‘Re-Run Thursday’ …when once is not enough, the Wakefield Doctrine system of self-development | the Wakefield Doctrine ‘Re-Run Thursday’ …when once is not enough, the Wakefield Doctrine system of self-development | the Wakefield Doctrine

‘Re-Run Thursday’ …when once is not enough, the Wakefield Doctrine system of self-development

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers )

You know that ‘widget’ thing to the right of (this) page, the one that shows visitors to the site?  It not only tells us when the visitor arrived and from what part of the world, it also indicates which Post they came to read.

Below are excerpts from the most popular Posts as indicated by the choice of the Readers today…. Re-run Thursday

When it comes to religion and the three personality types of the Wakefield Doctrine, the answer boils down to two words:  rogers!  It is not just that rogers are the personality type that is drawn to religion, they are the ones responsible for inventing it, in the first place!  This link between the rogerian personality type and religion is so strong as to be near fundamental to the rogerian worldview.

As we do know, that it is axiomatic to the rogerian worldview that there be such a thing as organised religion. This is because rogers have the need  not only to establish rules and order, but to have these rules posess a degree of moral imperative that can only derive from a deity or deities.

If rogers have the baseline lock on organised religion, where does that leave our other two personality types? The genius of the Wakefield Doctrine, is found in the fact that the answer (to this and any other question) lies in the perception of the world that clarks and scotts have as their realities. If you consider the nature of the world that the clark or the scott is perceiving, you will appreciate the value and role that a major life feature like religion holds in their respective worldviews.

clarks?
, they’re easy! clarks believe in the un-believeable, unfortunately this ability prevents them from ever having complete faith in anything. In matters pertaining to religious dogma, clarks will give convincing lip service, in particular the clarklike female with a family. She will tend to conform to the local norms for religious activities, as much in response to the need to not stand out as to wanting to join in with the group. Odds are, even these devoutly religious clarkmoms will be filling their children’s heads with all sorts of apostolic nonsense at various points in their upbringing. In the final analysis, most clarks will confess to a definite spiritual tropism, but if you decide to talk to a clark (about their religious views) it would be best to  have a thesaurus and a comfortable chair nearby! If you read the page on clarks, you will learn that one of the primary characteristics of this personality type is the love of knowledge…useful knowledge…useless knowledge, knowledge for good and knowledge to anger people, does not matter to your typical clark.   So as to organised religion, lets put the clarks in the woman’s auxiliary section.

scotts?
 ,  scotts  totally relate to religion, even organised religion! It might be better to say that scotts relate to the ‘product’,  the result, if you will,  of organised religion.
(To digress for a moment) …there was (maybe still is) a restaurant in Manhatten  called The Automat,  that was totally mechanised.  The Automat’s ‘hook’, it’s theme, was to offer a variety of  foods to customers without the intermediary, i.e. a waiter or waitress, all the menu choices were on display, make your choice and take your food. (Think: jukebox for food service).
….down through mankind’s oft troubled history, organised religions have basically served as Automat for scotts.

  • hey scott! bored and want to stir up some excitement?….we got your Crusades, right here!!
  • hey scott, stuck in an agrarian culture, nothing to do…why not pitch a tent and have a ‘ole down-home’ revial meetin
  • oh, scott! you are soo stuck in a modern civilized society…had you given any thought to perhaps joining the priesthood?

You know what we mean. scotts have no use for religions (organised or otherwise) other than (it’s) effect of organising people into groups, … you know, herds.

…..and the maître d’hôtel,  Monsieur Roehger will be right with you….

The beauty part of the Wakefield Doctrine is that it is predicated on the individual’s perception of the world, as a personality theory, in a sense, it is not about you, it is about the world. Rather than have you read a list of behaviors, traits and tendencies, we simply say, “tell us what the world looks like to you and we can tell you which of the three types of personality you are,  a clark or a scott or a roger.”
The character of the world that the 3 personality types of the Wakefield Doctrine encounter each and every day described in this short list.

( To you, the world appears):

  • a puzzle, full of things that are interesting and people who are relating to each other in a way that is just out of reach, almost but not quite understandable
  • a challenge, invigorating, everything and everyone is in motion, every detail is important if it is moving towards you, so does not matter if it is moving away…
  • makes sense, what are you saying, what is the world like? it is that it is..
  • full of people, they sound like people you could relate to if only you knew more
  • food, shelter, sex
  • tradition, stability, continuity
  • where the joy of life lies in the simple things, the hunt…the chase…the pre-kill…the kill…
  • knowledge like a crossword puzzle, you know everything is supposed to fit together, you really don’t think they put in random pieces, but sometimes….maybe they did…
  • the beauty of  people as they learn about how they can work together and that rules when followed are not rules, they are as it must have been meant to be…

How you relate to this ‘descriptions’ of the world will tell you if you are a clark or a scott or a roger*. Knowing which you are will not change anything, and ‘getting it wrong’ will not change anything and will not prevent you from using this personality theory to your own advantage.  What it will do is provide you with an insight into how others experience the world.

So there you have it!  The Doctrine (times) 2 (repeated)…

If you have any questions or have long harbored an inner certainty that if only you had the proper hat covering your (damn) head, that things would be different, better…then pick up that keyboard and write us a Comment. If you do, we will send you a (nearly free) Wakefield Doctrine hat (for your damn head).   …and from that point forward your life will improve in ways you can barely imagine.

*The Wakefield Doctrine maintains that while we are all predominately a clark or a scott or a roger, we never lose the capacity to see the world as the other two. Because of this people sometimes feel that they are 2 or even three types at once…in a sense we are…but it is the predominant view of the world that makes us a clark or a scott or a roger.

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. Molly Molly M. says:

    Speaking of mixed up beliefs, this conversation just took place in my home:
    Child: Mom, do you know all ten commandments?
    Me: Not off the top of my head, why?
    Child: Well I know there is one about the right to remain silent — not having to testify against yourself.
    Me: That’s the fifth amendment…
    Child: Oh, well it is good thing to follow, isn’t it?

    And I disagree about knowing not changing anything… You wouldn’t be writing this blog if knowing didn’t change things. And I KNOW that knowing has changed some things for me.

  2. clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

    …alas, my poor execution of (an) intent to convey to the Reader (in particular, new Readers) that it is all right to experiment and ‘try out’ this clark, scott, roger thing without the worry that they might ‘get it wrong’.

    My intent was to say, “hey look, this is simple but when you first try to see how it fits (in your world) don’t worry about getting it correct the first time out, ’cause if you label yourself or someone else wrong…nothing is going to change

    My underlying assumption, based on feedback over the last 2 years, is that while many people come to this site and read about this Doctrine and see our requests that they write a Comment…most do not.
    You, Molly are the exception (along with Ms AKH and the other FOTDs) in that you were willing to say something…outloud and thereby participate. We are glad you did. But I have heard from reliable sources that some people feel, …intimidated or concerned or whatever the word is… they (these ‘sources’) also say that the tone of the blog sometimes engenders in the casual Reader, a feeling of, ‘ wow! cool theory…but what if I write a Comment and get it wrong?‘*

    It is to these Readers I wrote the mis-formed thought about (how) knowing will not change things…those of us who do know, are quite aware that knowing something like the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine does everything except not change things..

    * I probably didn’t help when I kept using the joke, when inviting people to write in for answers to their questions, “Hey! Come on, write to us. Remember there are no stupid questions, just your questions.”

    ha ha**

    (** in the interest of full disclosure I still find that funny, but then again, I am a clark)