Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers )
Today’s Post is a bit on the technical/exploratory side…but we have a very enjoyable video at the end.
OK: First thing. Key to this blog making sense, working, holding together and otherwise being valuable, is this concept:
a) We all have individual realities, call them worldviews, frames of reference, but they are our realities. Nothing weird, the world at large is still the same and we all agree on all the big things, i.e. the law of gravity, the ocean is wet, yodeling sucks and there is room for improvement in all our individual lives. But when we say worldview or individual realities we are talking about how the world looks from inside your head. Real as real. Not ‘pretend you think it is one thing, knowing it is something else.’ Real.
2) everyone’s personal reality/worldview is one of three characteristic types: the reality of the outsider, the clark, the aggressive/predator populated worldview of the scott and the definite and quantifiable social matrix of the rogerian personality type. We all have the potential for all three, are predominately one of the three and still retain the capacity to experience the reality of the other two personality types.
As long as you can accept the idea that we all have slightly different personal realities, everything else about the Wakefield Doctrine will be so terribly, completely easy.
And so on to the topic for this week’s Mid-Week Wakefield Doctrine Discussion-ation of Practical Applications of the Doctrine.
rogers and clarks
The Progenitor roger (speaking for rogers) maintained in last week’s Mid-Week Discussion that when rogers ‘lash out’* at clarks, it is only because the roger is caught up in some matter within themselves that they cannot escape. Further, (the roger maintains) there is nothing a clark can do, other than to walk away. Unfortunately, the roger also seemed to be saying that there is no way to prevent the ‘surprise attack’ that most clarks experience when they interrupt a roger during one of these ‘self-absorbent’ episodes.
General Question: do you accept this description? do you have any follow-up questions?
Specific Question: to the roger (or any other roger out there who would care to step out of the safety of the herd) if the person interrupting a roger were a scott, would the description of the ensuing interaction be any different?
Final Question: what have you found that is useful, and what have you tried that has been proven to be totally counter-productive in the above described life situation.
(You know what they say about today’s music video, don’t you? Some of the best 80’s rock is being written for the Pop Country Music audience today! lol
About clarkscottroger
The “lashing out” has much more to do with the particular dynamics between two people than it does their respective WD profiles. The profile can only offer a generality, where the actual interplay has many more factors involved ( previous history, etc.) Seems to me that we all three have our own stylized version of ” it’s all about me”, and our own stylized version of objecting to the syndrome in the other two when encountered.
BTW, the girl in the video could be selling Clark a banjo, group life insurance, or an extended warranty on the Alamo. Me? I’ll take the banjo and maybe try to finance the giant piece of farm equipment that her brother needs. And scotts? Hard to tell…they can’t stop barking and running around in circles.
…I take it you got a chance to listen to the video. (Especially after the middle section… “hey nice song, what do you mean Ronald Reagan is not the president”?! lol)
You are correct about the:
we all three have our own stylized version of ” it’s all about me”, and our own stylized version of objecting to the syndrome in the other two when encountered.
…it is just that the clark/roger interface, while more difficult (for the clark) does not involve chew toy and/or remote control electric collar that a clark/scott interaction usually involves.
Since there seems to be evidence that the introspect-philia quality is strongest in clarks, followed by rogers it is only natural that the discussion focus on those two.
Hell, when we want to discuss the scottian worldview, I find rattling car keys or opening the bag of treats to be sufficient to get the nearest scott’s undivided attention.
If I might “free range it” a moment.
Just as we know that scotts are certain and clarks are fearful, I would submit that rogers are insecure. Outwardly, they will wholeheartedly object to this but in the privacy of their own worldselves most will give a nod to this notion. Why else are rogers most comfortable with the “herd” thing. There is a sense of comfort and security that comes with identifying (and conforming) with a majority of like (minded) people. A sense of community and validation. A sense of stability. Real or imagined, a roger’s mind (consciously or unconsciously) will offer this: if “everyone” is doing, looking, acting a certain way, well they all can’t be wrong can they?”
rogers generally do not like people, places or things that rock the boat or deviate from the established “norm”. Constructs cannot be maintained if there is someone else illustrating the possibility that there may be more to a thing than has already been established.
So in walks a clark. I suppose, we like people, give off a certain vibe. And not of the card carrying kind. rogers can tell, they have the radar. In a way different from a scott.
A roger senses “otherness” and because of this I believe rogers are trepidatious when interacting with clarks in general.
I have experienced a roger’s “disdain” from both friends and family. It is unmistakable, however I am of the school that says “No one can make me feel anything I don’t want to – I alone control how I feel”. Having said this, I still marvel at how sideways mean/cold/callous a roger can be. I suppose this is their version of passive/aggressiveness. I seem to be rambling today so let me end with this story of abbreviated version:
…standing in a kitchen (not my own) with a couple of rogerian female family members. I found myself questioning the elder rogerian female about her comment regarding something I said. The result was her “confessing” that she thought that sometimes, in her opinion, I talked down to people, that I make it sound as if they are stupid”, etc. Well, I was truly flabbergasted! I had no idea she saw me coming off as a snob! More importantly though, it made me stop and think, well, isn’t that more on her than me? I love my rogers but sometimes they drive me crazy! This wasn’t exactly what I started out to write but what the hell….
P.S. I am up for having a Sat. Night Call In tomorrow, Tuesday, March 26th. Anyone else up for that? (Should I leave the number and such?) 1-218-339-0422. yes, the code to put in is 512103 followed by #.
I would love it if any and all rogers would call in!!
WAIT! ONE MORE THING!
“The “lashing out” has much more to do with the particular dynamics between two people than it does their respective WD profiles. The profile can only offer a generality, where the actual interplay has many more factors involved ( previous history, etc.) ” (Progenitor roger)
Then how do you account for the consistency across the board of a roger’s behavior towards clarks, known or unknown?
yeah, since you mention it, other than circumstantial events leading to a given interaction, it is an inherently rogerian quality to respond to an intervening clark in the manner referred to as ‘lashing out’ and the simplest ‘pre-answer’ to this is ‘because they can’.
Now to further highlight this, I would ask, ‘If a roger is surprised by a scott‘, (are you saying) ‘the response would be the same as to a clark?”*
Hey Readers! There will be a Mid-Week Call this week….stay tuned, write down the number that DS#1 has so nicely provided and join us, whenever the hell the lines are open.
* It is accepted that a roger/roger response would be similar to a roger/clark, with the proviso that it ‘will depend on the political climate at the moment of the interaction’.
You’re absolutely right about the passive-aggressive thing. Even that is not necessarily personal in nature, more a knee-jerk reaction. Another roger would get the same thing.
And right again about the probable difference between a response to a clark as opposed a scott. With a clark it would likely be a straight relatively civil response, where with a scott a roger would have to gauge the level of …scottness, to see how much of a fight might be at hand.
As to the consistency of roger/clark scenarios; it certainly has to do with a roger’s pre-programmed perception of clarks, but also has as much to do with a clark’s pre-programmed expectation. Both are quite guilty of very prejudicial forethought.
I think that all that non-verbal data is exchanged in two nanoseconds, before anything happens at all.
I have no disagreement with that… hell, I am prepared to say that it is indigenous to the worldview of whichever one you are talking about…
The biggest challenge we all face as we attempt to understand the Doctrine on a level that will yield practical results is the ‘translation’ problem.
‘clarks think, scotts act and rogers feel’
Fine sentiment, and actually true for all intents and purposes…but how do you translate a perception from the ‘think’ language of a clark into the ‘feel’ language of the rogers? That we all three experience the world in three very different (but still rather similar), ways then talking about ‘one world’ from the perspective of another is the tough part.
But it is possible, although I suspect our immediate job is not compiling a glossary of terms for each of the three worldviews and then offer that to people who are trying to understand the behavior of the people in their lives as a guide to communication. Although this glossary will be necessary and in fact is being compiled, the real ‘first task’ for us lies in developing a simple, easy to understand method/system that helps you to know that your world contains features and items and concepts that simply do not exist in my world.
But since we are all in a common reality, there needs to be a way to bridge the understanding between these world.
Once we have that down, we can take this thing out on the road.
do you accept this description?
No I don’t. I believe it is a means to make other people feel like they are interrupting something of extreme importance that “…you just wouldn’t understand…” thereby making them feel bad that they interrupted. It is demeaning (unless you’re a scott) and that is exactly the intention of the roger. To evoke emotion. To make someone feel sorry for them.
“Save the children!!”
Emotional currency. Yeah, that’s what it is for rogers in a nutshell.