the Wakefield Doctrine: Today some common, everyday situations. If you would be so kind as to tell us how *you* would act

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

 

We all know that clarks live in the personal reality that is best characterized as the world of ‘the Outsider’ and (that) scotts  are the personality type that they are because they roam the world as Predators and rogers, they totally demonstrate how an individual’s personality develops when in a reality in which there are Rules and all things are ultimately quantifiable. But what else do we really know? While we do have a good idea of what the ‘world looks like’ to each of the three personality types, we need to define, to a much greater level of detail, the three worldviews that are the basis of the Wakefield Doctrine.

Why? Because the more you know about the world that the ‘other person’ is experiencing, the greater your understanding of their behavior. The greater your understanding of their behavior, the more likely that you will correctly anticipate and predict (their) future behavior. And finally, (and we have been under-stating this reason), the more we understand the nature of the worldview of ‘the other two’ personality types, the better our chances of developing the strengths that they have that we lack in our own pre-dominant personality type.

Clear? Well, if not then don’t fret. It will either become clear as you read these Posts and such, or it will not. If none of this Wakefield Doctrine stuff makes any sense then it will not be very interesting to you. That is as it should be, this is not for everyone. For those of you who do find this interesting, we say: Read, learn, have fun.

Now on with the work!
For your consideration. We are presenting the following situations and offering possible ways to respond. Each of the possible course of actions are appropriate to one or more of the three worldviews.

A) You are sitting in a movie theatre with your date. Your date really, really wanted to see this movie and you really, really didn’t like what you heard the movie was going to be about. But, (and this is critical), this is your 3rd Date! Your date was very excited and happy with how thoughtful you were to suggest going to this movie  and… it is abundantly clear that your date will be very… grateful! Fine. You and your date are sitting there and it is the middle of the movie and three people (coming in late) seat themselves 2 rows behind you, and it starts. The giggling and the laughing and the running commentary… finally one of the them gets a call on their cell phone! Throughout this, your date is being stoic and has made it clear they don’t like the idea of making a scene, but for you,  the ‘perfect third date’ is being ruined!!
You:

  • suggest to your date that you wouldn’t mind leaving and coming back another time, when maybe there won’t be such annoying audience members
  • tell your date that you are going to ‘find a manager and let them know how you feel’
  • jump up on your seat, turning towards the three ‘noise makers’ and say in a loud, clear voice, “Shut the fuck up right now or I will kill all three of you”
  • call the movie theatre on your own cell phone and ask to speak to the Head Usher and proceed to complain in a quiet voice
  • look at your date and ask if they can do anything about the rude people, you are really not enjoying the movie

B) You are being told that the dog you have had for 8 years, (since she was a puppy), has an incurable and fatal illness by the doctors at the very exclusive veterinary hospital.They tell you there is nothing to be done and (gently) hint at euthanasia…right there and then
You:

  • immediately accede to the doctors suggestion that the merciful thing to do is to put your dog to sleep and ask if they would take care of everything
  • ask for a complete list of options ranging from the most practical to the least practical
  • stop listening politely and focus on your dog, who even though ill, remains as alert and intelligent as ever and clearly is paying close attention to everything being said in the room
  • stay calm and upbeat and thank the doctors and decide to get your dog home.  While checking out of the animal hospital, you ask for some high potency dog food, ignoring the looks from the people behind the counter (who are totally aware of the prognosis for your dog) and insist that 6 cans will do (this you are clearly saying for the benefit of your dog, who in turn, has a look of patient tolerance on her face, as if indulging you in your antics)
  • cry and create a scene loudly enough to cause the people in the waiting room sitting with their pets, to avert their collective gazes

C) You are working for a company that is subcontracting for a very large corporation. You enjoy your job because it allows you to interact with a lot of people in the course of your work day. You have one immediate superior (your Supervisor) and you have been then longer than anyone else on the staff, Supervisor included. One day you become aware of ‘a change’ at the workplace, nothing you can put your finger on, but some of your co-workers appear to be un-easy. Needless to say, the rumor mill cranks up. As there are only one or two rogers on the staff (the rest are clarks) you listen to the stories, but hold your own counsel. Out of the blue, your Supervisor calls you into the office and confides in you that they are considering leaving the company. This is a total shock and not pleasant news, as you had developed a cordial relationship with them, all the more valuable as the turn-over rate in your industry is very high. In any event, while you are still recovering from the shock of the news, your Supervisor says, “Hey, I think you are very good at your work, there is no one who knows the operation better, if I do leave I plan on recommending you for my position”
You:

  • say nothing, just continue to listen to your Supervisor, trying to learn as much as possible about the reason for this change…without asking any questions
  • suggest to your Supervisor that maybe they should re-consider and try to find a way to stay in the position
  • ask them for a timetable for the decision and promise to not tell anyone else
  • upon getting to the lunchroom, you tell the first person you see that you have heard some astounding news about the company but you can’t tell anyone
That will be enough for today.
Tell us what you think of the choices of actions, we want to get a sense of which are clarklike and which is the way a scott would act and how the rogers would react. This will tell us a great deal about their respective worldviews.
Thank you. Here is some dino-rock for your relaxation purposes.

 

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:

    The thing I love about your multiple choice questions is that there are no right answers. It’s a perspective thing!

    A) Call the movie theatre on your own cell phone and ask to speak to the Head Usher and proceed to complain in a quiet voice.
    B) What the heck? If the dog is that sick, you already knew it before dragging it to a ‘ very exclusive veterinary hospital’… so don’t abuse it — put it down already!
    C) Ask them for a timetable for the decision and promise to not tell anyone else… and, of course, keep that promise.

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      lol exactly!

      …and everyone gets an ‘A’ or an ‘F’

      The intent (of presenting scenaria with a choice of actions) is, of course, to try uncover some undiscovered country in the land of clarks, the savanahs of scotts and prairie of the rogers. The precedent is, of course, the scenario of the waitress (Emily) who, (we were told in the story) was waiting to be interviewed for a job and (one) of the ‘suggested actions’ was that she start clearing the tables as a way of ‘being helpful’.
      As we all now know, that was so not-rogerian that it allowed us to ‘discover’ a significant element in the worldview of rogers, the so-called concept of ‘referential authority’*. Without the scenario and the subsequent outrage of the rogers who read it, we would have never have known that rogers have a feature to their realities that clarks and scott simply do not have!

      Your response today, Molly may be hinting at something. I need to hear from the others so that I can formulate my thoughts better, lets just tease everyone else and say,
      “Molly, your answers: a)correct 2)incorrect and c)correct”

      Be back later!

  2. clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

    Just to clarify, before the ‘evening crowd weighs in’ there are, in fact, no correct or incorrect answers, as Molly points out.

    Not surprisingly, Molly has, by the nature of her responses, created an opportunity to extend the understanding of the Doctrine, in particular the role of the secondary aspect!

    This will be fun, the challenge not only in juggling the concepts (principles of the Wakefield Doctrine) but in deriving the best form of description for what it is we are trying to learn from… sort of …lol

  3. Molly Molly M. says:

    What the heck?!? I’m guessing you are referring to something to do with B…

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      er the ‘tease’ referred to was intended for the Readers! lol

      But since we are the only two participants, I will proffer my take on your response. Since, as you pointed out, none of the ‘choices are correct or not correct’ we look for one of a couple of things: a) a consistent response from a number of a single personality type (the working example is the rogerian response to the notion of a roger taking un-equivocal, and un-sanctioned action…i.e. clearing the tables) 2) a (perceived) difference in the choices that seems to imply a different worldview being applied by the same person

      (our normal caveat on the presumption of conclusions drawn from a single instance, but then again, what else is new.)

      So what drew my immediate attention was that your ‘choice of responses’ matched my first choice on all three except for B, and for the answer but more for the other two ‘making perfect sense’ to my (own) worldview!

      The limitations of written medium is taking a lot out of this… my own ability to modify and form the conclusions ‘on the run’ is lacking. So, you have a question? lol

  4. Jennifer says:

    A) Call the movie theatre on your own cell phone and ask to speak to the Head Usher and proceed to complain in a quiet voice (roger)

    B) Stop listening politely and focus on your dog, who even though ill, remains as alert and intelligent as ever and clearly is paying close attention to everything being said in the room (clark)

    C) Say nothing, just continue to listen to your Supervisor, trying to learn as much as possible about the reason for this change…without asking any questions (clark)

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      good call…

      is it me or is that a weird option (A call the Head Usher to complain about what is going on in the theatre, to complain) lol

      You Doctrine people sho is strange!
      But, as I was discussing with Molly last night and DS this morning, these scenaria are turning out to be really good ‘insight-stimulators’ or whatever the hell kind of word a real person might use. You can see from the thread off of Molly’s comment that her choice for one of the scenaria struck me as being inherently different from the other two, which immediately made me think ‘ha! influence of secondary aspect!’
      So, tell us, from the scottian perspective, which do you think a scott would go with?

  5. Jennifer says:

    A) jump up on your seat, turning towards the three ‘noise makers’ and say in a loud, clear voice, “Shut the fuck up right now or I will kill all three of you”

    B) This one is a little tricky. Could be one of two: immediately accede to the doctors suggestion that the merciful thing to do is to put your dog to sleep and ask if they would take care of everything or cry and create a scene loudly enough to cause the people in the waiting room sitting with their pets, to avert their collective gazes (I should note that scotts are not prone to crying. However, creating a loud scene? Yeah, that’s them)

    C) upon getting to the lunchroom, you tell the first person you see that you have heard some astounding news about the company but you can’t tell anyone

  6. Downspring#1 says:

    If I have only what is given to choose from (clark joke) then:

    A) I would tell my date I am going to find a manager and let them know how you feel
    If I have gone to the trouble of “enduring” a movie for the sake of my date then I would not allow the ignorance and rudeness of others to make the situation totally intolerable!

    B) ask for a complete list of options ranging from the most practical to the least practical.
    No question that the decision would be mine alone and without the influence present in the midst of such an “emotional” moment. Having been given a 6-9 month best scenario for one of my dogs (now deceased), it was a case of give me all the information about the situation and I’ll get back to you.

    C) Suggest to your Supervisor that maybe they should re-consider and try to find a way to stay in the position OR Ask them for a timetable for the decision and promise to not tell anyone else
    Can’t seem to decide on this one. Torn.

    Yes, Jennifer. You being a scott and all, tell us off the top of your scottian head your responses.
    Perhaps after your answer there will be enough respondants for a roger or two to weigh in? LOL

  7. Jennifer says:

    I already did! The comment is right before yours!

  8. Downspring#1 says:

    I see. It was not there when I left my comment. Where the hell is the editor of this blog?!!!!

  9. clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

    lol

    “…each of the three personality types are distiguished by the characteristic worldview they find themselves living in…”

    Worldview as in separate and distinct realities… I rest my case! lol

    This brings up a point that I was discussing with Molly last night, that most of the behaviors and human situations that are the focus of analysis by the Doctrine is not about ‘which of the three types get into this kind of situation or what kind of conflict does one of the three types find themselves in more than the other two.
    (We were talking) about the ‘problem of having to deal with/resolve a matter of life and death (more the latter) with a dog’ and it became clear as we ‘talked’ about it, that this was not an inherently clarklike or scottian or rogerian problem, it is a human problem. The Wakefield Doctrine is not trying to catagorize situations and behaviors and problems and such, we are trying to understand how a given (and common) life problem is manifested in the worldview of a clark and a scott and a roger. There is a huge distinction to be discovered with how, for example, the sick dog problem presents itself to the three, and even more involved responses.

    Remember, we look at a person ( the person hearing about the change in management) and infer their worldview, that gives us the reality that they are experiencing. Then we consider how the predominant personality type might approach the problem and (more recently) we look to see if there is a factor shading behavior from the secondary aspect.

  10. phyllis says:

    B
    I sort of remember that we bought a full case of the high performance dog food. She was a good dog :)

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      @ phyllis

      yeah, it was a case… the thing I got out of that experience was the genuine sense of standing apart (from everyone) and (on behalf of) Ola… The looks we were getting back from the people who knew Ola’s condition is now very informative… I suspect the young man we were dealing with was a roger and his attitude* was trying to attain, “now stop this silly nonsense about dog food and show that you accept our ‘judgement'” but I distinctly remember that he ‘wavered’ and could not maintain his effort. I attribute all of this to Ola, of course or (with the insight I have now from the Wakefield Doctrine) the love I had for Ola lent a power to our request that literally imposed our worldview on him rather than the other way around.
      Truly an amazing day.

      * this is not to denigrate the rogerian worldview, the young man was a representative of the hospital and naturally reflected the views that we were put in a position to have to accept.. and I do accept that, had it been a good outcome and Ola’s was leaving to recover her health, I would have welcomed his attitude of ‘you’ve been told’

      @ RCoyne

      ya, know everything in our common reality (the ‘world’) has as an underlying predicate, that for something to be valuable it must be expensive. Another poignant way to say that (as found in modern society/culture), “no pain, no gain” This is, in no way, intended as condescending to your situation (although why clarks are always subject to this accusation is beyond me, maybe everyone is stupid…) Anyway, my statement is that you are in an ideal position to utilize the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine! I am excited for you and, in a way, envious as it is not often to see a setup like you are describing. That, along with your understanding of the Doctrine… sort of like being a drummer in the front row of the Who concert when Keith mistook the elephant tranquilizers for his norman horse tranquilizers… what an opportunity!
      …you know what we always say! Take notes!

  11. RCoyne RCoyne says:

    I am quite in line with DS’s choices. Especially C- I am smack in the middle of that in real life. I am after all a middle kid and a roger, so I’m trying to fix it at the same time I have to prepare for two distinctly different possible outcomes.
    AKH, your movie- theater answer just made me LOL. I probably wouldn’t do that myself, but I’d be cheering you on.

  12. Downspring#1 says:

    Just gonna ramble a little this morning……..
    Ramble #1) After having had a dream in which 2 dogs figured prominantly (one of whom is deceased and the other a dog we found last year and returned eventually to his rightful owners 2 days later) I am very much attuned to the conversation surrounding example B. I harken back to days where we had “difficult” conversations with our vet. I think that the next time I see Dr. L, I will confirm for my own damn self that he is a clark! It was not so obvious until now, reading Clark’s description of the roger in his own life example in his last comment.
    Ramble #2) I woke up this morning with the echo thought: we can determine from another’s behavior the world they live in. How simple this tenet of the Wakefield Doctrine. And yet at times not so obvious. But what a valuable tool to have!
    Ramble #3) I would be interested to hear from Mr. Coyne how he is dealing with his “real life” situation. How is he using the Doctrine to his benefit. Surely, he will be able to predict the most likely outcome based on his knowledge of clarks, scotts and rogers. Potential real life scenario – who could ask for anything more!

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      @ DS#1 I feel bad for roger, in that I know how a roger without the Doctrine would react to your caring and concerned concern about his predicament but ‘our roger’ is not so fortunate (alert clarks will now be figuring out the roger’s reaction to this part of this Comment). (and a non-Doctrine assisted roger)lol

  13. Downspring#1 says:

    Here’s ramble #4) The people who say (whether asked or not) “now here’s what I would do in your situation”….well, you can see where I am leading. Unless that person shares your own “worldview” then their “advice” is useless. Or is it? Information is valuable, even to those of you not a clark. LOL
    Seems to me, if asked for advice, I would be best able to “advise” if I knew: 1) if the person asking was a clark, scott or roger and 2) who the person or persons “are” the advice seeker is dealing with.
    Um….yeah, think that’s it. For now. Have to get to the “office”.

  14. RCoyne RCoyne says:

    Notes from the field;
    Here’s what I know so far: my boss ( Jenn) who is secretly leaving, is either a scott/roger or a roger/scott. This is very unusual of itself. The two aspects seem to be in equal balance. I believe this is due to being a woman in the workplace and having to fight uphill all the time, but I still can’t quite tell what the primary was.
    There are three guys who will decide if I get the promotion or not ( one from Allied Barton, one from Cushman/Wakefield, one from Metlife Global Security). They ‘re all rogers. This may stretch out over months, and in the meantime I’m being secretly trained for a job I might not get anyway. They might decide to bring in an outside guy.
    Now that I’ve told you this, I have to ask you all to destroy your computers.
    BTW, if you haven’t checked Mostly Teachable today, it’s very funny. Go Mel!

  15. clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

    @ RCoyne there is a reference in a Stephen King* novel, Christine, I believe where he talks about there being times when a certain thing happens, when the first steam engine was invented, 4 or 5 people showed up at the Patent Office on the same day, that sort of thing.

    In any event, it seems to be the time to talk about the role of the secondary aspect. The thing you say about your boss being female and that having an impact is insightful. As we develop the understanding of how the 2ndary aspect manifests itself in the context of the dominant aspect, we will still always have to get back to the basics, which is: based on your observations of her traits and mannerisms and behavior and such, what type of world is she experiencing? Another way of saying this is, how does she appear to relate to the world, to her immediate environment? Does she approach the world cautiously, like a marmoset edging out of the under-brush towards the watering hole, half leaning in the direction of retreat or does she appear to be seeing everything in terms of
    judging the level of threat (or the ease of the kill) or does she walk out into the world with an assuredness that makes you look for hidden weapons or giant body guards?

    …remember when you go back into the fray, take notes! As DS#1 points out, you have the Doctrine and no one else in your workplace does! Plus when you look at the resources we have, i.e. not only a complete set of clarks and scotts and rogers but all genders too!

    * a roger for those of you Readers who wish we would identify more celebrities and famous people, as to their Doctrine personality types.

  16. Molly Molly M. says:

    I don’t know that roger/scott or scott/rogers are all that uncommon. I personally know several people who fit those categories.

    The people who confuse me are the ones where the predominant view is clear, but they seem to have equal amounts of the the other two. When upset, you can get one reaction followed by an ‘opposite’ reaction — both characteristic of their non-predominant view.

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      @Molly
      Thats what makes this such an exciting time (with the Wakefield Doctrine)! We all understand the basic premise/principle of the Wakefield Doctrine that we all live in personal realities and if you look at these personal realities/worldviews as having certain characteristics then a whole bunch of stuff makes sense and a lot about the behavior of the people around us becomes understandable. Though the Doctrine has always maintained that we have all have one predominant worldview but never lose the capacity for the ‘other two’ we are only now becoming aware of the benefit of understanding the role that these ‘other two’ worldview plays in our lives and our behavior. Like I said…exciting times.

      More directly to your point, I think it is safe to say that while some people develop a very strong secondary aspect (and even a strong tertiary) there is no ‘requirement’ to do so. I have used the example of one friend who, while very, very scottian, shows very-little-hardly-detectable secondary and tertiary aspects. The extreme cases will be the most instructive for us at this stage of the process, though.

Leave a Reply to Downspring#1 Cancel reply

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