That certainly was different…perhaps a way of ‘letting off steam’ or even just having fun, nothing says this blog has to be all serious. But our task remains, the goal of this blog remains ever the same: to present the Wakefield Doctrine (aka the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) in a way that is easy to understand and allows you, the Reader, to apply (it’s) principles to your daily life.
I believe it was in the (…you do not want to look down) Post…we said that we will be focusing on each of the three types, one Post for each. First up: clarks.
To begin, this Post will not be about clarks in the sense of what they are, or how to spot them or even (their) characteristics. This Post is concerned with clarks from the perspective of how they relate to this Wakefield Doctrine thing. A clark reading this blog will be curious and will read much of the material, but they will do this in order to compare what the Doctrine is to the system they already have in place. Information is the central feature in the world of the clarks.
(A little dry, but then we are talking about clarks…) but stay with us here. This Post and the two to follow will be of value to us in answering the question: ‘how do I get through to a clark (or a scott or a roger)?’
Put another way, spotting a roger or a scott or a clark is pretty simple. But, ‘speaking the language’ of these three types of people is not so simple.
Our challenge is to learn to communicate with the other(s) in their language, on their terms.
A clark talking to a scott will sound like a clark (to that scott). But it is possible for that clark to speak to the scott in the ‘scottian language’.
Of course, we are not talking about ‘languages’ in the everyday sense and it is more about being able to perceive reality as the other does.
If you can do that, you will automatically speak their language.
Lets try this: you’re a clark (come back scott, come back lol), you are standing in a room full of people at some social function. Being a clark, you are standing in a corner and you are looking around and listening to everyone, trying to learn what is expected of you. Into the room comes a scott, who immediately begins to ‘work the room’, going from person to person, establishing ranking and locating food. This scott does not need to learn (what is expected of them), they simply need to act. To survive.
If you, (a clark) goes up to this scott and offers information, you will be identified as a clark. To the scottian brain: you are not a competitor and you are not food. The scott will be cautious, until you are identified to the scotts satisfaction)
But, suppose for a minute, you could speak scottian, the language of a scott. What do you suppose the difference would be?
You would not be offering information, for a start. And you would not be trying co-operate with this (scott). You would simply communicate with the scott directly.
(Now, the clarks out there reading this are leaping ahead of this little example…the implications of switching perspective to that of the other….hold up clarkies…lets try to bring along the rogers and scotts…they are not running out ahead on this one…)
So you go up to the scott and first and foremost demand their attention. You become a scott.
Let’s just put it this way: the Wakefield Doctrine can provide you with enough information/perspective/encouragement to enable you to perceive the world as the other two types do and, by doing this, you will be able to communicate with them more effectively. Totally.
Of course, if you do this you may find that the message that you are trying to convey to the other person is changed by the fact that you are seeing the world differently. But that is a Post length topic in and of itself. In the following Posts we will consider this changing of the message effect that comes when we see the world through the eyes of another. This will be most difficult to the scotts and the rogers, but hey if this were easy I would be on TV by now.
Lets finish with a little (more) music.