having a place to stay) when the person just lets go, whereas those in growth need to work harder at things, and those in acceptance often find themselves in “like it or lump it” situations.
External stresses more easily bounce off stoics, as if they were padded.
Spiritualist is one of the easiest overleaves to spot in the positive pole. It tends to impart a sweet, starry-eyed quality and soften the other overleaves.
Idealists also have a sunny, optimistic disposition, but are more active in trying to change to world to reflect their utopian views. It can make other roles look sagely.
Skeptics test information intellectually, whereas cynics test behaviors (expression vs. action).
Realists and pragmatists can be hard to tell apart, but they feel different. Realists feel factual; pragmatists feel utilitarian.
Reserve looks contained, classy, or gracious. Passion lets it all hang out, or at least makes little attempt to contain itself.
Caution puts on the brakes and can be debilitating in the negative pole (phobia). It can be wary. It’s the second-most common mode.
Power exudes, and feels cool. It can silently take over a room, whereas aggression does it through a lot of activity.
Aggression mode bares its teeth. The smile of someone in aggression is a giveaway.
Perseverance is dogged.
People in observation tend to stare, and seem neutral unless they slide a lot. It is the overleaf most slid from.
The eyes of emotionally centered people look wetter.
When intellectually centered people react, you can almost see the gears turning in their heads.
People in the physical center seem sexier--you can sense their body tingling in response to life.
Moving center is harder to spot, but those in it tend to be competent in dance and/or sports, and move more, although this can be confused with an active body type. Moving center paired with a predominantly passive body type is especially hard to identify.
Those in self-deprecation don’t destroy or martyr themselves but tend to sit out challenges they’d like to take on for lack of believing in themselves.
Arrogance feels self-protected and brittle.
Self-destruction vacillates between extreme self-discipline and losing it.
Greed feels an unfillable hole within, but can be ruthless in trying to fill it anyway.
Not everyone who talks like a martyr or victim (for example, who complains) is in martyrdom. Those in martyrdom deliberately take on (and often advertise) suffering in order to earn brownie points for the right to deserve benefits they fear they don’t. Some people who already feel pretty deserving advertise how they’ve been wronged to gain advantage, which is different. That can actually be stubbornness (perhaps tinged with martyrdom) asserting its correctness and unwillingness to see other points of view.
Those in impatience have a sense of (kingly) entitlement and push to the front of the line.
People in stubbornness erect a glass wall often invisible even to themselves. If pushed, they dig in their heels.
Lunars are the most unformed, pale and doughy.
Venusians are taking in sensual stimulation and attract that. They tend to have lush features.
Mercurials have taken in still more stimulation but haven’t totally integrated it, so they can be nervous. Limberness is their hallmark, since their newly formed muscles are young and flexible.
Saturnians have prominent bone structures and can have back and joint problems. They are reminiscent of lumberjacks.
Martials tend to be short, squat, ruddy, and muscular, like prize fighters. Their muscles are thick and developed.
Jovials are like overstuffed chairs, the most developed of the types, having it all: muscle, bone, and girth.
Solars are like hummingbirds. They are active and positive like saturnians, but slight.
Old souls feel casual, breezy, and relatively light (especially when stress levels are low). It’s the sage age.
Mature souls assimilate constantly. It’s the scholar age.
Young souls work hard. It’s the warrior age (and imparts a coolness even to warmer roles).
Baby souls take a relatively simple approach to life, emphasizing life’s basic structure (rather than filling in the details, like mature souls/scholars do).
Infant souls are easily overwhelmed by complexity. It is the server, stick-with-basics age.