‘…of Hendrix, good questions and intriguing dreams’ the Wakefield Doctrine | the Wakefield Doctrine ‘…of Hendrix, good questions and intriguing dreams’ the Wakefield Doctrine | the Wakefield Doctrine

‘…of Hendrix, good questions and intriguing dreams’ the Wakefield Doctrine

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

wonderful-life-color

Question from Considerer question:

“Yeah I’d like to know my secondary aspect, after all, knowledge is power…”

When you first practice inferring another person’s predominant worldview, you watch a person and look through the ‘lens’ of the three worldviews. (Often, it is helpful to pick which of the three is pretty damned unlikely and then focus and then begin to compare the remaining two)…watching for the sense of consistency between the observed behavior and what you know about the characteristic behavior of the worldview being held up for comparison. Keep doing this until you feel comfortable with your choice. Want to hear 2 encouraging facts? a) you can’t get it wrong1 and 2) you can’t break it2.

From Denise is this Questionment:

“It’s been said around the Doctrine that it’s like learning a second language. The goal being to eventually think in “Doctrine” … woke up today remembering a snippet of dream.”

Good! The goal is to have the perspective of the Doctrine practiced so that it is not work to apply in the course of your day. A note here to Readers who may be expecting more from this personality theory than we intend. Of late, I have been in conversation with Friend of the Doctrine, Molly, on this very question, i.e. does the Doctrine require total commitment in order to have any value to the individual? ( I may not totally appreciate Molly’s position on this topic, but that in and of itself is the reason for allowing that more is better than less, when it comes to the ways that we view the world around us5).  I do say that, as a tool for self-development and self-improvement, the Wakefield Doctrine will prove to be without peer. However, it is still simply a perspective. A way to view the world and the people in it.
Just as becoming fluent in a second (or third or fourth) language, should not interfere with your native language, acquiring an understanding of the Wakefield Doctrine need not cause any conflict with whatever belief system you may choose to employ in your day-to-day, ‘my god! I really thought I knew them better than that! How could they say a thing like that?’…activities. (lol)

So, as with so much in life, the greater the range of your experience in day-to-day living, the better are the chances at getting this thing right!6

 

Readers familiar with the Doctrine, seeing two partially italicized block-quotes, have stopped reading and gotten up to get a re-fill on their coffee, tea or whatever tasty beverage they may be sipping. The common reaction, among Readers familiar with these pages is, ‘oh goody/hot shit! one of those Posts!
If you are a new Reader, let me simply say… the Wakefield Doctrine is a perspective, a tool, a personality theory that,  if you are willing to allow yourself to see the world as being comprised of people who are living in one of three characteristic worldviews, will give you an insight into the behavior of the people in your life. With the Wakefield Doctrine you can know more about the other person than they know about themselves… while they may know the ‘what’ of their behavior, you will know the ‘why’. Warning to new Readers, if you are successful in learning the simple suppositions, then you will begin to see the clarks that are in your life (there is a passing good chance that you yourself are one) and the scotts (we know they are there...) and the rogers (if they’re not on bicycles or in their workshops, they can often be difficult to distinguish from scotts). And….and! if you succeed in being able to see them, there is a really good chance that you will not be able to stop seeing them. Hey, what can I say?

Today’s Post is, in fact, one of those Posts.

To answer the question7 asked by Considerer:  well, the best approach is to establish the person’s predominant worldview and then look for anomalies.  Cyndi is a clark (like you didn’t know that in the first encounter…) but there she is, not only doing video Posts (a totally not clarklike activity), she is doing them effectively, more to the point she is enjoying doing them…thriving in that context. So, which of the 3 personality types are the natural performer, the front man?  …exactly!
Today’s 2 videos are from Jimi Hendrix. Now, he might be confusing because his secondary aspect is so very strong. Man! he’s got to be a scott!!  right?  well, most of us would go with that pick… (see footnote 2) until you see an interview of him. Then you totally know that he was a clark. So, the rogerian Reader is quick to ask, “how do you know he’s not a scott with a secondary clarklike aspect, huh? how do you know that?” Great question.  The answer to this is the same as the basic description of the Wakefield Doctrine, ‘how does the person appear to relate themselves to the world around them?’

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7ur4jvGDck http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cmjxp5HOE0

 

1) if you guess wrong and continue to try and understand a person using the Doctrine, you will see the inconsistencies, example: you think you have a scott but occasionally you see him acting like a girl3, then you make a note to yourself, ‘hey! wait a minute  this might just be a roger!

2)  by this we mean that, lets say you decide you are a clark, but you also find yourself totally obsessed with genealogy and think ‘damn I guessed wrong, now what?  Not a problem. Calling yourself a scott if you are really a clark, does not even change a thing. At any point you can go back and hold up the lens (of the three worldviews) and see which of the three your behavior seems most in focus in…er  with… whatever. As you learn more about the characteristics and gain a deeper insight and a certain fluency, you will want to do this, just for the fun of it!

3) scotts and most clarks will get this joke, if you do not, quick write us a Comment and ask!  I can esplain everything!4

4) though it will no longer be funny… ha ha

5) probably only true for clarks… seeing how we can accept anything (as being possible)

6) promise that is the last clark-centric joke in this Post.

7) lol yeah! I know… we tend to wander a bit, hey all the better to appreciate the questions!

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:

    Click…click…activating the secondary scott…but then retreating into my creative world to further my own cause of wanting to inspire others. Press button…now clark is back on…oh and I think I need to take a Walk in the Woods. LOLOL.
    Awesome post as always!

  2. My most favorite of his albums. Geez, listen to the lyrics….I don’t know that I could begin to think a scott wrote them nor could I imagine a roger writing them:)
    Jimi was otherworldly in that clarklike way. lol

  3. Now this is interesting stuff! I was thinking that exactly as I read this. I think we have all got secondary aspects though predominantly Scotts, Rogers or Clarks in character…I think it’s hard to find a stereotypical Clark, Roger, Etc. Thanks for sharing, Clark!

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      @Michelle

      A very good point, there are ‘pure’ scotts and rogers and even clarks, but they would not be talking to us… it takes having at least a secondary clarklike aspect to allow for the ‘imagine anything’ factor that is required around here. I am suggesting that while there is not a requirement that people have a secondary or tertiary aspect, it is helpful (when a person does) in understanding their worldview better by factoring in these influences. It is not that a secondary or tertiary changes a worldview (the person’ reality) but I know that it is a factor in how a person relates to their world. Great comment!