I Understand the Principles of the Wakefield Doctrine…what now?

 

Lets start at the beginning and work from there.

Number One (#1) Most Important Fact about the use of the Wakefield Doctrine: this is for you, not for them

Share

clarkscottroger About clarkscottroger
Well, what exactly do you want to know? Whether I am a clark or a scott or roger? If you have to ask, then you need to keep reading the Posts for two reasons: a)to get a clear enough understanding to be able to make the determination of which type I am and 2) to realize that by definition I am all three.* *which is true for you as well, all three...but mostly one

Comments

  1. Downspring#1 says:

    scotts “appear” to understand clarks but in actuality do not. Not really.
    Yes, there is an affinity between clarks and scotts but it is more a recognition/acknowledgement of/by the clark to the scott
    as opposed to the scott to the clark.

    rogers are sometimes more genuine in their “I just don’t get it, but whatever” attitude towards clarks.

    It is continuous learning, the Wakefield Doctrine. Understanding interpersonal relationships has the potential to reveal/teach us about ourselves and…..those scotts and rogers…..

  2. AKH says:

    I agree that there is a kinship between clarks and scotts. In terms of who acknowledges whom it is important to keep in mind the difference between the two. Clarks think, scotts act. Scotts are not necessarily prone to the acknowledgement of others. They are too focused on themselves.

    It has been my experience (on those Saturday night forays with 2 scotts and a clark) that if a clark is “stuck” between 2 or more scotts, the scotts tend to bring out the scottian side of the clarks. It is actually very amusing to watch.

  3. clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

    …oh! there you are…saw the Comment come in, did not look over here in your corner first…lol

    I would suggest that scotts find clarks interesting simlpy because a) scotts don’t understand what we are , not food like a roger, not competition like a(nother) scott and b) you sense that it might not quite be safe to ignore us (or as much fun).

    The ‘more scottian‘ thing is some of what you suggest, but also adaptation, i.e. clarks will adapt to their surroundings which means, in the company of rogers, we would tend to become more rogerian.

    And, then of course there is the basic idea, we all have the three potentials, so a scott will cause not only a person’s scottian potential to resonate, but their rogerian and clarklike sides to respond.

  4. Downspring#1 says:

    All true statements sir. The implication here is that clarks, being the chameleons of the 3, are the only ones to “resonate” to any degree.
    scotts are about dominance, rogers about assimilation and clarks evolution…..

© 2009-2017 Francis Clark Farley All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright