‘so you say this Doctrine is culture neutral too’? the Wakefield Doctrine, ผมเชื่อ แต่ผมยินดีที่จะรับฟัง!*

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers whether in the US or the UK or Slovenia, they’re still easy to spot and fun to identify with)

One of the cool things that happens when people come here and read about the Wakefield Doctrine, at least when they  ‘get it’ and try to it apply it, is they invariably have questions and raise issues, issues that force us to look at how well we are explaining our ‘theory of personality’. This is nothing but good.

Yesterday I was ‘talking’ to (new) Friend of the Doctrine (FOTD) Steve and we got on the topic of the difficulties in identifying clarks and scotts and rogers in different countries and cultures, this being pertinent, as Steve currently resides in a Far Eastern country/culture. At some point in our conversation, I made the statement, ‘you know, Steve, the Doctrine is not just gender neutral, but it’s also culture neutral!‘ To which he replied, ‘No way!’

‘Way’, indeed. The Wakefield Doctrine is culture neutral.
Steve is living in a non-western culture that not only has a significantly different language but the culture itself presents obstacles to identifying the clarks and the scotts and the rogers. Rather than try to reproduce our discussion, an undertaking guaranteed to create multiple, “wait a minute!! I said that??!” and ” I clearly sent his objection to the secret, personality theory graveyard!”, allow me to present the Doctrine view of culture and then, if we can impose on Steve, we might get a guest Post or (maybe even) a collaborative Post to appear on these pages.

The Wakefield Doctrine can be considered to be culture neutral for two reasons:

  1. the Doctrine is concerned with the personal reality (aka worldview) of the individual. One of the major differences between the Wakefield Doctrine and the more mainstream personality systems is that, rather than attempt to characterize the behavior of the individual and, by doing so, match them up to attributes in common with others, the Doctrine maintains that “anyone who grows up and develops as a human being in a worldview that can be characterized as the reality of Predator and Prey will exhibit behavior that we call scottian. They will be aggressive and mercurial in emotional demeanor and quick to act and slow to doubt (themselves)…” The personality type described as scottian simply is the inevitable result of living in that reality, the behaviors that we observe are simply the best strategies for a person, male or female to employ, given the context of the situation. We infer the reality that the other person is experiencing and by knowing the world that the other person is experiencing, we are better able to understand that person.
  2. everyone does everything at one time or another’, In the course of our discussion, Steve said something, to the effect that,
    “…the whole culture is rogerian to the core, the military here is probably the most powerful group, seconded by the government…by varying degrees based on which branch (and) damn near every position here has a uniform… including schools up to and including the university level…
    And while it clearly is characteristic of the rogerian worldview to develop a  culture in which caste and rank and organization are highly valued, that only indicates that the style of the culture is rogerian. But within this well-defined social environment are people. And people experience the world in one of three ways… another way of saying, (that) growing up in this culture will be experienced one way by the clarks and another way by the scotts and a third way by the rogers. The same caste-heavy, socially-overly-defined culture that you observe but from the perspective of the individual
The Wakefield Doctrine is concerned with the individual’s experience of the world, the reality that every human wakes up to each day of their lives.
We all look out from our beds (sometimes from under the covers) and see a world and know that in that world out there:
  • we are the Outsider and must rely on our rational selfs to get through the day;
  • we see a world that is inherently hostile and that we must be quick and aggressive and live (or die) by our actions; and
  • we smile at the thought of the day we are about to live, in a world that pretty much feels right to us.

 

* translation courtesy of google translator: “I am skeptical, but I am willing to listen!”

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. Amy says:

    This is very interesting to think about. And the conversation between you and Steve sounds quite entertaining! :)

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      @Amy
      (Steve and I), thank you in advance for the kind thoughts! lol The basic concept of the Doctrine is that each human experiences a degree of personal reality that accounts for what we are calling ‘personality types’. The italics here are the key, we don’t say: each man or woman, or Roman Catholic or Mormon or each Slovenian or Argentinian experience life as an Outsider or a Predator or a Member of the Herd. The matter of personal reality begins with the individual, everything else is context.
      ‘course, the Doctrine is still above and beyond all else, a fun thing and can make a day a little more …interesting…enjoyable?

  2. Some more great food for thought and must admit it sounds like you may be onto something with this doctrine crossing cultural barriers. Thanks for giving me something to ponder about on this Saturday morning!!

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      thanks Janine (Steve, dude! you getting this?? lol) as I just replied to Amy, the Doctrine is interesting and fun and I should admit, for all of being the Primary Ennuciator of the Doctrine, I am amazed at how I am learning more and more about it, through the Comments and reactions and insights of the people reading the blog.

      cool

  3. Kelly says:

    Ok so it’s looking like maybe I am a Scott!

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      @Kelly
      that’s not the worse thing! lol
      while we wait for a comment from Jennifer (a confirmed scott), lets see if we can help you become (more) comfortable with the realization of having a scottian worldview.
      scotts are very sociable, augmented by a certain ‘air of confidence’ that makes people feel comfortable when you introduce yourself, scotts also are agressive in their decision making, which once made, leaves no doubt that you ‘have a Plan’ (in this regard scotts are the ‘natural leaders’). Funny, natural joke tellers often viewed as the ‘life of the party’.
      scotts are impulsive, emotional (in a mercurial sense) and are always willing to help a neightbor.
      All of these qualities are a result of living in the worldview of the predator/prey. and the most interesting of these traits is that of ‘ranking’ the (as an underlying social paradigmn). Lets say we are at a party, lots of people in one room. the scottian personality type will be observed ‘working the room’, literally meeting everyone there…the goal (not necessarily a conscious one) is to establish the dominance ranking order. (a) scott will go up to each person and (figuratively) ‘push the other person on the shoulder’ to see where they stand. Dominant or submissve. (In conversations with a number of different scotts, once the focus is brought on this activity, they will all say, “of course! the important thing is to know where you stand”)

      good to hear from you..

  4. Cyndi says:

    I majored in anthropology the first time in college mostly because I just love studying people. What makes them tick is so fascinating to me. I love the cultural slant on today’s post. As much as I love studying other people and even travelling, it always freaks me out a little how much energy it takes (at least it takes ME a lot of energy) to assimilate into a new culture and try to learn new customs and ways of doing things. Some people embrace it and can really just live in another culture without ever looking back to their home culture. Oh, I don’t think this would be the case for me. While I loved “living” in Spain for six weeks, for example, I could not wait to get back home. :)

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      @Cyndi
      I really got a lot out of my conversation with Steve, in that it ‘forced me’ to think of how to make the case for the Doctrine being culture neutral.
      Your Comments are in the same category, except more challenging! lol
      I’m sure I’ve said before how much the input from ‘new’ Readers is nothing but a benefit in the way it spurs us on, to try to present the Wakefield Doctrine in more and more concise and effective ways. Not only have I found myself working harder than ever, but I am learning more about (how) the Doctrine is manifested in the lives of people, as a result of your insightful Comments.

      …and it is in the increased understanding of the nature of the three worldviews that holds the greatest promise for us. We maintain that since everyone has the capabilities of the three personality types, with only one worldview being ‘pre-dominant’ then true self-development would have us use the gifts and talents and personality characteristics that we have within us already.
      could be cool…

  5. Steve says:

    I’m getting it :)

    I am still not convinced that The Doctrine is culture neutral, but I do admit that it bears looking into. As we discussed earlier, it may just be that the people of the culture where I live are more able to transition from one worldview to another as circumstances dictate. It may also be that the composition of the culture is more heavily skewed towards one group or another.

    As I have said, it is quite difficult to tell, especially with a poor grasp of the language. Non verbal cues here are not the same as they would be in the U.S., though I have learned to read some of them, I am sure that there are many small aspects of body language that I am not picking up on.

    As proof of this I present “the wai”. This is the traditional greeting in Thailand and consists of placing the hands together at a level somewhere between the chest and forehead and bowing the head (http://thailandmusings.thaivisa.com/when-and-how-to-wai-properly/). The wai has many gradations depending on the age, gender, social status, personal connections, and probably many other things that I’m not yet aware of…the thing is, the height of the hands and the depth of the bow are influenced by these things.

    Thais instinctively know exactly where their hands should go, how deep to bow, and how long to bow. The differences could be very minute, but another Thai will easily be able to tell. As for me? Even though I have been visiting Thailand for 15 years and have lived here for the past 18 months I have grave difficulty in distinguishing the nuances of this very basic part of the Thai culture. I’m sure that there are many other non verbal cues that I am missing as well.

    Wow, I didn’t expect to write a mini-post haha. I will leave you with that and go to contemplate some possible guest post ideas. I think it could be a long one.

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      @Steve
      Thanks! Perfect degree of detail for a Comment (here at the Doctrine, at any rate). Take a look at the dissertations that follow a “Hey guys love the Post. Made me think.” lol

      I replied to Cyndi, earlier in this thread, something to the effect that new Readers challenging us on the principles of the Doctrine, both major and minor points is helping immensely, with the further development, not only of how the Wakefield Doctrine is presented, but the depth of understanding (of each worldview) that is afforded the new Readers.

      the overall layout of this blog could be so much better, in terms of making it easier for the reader to ‘get the Doctrine’, but we have always maintained that while the static Pages are where a person could go to get information, (these) Posts are where the ‘on-going conversation’ is to be found. Ideally you (the Reader) gets to ‘listen in’ on the talk and crosstalk and new ideas and revision of old ways of describing this thing…like that.

      Like the idea of a guest Post, will give thought to some topics.

  6. I love the way you depict us all to be all three at one point or another, and the picture you painted from looking at the world from the bed (or covers!) Very interesting indeed!

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      @Melanie
      …from personal experience! (from under the covers, maybe that needs to be a Post Title* and a Post itself lol)

      I’m glad you mention that we are depicted as all three! When I first started the blog, I would hear from people “Hey! your theory doesn’t apply to me! I seem to be a… most of the time, but then I totally act like a … at other times” Which is as it should be, as we have all three worldviews (at least the potential to experience the world from the three different perspectives).
      We tend to not say to people, ‘ok, you’re a roger‘ or ‘no, she would be a scott‘ and we even have been heard to say, ‘you can’t get this 3 personality type thing wrong! (Starting with yourself) see which of the three worldviews resonate most consistently, try it out. If you have ‘picked’ the wrong one, no problem! your worldview won’t change and eventually you will see that your worldview more resembles one of the other two’

      Same with looking at others, the idea is to infer the nature of the person’s worldview. Put another way, using the descriptions of the 3, try and see which is most consistent with how the other person appears to relate themselves to the world at large. That is, of course, the core of the Doctrine. How do I relate (on all levels) to the world that I walk out into today?

  7. Downspring#1 says:

    Before I loose a very fine, silk thread…..perhaps it is simply a matter of the manifestation of (the behavior of)clarks, scotts and rogers in different cultures that is throwing some folks off. Surely a scott in another country is still a “predator” just as a clark in Sweden is still the “outsider” and rogers anywhere in the world still exist within the community that is the “herd”. The expression of the worldview(s) as described by the Doctrine may be nuanced (due to culture and/or gender), but I agree the Doctrine is culture and gender neutral.

  8. Rich Rumple says:

    Really interesting concepts expressed here. All exhibit these traits, as you state, at one time or another. Unfortunately, most are too concerned with the “I” anymore instead of the “We.” The narrow vision of most tend to give way to rights being taken away with acceptance, instead of voices shouting in protest. The growth of political correctness is replacing the manners that should be taught at home, and guiding us into a society of cattle that are being herded into a life of control without avenues to fight. The national pride concept is only being used to the benefit of the leaders of countries to continue their quest of greed and power. The “Rogers” of the world are going down the path sadly, most without the knowledge it is occurring. Great post and strong concepts.

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      @Richard
      very interesting Comment, I agree with your assessment of the progression of control (as an element) in out culture. And you have also spotted the ‘look’ of one of the three personality types in the evidence of the increasing regimentation of the people making up the culture (here and abroad).
      It (the usefulness of the Wakefield Doctrine as a tool in understanding others) lies in inferring what it is the other person is experiencing. Notice I did not say, ‘what the other person thinks, or believes…what they are experiencing. The most challenging element necessary for this viewpoint to be of use is the idea of a personal reality, or as we like to call it, a worldview. Only by allowing for the idea that the world is, in fact different (on some level) for each person can we use the insight afforded us by the 3 personality types. And even by saying that, we all tend to think, ‘that doesn’t make it right’ No, it doesn’t. But it makes it more understandable, which I would maintain is a necessary first step.
      You correctly ascribe a certain rogerian nature to the transformation of individual attitudes held by people in this country. At other times you might see a more pronounced scottian attitude evidenced in the culture…lets say leading to the Great Depression… but the trickiest thing about the Wakefield Doctrine and the concept that sets it apart from other personality ‘theories’ is that we maintain that what we call a roger (a person with a rogerian personality type) is the only outcome that can result from growing up and developing in what we refer to as the rogerian worldview. They are healthy, well-adapted properly functioning people, given the reality that they are living in. That same person taken at a very young age and ‘dropped into the worldview of a scott‘(if that were possible) would be identifiable as a scottian personality type…again what others call traits and interests and drives, we say are merely the effective coping strategies, given the particular reality.
      I fear my topic is of nature and complexity that demands skills that I am totally trying to acquire….oh to have spent my days in High School paying attention to the English teacher instead of trying to learn the guitar lead to ‘Sunshine of your Love’ lol

  9. RCoyne RCoyne says:

    This cultural idea is very intriguing.
    This here Doctrine thing here holds to the probability that a personality begins to drift towards its primary somewhere around age 5. This has always seemed a pretty good fit, simply because that’s about when people generally begin to retain individual memory.
    But maybe that makes more sense to Americans than to others. In America, individuality trumps all else.
    What if you were from a culture that simply did not hold to that perspective?
    I recall (from a gazillion years ago), living in Albuquerque, NM, and meeting some Navaho and Lakota Sioux.
    The stories that I carried away from those times are generally very funny, but some are tragic. Trying to blend in and adapt to modern life in a city is devastating for them.
    This looks like it will become a chicken-or -the-egg thing. Was the core personality there to begin with ( Americans would certainly prefer that ), or is the personalities’ initial direction steered through a different prism?

  10. Jennifer says:

    @Kelly
    FINALLY!!! Another scottian female. Christ, all of these clarks and rogers… We have the most fun. You’ll see…