“…tho she was born a long, long time ago” the Wakefield Doctrine (‘the personality theory for all seasons’) | the Wakefield Doctrine “…tho she was born a long, long time ago” the Wakefield Doctrine (‘the personality theory for all seasons’) | the Wakefield Doctrine

“…tho she was born a long, long time ago” the Wakefield Doctrine (‘the personality theory for all seasons’)

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

Ma_Barker

The Wakefield Doctrine maintains that we all develop and grow up in one of three characteristic ‘personal realities’ (we call them worldviews) and it is the nature of these worldviews that accounts for what is referred to as personality type. The Wakefield Doctrine goes so far as to say that personality types (at least in terms of the three types found in this here Doctrine here) are nothing more (or less) than successful adaption to the conditions one finds oneself living in. If you are a child and you wake up and find yourself living in a reality1 in which you are an Outsider it is inevitable that you will learn to:

  • avoid the spotlight (the better to avoid having to answer questions relating to ‘who the hell are you and how did you get in here?!?’) and you
  • develop a very acute sense of extrapolation which allows you to put together seemingly un-related facts, sentence fragments, ideas and inferences, (the better to understand what is going on among the real people you find yourself surrounded by, they all clearly know something that you should know but do not) and you
  • discover that you are creative in ways that seem to start where everyone else starts but somehow (your creative efforts) tie together parts of your world that you did not realize even existed, never mind were related, (the better to feel that you are not useless and without value, having no openly recognized credentials that allow you to belong)

But today is Mother’s Day! So what does the Wakefield Doctrine have to say about Mothers and their Day and us… ?

Well mostly the Wakefield Doctrine says that ‘if you can succeed in correctly inferring the worldview of the person (‘the Mother’ in this case) then you will know more about them than they will know about themselves‘. Pretty reasonable statement, non?  (oh! oh!! almost forgot!!  we also say… ‘this Doctrine thing, what with all the insight and understanding and more-than-they-know-about-themselves and such?  well, it’s for you, not for them. )

In any event. mothers are:

  1. clarks  ’cause they totally got you to love reading, cause they made more food than could possibly be consumed, were self-less to a fault…so frickin much that (if you happen to be a clark, yourself) you noticed that they felt different and less than the other mothers…and this when you were still like 5 or 6 years old!
  2. scotts because all your friends wanted to go to your house, (this at all age stages from 5 up to 16 and both genders), she was totally able to get everyone to pay attention and she would even yell at your friends (and their parents didn’t get mad!) she was so energetic that (if you happen to be a scott, yourself) you noticed that pushing was alright up until everyone got it right, and it wasn’t to be mean or anything… it was fun and
  3. rogers she gave you the sense that there really wasn’t anything that you could not be prepared for, if only you focused and studied and that family was the point of it all….family history to put more of a point on it, the adventures and accomplishments of family members (living or dead) were yours…provided you worked to add to this list of accomplishments and she taught you (if you happened to be a roger, yourself) to work hard and not be shy along as you had something you could be proud of and everyone would understand

Happy Mother’s Day to those who are celebrating, as well as those being celebrated.

 

1)  when we say reality, we totally mean reality…. not ‘just because you don’t want to face it‘ and not..’you’re being stubborn’ and totally not, ‘it’s as plain as the nose on your face, just open your eyes and face reality‘  Sorry. The Doctrine says, to the degree that differences are ascribed to the three worldviews, that is the reality for the person inhabiting the reality in question. Give up on the notion that, if for instance, you are a scott and you are talking to a clark about how to interview for a job, they will see what you see. Not only will they not see (what you see) there will be things in their version of the job interview that plain does not exist (for you) in your reality. This is the core genius of the Doctrine.

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. Cyndi says:

    My mom is a scottian female, and home life was freakin’ chaos. Kids and old people everywhere, her parents, family friends and get-togethers galore. LOL
    Have a great Sunday.

  2. Considerer says:

    Ah my Mum’s a clark then.

    I’m beginning to wonder if my secondary aspect is scottian, cos every so often I LOVE being the centre of attention, being loud, lairy, competitive and hilarious. Thinking about it.

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      @Considerer

      that is certainly suggestive of a scottian secondary… one approach to confirm this is look for ‘resonance’ of a given aspect, but done ‘in isolation’. Not as vague as it sounds (afterall, we’re both clarks vauge is a native language for us lol), the thing is you can feel the ‘appetite’ of the scott in a specific situation, but it does not generalize (to everything else around you)… good topic for inquiry, i.e. how to determine secondary aspects

  3. Jen says:

    This was a funny post. I mean funny like you are funny. Not funny as in belly laugh funny. For me Mother’s Day is about NOT wanting to be the center of attention. My sister who is the EPITOME of a Scott can’t wait to have everyone at her house today, and is appalled at the idea that I might just want a quiet day. I realized something else, that when any personality type is afflicted with severe narcissism it is almost recognizable. I would love to see a post about what would happen to each personality when dosed with that particular affliction. Unless it’s been done?

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      @Jen

      clarify: what does each personality ‘look like’ when engaging in/being afflicted by an attack of narcissism? or how would each personality type look if we cranked up the ‘notice me’ dial to 11?

      Tell me which and we will do a co-authored Post, yo

  4. Jen says:

    I mean “classic narcissism” the idea that everything anyone who is somehow “attached to you” (child, spouse, sibling, parent, employee) is somehow a reflection of you and your “perfectness”. ie. “Narcissistic personality disorder[1] in which the individual is described as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity.”
    Notice vanity is only one aspect of Narcissism, It is just as likely to affect someone’s desire to achieve power and prestige. Or the fact that how other people behave is a hinderance to that achievement.

    And can I take by your sign off that ‘The Wakefield Doc’ is preparing for his role as mix-master for Tuesday’s MixTape?

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      @Jen

      no! lol (I think I know the question that you are inferring with your reference to Tuesday’s MT*) I was referring to (the suggestion of) a co-written Post on a Wakefield Doctrine topic of your choice (provided it related to the question of narcissism**).

      One use of the term would be an apt description of the rogerian worldview (“Narcissistic personality disorder[1] in which the individual is described as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity.”). However, that is a description meant to connote the degree of concern about what people think.
      scotts are concerned with power and prestige, as are clarks (believe it or not).
      I would suggest that it (narcissism) will be found in rogers because the worldview (of rogers) is all about (their) relationship to the people/ those in their environment.

      Remember, we all have one predominant worldview and the (potential) of the other two worldviews, which offer the opportunity of ‘shading’ or coloring our perception (and therefore personality) in response to the world that we find ourselves in…and this business of secondary and tertiary aspects is so the hot topic ’round the Doctirne these day.

      *that might be me being a bit narcissistic, non?
      ** enjoying getting the spelling correct…man, is this blog-writing thing weird

  5. Considerer says:

    Yeah I’d like to know my secondary aspect, after all, knowledge is power (and vague is only good on the giving end, to intentionally obfuscate)

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      @Considerer

      I believe that my most likely tendency is to agree…. lol
      Yeah, this issue of secondary and tertiary is showing itself to be very exciting for it’s potential to not only have a better sense of the behavior of the others, but in the area of the self-development. (Our) current challenge is in the area of language, the words we use to describe the effects of the secondary aspect. I will write a Post this week to layout the state of our understanding of the concept of secondary and tertiary area.

  6. Katia says:

    Clark, I love the connection you’ve made between the doctrine and motherhood. Such an original thought!

    I am still in awe over the first part where you discuss the outsider. It just explained so much to me about some of my behaviour and thought patterns. This is incredibly insightful. What interesting timing too, just when I wrote about it.

    Fascinating read!

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      @Katia

      thank you… this Doctrine is (especially) interesting, in that despite being the ‘author’, I am still learning/discovering connections that allow a fuller understanding and therefore usefulness in this ‘special perspective’ on behavior.

  7. I hadn’t given much thought to what personality my mom might be, but after reading this I can definitely say that she is (or is mostly) a Clark as well! Always putting others first, and yes – making tons of food, LOL. Great post!

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      @Melanie

      Yeah… that selflessness, even as kids we noticed that ‘something was different’ lol hey! Am I missing ‘where you are writing these days’? went to S and S last Post May 8…just in case you have focused on another blog, let me know!

  8. I love the guys’ descriptions of mom! Except, hmmm….you may need another character to describe the narcissistic mom who only loved when you did things that made her proud or made her look good. Love the song and SO glad you participated in our fun mixed tape hop today! Thanks Clark (and Scott and Roger, too)!

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      @Kristi

      That would have been the rogerian (mother), lol The key to narcissism is the context in which (the individual) is needing the positive regard… if it is before the world, that is a roger, if it is only for themselves then you are probably looking at a scott and then there are clarklike mothers…low probability of anything easily recognized as narcissism though anything is possible.

  9. Good morning! It’s been said around the Doctrine that it’s like learning a second language. The goal being to eventually think in “Doctrine”. That when we start thinking in “Doctrine”, we’ve reached a sort of milestone. I woke up today remembering a snippet of dream. Cannot describe the details except for this: it involved myself (clarklike female), another woman (a scott) and a man (a roger). In the dream, the 3 of us were walking after having been together for the afternoon doing… something. Details are foggy. Towards the end of the dream(we were going to be parting ways shortly, each going home), the scottian female good naturedly, but unmistakenly, reprimanded the rogerian male while the 3 of us were walking (back to our cars?) He did not see a thing. Never saw it coming. All in good humor, nothing mean or nasty. But it was a “spanking” just the same. In the dream I was thinking it was a thing to behold. LOL The roger left the two of us puzzled but still smiling. As my scottian friend and I continued walking, I turned to her and, with a smile on my face, said, (I paraphrase), “it was a delight to watch a scottian woman such as yourself put (whatever his name was in the dream) in his place. He didn’t know what hit him did he? LOL”.