Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
Today at 3:30 EDT we will have the Call-in line open. the number to call: 1-218-339-0422 access code 512103 #
As the Title of today’s Post implies, a call-in show like today is a chance to talk to others about the Wakefield Doctrine, ask questions, offer opinions and gain insight. It’s got everything you could want, except for the Oreos and Milk!
the Wakefield Doctrine, a theory of personality, maintains that we are all born with the potential to experience the world in one of three characteristic ways (‘worldviews’), as the Outsider (clarks), the Predator (scotts) or the Herd Member (rogers). At an early age we make one of these three our predominant worldview however we never lose the capacity to experience the world as do ‘the other two’. For the Wakefield Doctrine, personality types are simply the result of the normal, appropriate and successful responses to the reality that we are experiencing. A clark, as a person who experiences life as an Outsider, tends to be very creative and socially challenged; a scott who grows up in a world which tends to be hostile and very direct, exhibits an aggressiveness and a confidence which reflects the world as they are experiencing it and a roger, being a Herd Member, seeks to understand the Rules of proper behavior and longs for the security of tradition and lasting culture because that is what best expresses the sense of belonging to and being related to (nearly) everyone and every thing in their worlds.
The Wakefield Doctrine says this: learn the characteristics of the three worldviews, observe the behavior of a person and infer the world that they are responding to in their day to day actions. When you succeed in doing this, you will know that person, in a certain way, better than they know themselves. Employing the perspective afforded by the Wakefield Doctrine, you need never find yourself saying, “….why in the world would they want to go and say a thing like that? I really thought I knew them better than that.”
Thats a little starter view. Here are some talking points for today, but! we hardly ever stick to suggested outlines with these here Call-ins here.
Talkin’Points and such:
- Considerer wrote in a Comment: “…My main question at the moment is how is it possible to get unhooked from the ‘should be’s?“
- Lise’s ( a roger) and I were discussing a person in the office who, while being new and understandably unskilled, was making a mess of a part of the job the other day. Lise and I agreed that he was a clark and was really trying hard, but ‘did not have a clue’ as to how bad a grasp of the job requirements he had….were… lol or something like that. In any event, I said something to the effect that while I understood what he was going through, I didn’t think anyone could have changed how the episode (being discussed). Lise for her part agreed with me but said, ‘I know he meant well, but the way he was acting made me mad’ I stopped. It struck me immediately, of course she would say that… it was a response that sprang from an emotional perception (notice I did not say, ‘an emotional reaction’) that is consistent with the idea that rogers live in a personal reality that is fundamentally different from that of a clark (or a scott, for that matter). Very cool
- Cyndi’s adaption/acquisition from her scottian aspect the perception of being ‘filmed before a live audience’