Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
DownSpring Cyndi is doing a hop over at her blog ‘Pictimilitude‘ The theme is ‘flowers’ and seeing how the topic of this (reprint) Post is the scottian worldview, it’s only natural for me to include a photo of a bloomin’* pine tree, innit?
In any event, this post on the scottian personality types is what the visitor Readers from North Cottage-cheese-on Rye, Cambrian Keep, Northlands UK were looking at yesterday. Now that I see that ‘in print’, it does prompt me to bring the focus on the issue of ‘secondary aspects’. There would appear to be a marked predominance of the scottian worldview as (the) secondary aspects for a lot of the clarks that be learning about this here personality theory here. I say this because, Friend of the Doctrine Melanie has a post today at ‘Scribbles and Smiles‘, which is an excellent illustration of how, with the inflection** of a (clark’s) secondary aspect… i.e. one who can be nearly un-noticeable (a lot of the time), becomes totally the center of attention. Considerer (although she has not yet determined for herself, the nature of her secondary aspect***) also demonstrates the delightful quality that is sometimes found in clarks, i.e. we may not insist on being the center attention, but there is no way we will be ignored (if we so choose).
So…here is our contribution
scotts, ‘prey drive’ and the Wakefield Doctrine (“Mr. Gorbachev, feed that dog!”)
Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine. If you are looking for a self-improvement tool, or an easy-to-use system for self-development, then you have totally stumbled on to the right ‘place’!
The Wakefield Doctrine has a thing about looking at people, you know, how they act and stuff? …we guarantee that if you got the smarts to understand this, (and not everyone does), then you will know more about that other person than they know about themselves. Pretty frickin cool, no? But if you’re looking for one of those, “Six Ways to get any Boy to Like you” or “Satisfy the Woman in your dreams!! ” or ” How to get your Boss off your back!” self-improvement things then stop reading. Right now.
This Wakefield Doctrine thing is so not that kind of personality theory. (Not saying that you won’t be able to ‘satisfy the Woman in your Dreams’ or ‘get your Boyfriend a Job’), just that what we have here takes a little more…. flexible intelligence. So. Read already!No, the Wakefield Doctrine is not like those other self-development books….the Wakefield Doctrine is fun and it is useful and it is fun…
Today we are going to talk about scotts! (Want to get a quick overview of the Doctrine? go here and read….be sure to come back!)
scotts, scotts scotts! where to start? … hell, it’s Thursday, lets take the easy way out just to get the ball rolling, so to speak.1
Some bullets points relating to the nature and character of the scottian personality type:
- scotts are totally emotional but in a way so very different from rogers, mercurial is the right word for the emotional characteristic of scotts
- scott in a band? the ‘front man’ every time (don’t believe me? go look at the photo of the progenitors, click here those three mugs were in a band together (yeah, I know!) and can you tell me who the front man was?…hell you know which one is the Progenitor scott without anyone telling you, don’t you?)
- at a party scotts will introduce themselves (…..to everyone)
- when confronted with a threat or other fear-generating situation, a scott will choose to attack rather than flee
- scottian females can be ridiculously sexy or quick witted, …hardly ever both.
- (female) scotts can be spotted because they have prominent throat tendons (go ahead….ask us why)
Seeing how the scottian population is of late growing here at the Doctrine, lets cater to their totally famous short attention-spans and use a video that shows us a scott doing what they do best! Watch and learn, binyons!
How scottian was David Caruso’s character? how clarklike was DeNiro’s character? and the cop that backed down to the scott?, not too rogerian ! Hell! he was the only one in the scene to have a hat on his damn head!
So lets review:clarks think, scotts act and rogers feel. scotts are often wrong, but never uncertain. scotts make good leaders, (at least when decisive action is required…when long-term objectives take precedence over short-term victory…not so much). scotts are ‘the life of the party’… scotts are the best of joke tellers and are natural mimics. scotts will feed on rogers and enjoy the challenge of clarks… scotts will give you the shirt off his back/ the use of her boyfriend but will not tolerate being ignored… they are un-selfish and short-sighted… ingenious and stupid… emotional and shallow… sexy and predatory… endearing and dangerous… get the picture?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Fc8-MuA8xw1) that’s a joke for the scotts reading this
* bloomin’ we trust DownSpring Considerer to vet our use of English idiom here…
** a rogerian expression
*** it is custom, here at the Doctrine to allow the individual to be the final authority on their predominant worldview as well as secondary and tertiary aspects
About clarkscottroger
You will likely not be surprised to learn that I really love Scott. Just thought you might want to know.
@Kristi
no, I am not. I have come to an acceptance of the superior attractionational quality of our scottian brethren, however, seeing how the current predominant topic around this here blog about learning how to best access and develop our secondary aspects, I trust I can count on you for (any) insight or perspective that will advance our collective understanding of the ridiculously useful part of the Wakefield Doctrine
…. baby
Hi Clark! Yes, we may be, for instance, Clark introverts…….but the Rogerian or Scottian personality can make us more extroverted. Now I used to be more Rogerian…..I think I’m becoming more Clark as time goes by!
@Michelle
…a very good (and potentially useful) perspective! The thing to watch is the world around you. Keep in mind, while we have secondary and tertiary aspects and they do totally offer a potential for us to do things we thought we could never do. The Doctrine is still built on the idea that we all live in a personal reality (one of three characteristic personal realities). So if you are (predominantly a roger) what you experience the world to be is the world of the rogerian worldview. This is a subtly but critical important part of our little personality theory, i.e. I am not just a clark, an Outsider…but the world, itself verily! reality (for me) is that of the Outsider. lol Sounds like a bold statement, but it is critical to hold onto the perspective that this is not just about personal traits and behaviors, it is about the reality we live in. Another way to say it, ‘if you (assuming you are a roger), were able to see what I see (each day) you would see things that don’t exist in your world and you would notice things ‘missing’ that are in your world that don’t seem to be there anymore. lol
“mimic”, “joke-teller”, “act quickly” “fight when threatened” “quick-witted rather than sexy”
I am seeing a trend here, a distinctly secondary trend…..thank you for making it clearer. I may have been overthinking this one (quelle suprise)
@Considerer
yeah, my thinking is similar. (But the overwhelmingly clarklike atmosphere around here tends to want to leave that ‘call’ in the individuals hands. And while I still approve of that approach, part of me can’t help wonder if we won’t do better (going forward) by being more directly helpful with new Readers and such…. you know, “Hey clark speak up!” Hey scott! quiet down stop it right now!” “roger…we know what you’re thinking, stop being so defensive and join in with us…”)
I really like you guys (‘specially you and Cyndi and Kristi) for the sense of adventure and fun that your aggravating questions and observations are creating around here.
Any time :)
And yet, there is something to be said for having the answers out there yet being gently encouraged to find them yourself. Just keep on writing up the signposts – I got there in the end so I have hope that *anyone* else could do likewise.
@Considerer
yeah, agree. As I was ‘saying’ to Michelle in an earlier Comment/Reply despite how much I have a secondary scottian aspect, my world, the reality of the place I am …is that of the Outsider, the clark. The secondary aspect allows me a wider range of ‘behaviors’ than found in the clarklike worldview… (and here is where the issue of ‘language’ in the service of the thing) becomes a bit slippery. Is my scottian aspect (for example. we could be talking about a rogerian secondary or even a clarklike secondary) a glimpse into that worldview or is it ‘stepping into that reality’ or is it merely the un-practiced behaviors that are brought to bear by those who find themselves in the world of the predator?
I’m partial to the first interpretation (but with a little of the second) and not so wild about the 3rd.
…and this (discussion) is both the useful and fun part of this unique personality theory.
hey, I forgot to ask! you are in the land of no youtube!! did the video come through? it is simply one of the best illustrations/demonstrations of the scottian personality types.
This time it came through. Huzzah!
I don’t like the third, either. I think it’s more than a glimpse – maybe a second skin that allows us to interact differently for a while (though not without thinking about it first – ever a clark)
The discussion helps.
@Considerer
“…though not without thinking about it first – ever a clark”
And that is exactly what the concept of ‘worldviews/personal realities’ is all about.
We, as clarks, can act directly, even forcibly but the decision to act (or not act) is a function of the fact that in our worldview (or as we put it, ‘how we manifest our worldview’) to act is a function of a rational (didn’t say good or bad…just rational) process. clarks think
scotts on the other hand, are what we observe them to be, because they manifest their personal reality through action. scotts act
But and here is the key point, they don’t act or behave in a scottian manner because they have decided that it is the best approach. They do because it is the only approach… that is efficacious in the reality of the predator! It is part of the power that they have, they will respond…with or without thinking they simply do. It’s hard to underestimate the power of that… and this is part of what David Caruso’s scottian character is presenting to the other guy in terms up threats… he (Caruso) was not bigger than or stronger than the other guy he was simply wanting to act… fight, whatever without definition…. more so, without any limits (to his actions) that is what makes the other person back down to a scott. the implied threat that there is no thought or decision or limit on what they might do! very effective.
ya know?
That would certainly fit in with the number of times my mother has accused me of jumping in the deep end without looking first.
Yet there is the perversity of nature within me to see someone else’s mistake, to hear their story, and to still want to try it myself. Though this may be nothing to do with clarks or scotts but pig-headedness.
Although, I am engaged in learning and altering that pattern, so perhaps the clark wins out.
@Considerer
lol (we often say, pose the question who would you be if you could be (someone else) and the scotts and rogers usually say, ‘what?? why would I want to do that?’)
Very excellent conversation here today.
For a clark to go all scottian, to find themselves, without premeditation, walking, talking and interacting as a scott, involves emotional content. Which is vague. Which was supposed to be my next post over at Girlie….
I’m with you Clark on the description of a clark wearing a scottian suit that, at times it, may be the emotionally charged “reaction” type of behavior that turns us scary looking/sounding. But then there are times when, when…..if attitude is adjusted and now I can’t seem to find the words, we insist that we are going to act differently. No, that’s not it…
Let me stumble this out. I know about the 3 worldviews. I know a lot about how those worldviews are manifested/expressed (the challenge of scotts/the “shock” effect of scotts, the emotional “manipulation” of rogers) that I am at a point where it takes less effort to open the door to those worldviews.
Gonna stop now. I’m a moron today. Need to go before I’m labeled “one of those” clarks. LOL I’ll return when I am of sounder mind:)
Thanks for the insight ladies!
I wonder if it’s something we can control (to an extent) – to know another aspect and to engage in it wilfully (and this may be something only clarks can do, I don’t know, but stick with me) to indulge in the enjoyment, for a short while of Not Being A Clark…
Reflecting on the times I’ve been giddy, loud, lairy, jokey, mad fun, brashly taking over, taking the attention within a group and pushing it onward towards whatever *I* want to do…these have been the times when I have got ahold of the part of me which would say “But what will they *think*? And what will YOU think in the morning?” and put it in a corner, turned my back on it, and had FUN just Being.
@Considerer
it is. (or let me re-phrase with a little more context). It is my belief that it is possible to, not only access ‘the other two’ aspects, but I am looking to the Wakefield Doctrine as having, in it’s principles the potential for developing my scottian and (more difficult) rogerian aspects.
we all can identify with the giddy and lairy* times as clarks
*delightful term, btw
I hope so – and I will continue to absorb and try to put it into practice. It really is very user-friendly once you begin to grasp it.
Yes it is a great one.
Also I should say that your use of bloomin’ earlier was fine because I assume either it was sardonic (acceptable) or a pun on the sardonic (hilarious) and either way is fine.
Not surprising I agree with Kristi and really do love the Scott’s, lol!!
@Janine
(standing at desk tossing books, manuscripts and folios over my shoulder heard muttering, “where the hell did I put that damn Wakefield Doctrine instruction manual!!”)
lol
I tried to read and absorb this, but I feel like I’m not mentally up to snuff right now! I just spent three hours in the water with two Scuba instructors trying to drown me for my own good. Once I survive them, I’ll be ready for anything!
@natashalh
….definitely have inspired ‘Post envy’ in me with that! sounds like an interesting sport and a horrifying learning curve! lol
So, I’m thinking I might have a little Scott in me (but just a little), though I also know I’ve got the thinking Clark and the feeling Roger as well…naturally I make this post all about ME!! LOL. Maybe I am a Scott after all…:)
@Emily
lol that is the beauty-part of this personality theory we live in a certain personality/world and we have the strategies/coping skills suited to that one world, plus… plus! we may have some of the other two worlds skills. Not as cumbersome as I make it sound, of course lol
OMG – I was thanking the Doctrine gods the other day when I was dealing with a Scottian colleague. Had I not known about how to identify her personality, I would have been traumatized from the experience, but knowing about their personalities allowed me to smoothly have my dealing with her, knowing she would forget about it by the next day (hell, maybe even after 10 minutes) HAHA!
But yeah, we were talking schedules for next year and boy she got defensive after I (the new teacher) requested a change, knowing it would be better for the kids. I didn’t articulate myself well right when I presented the idea to her and she came at me with full scottian intimidation.
It didn’t phase me, though…I knew what she was about. I let her “think” about it and today when we were in our meeting, I just flatly stated, “we’re changing this because current methodologies support my request – this will help the kids to do better in my class” – she looked at me, blinked, and accepted it. Then we moved on. I couldn’t have asked for a better scenario. I knew there would be no hard feelings and that I never have to bring it up again. And knowing that scotts just like the no-nonsense approach, I just made a flat statement.
Funny thing is, while scotts can react with explosive emotion (really, the “action” you speak of), they DO forget within a short amount of time. Pissing off a roger can be precarious because they might harbor hard feelings or not, depending on the situation – the emotional aspect of their worldview. The one person I’d NEVER want to piss off? A fellow clark. We never forget. Our feelings are reeling days, months and even years after an event. They don’t fall by the wayside easily. And, we’ll be passive aggressive about it, even if we’ve forgiven the person.
Remember my neighbors with the whole “road situation?” My hubby J went down and created waterbars to help deflect water from the dirt road. The waterbars simultaneously created speed bumps. There’s a couple of them that are really rough to drive over; however, he designed it so that passing cars would smooth them out.
Lo and behold, we always snicker when our neighbors drive by: they can’t speed along at 20 mph (on a road designed for 5 kph) AND a couple of those speed bump water bars throw their car around.
Will J fix THAT!? Hell no. They’ve pissed us off too much. HAHAHAHAHA
@Cyndi
damn! ain’t this thing cool? useful and fun! Totally on the money with the strategy for dealing with scotts… Phyllis (who is a roger who runs an environmental lab, i.e. a business composed of rogers) has one scott to manage, from time to time. ‘Don’t forget to take a rolled-up newspaper to your meeting!’ is what we say on days when she must deal with this person. lol
“The one person I’d NEVER want to piss off” …do I need to tell the story about the friend that ‘stole my girlfriend’ in 1978? lol
This is truly an exciting time here at the Wakefield Doctrine! With you and Considerer and Denise and Jennifer and Janine and Amy and Molly and Michelle and Kristi and roger and all the other friends of the Doctrine bringing new applications and understanding to this thing very neat
Hey Cyndi! Think you’re having fun with the Doctrine now?! :-D It only gets more fun!!!
Every time I think I’ve got this whole scott-clark-roger thing under control, you go and throw new information at me. You know that as a scott (at least I thought I was), I can’t handle this much information. Okay, I’m going back to my flowchart and start all over.
P.s. love the flower picture.
@Michelle
you know what one of the neatest things about the Wakefield Doctrine is?
…well, do you?
(@Michelle)
lol god! I love those… multi-parsed jokes (along with the multi-footnote ones)
Seriously, Michelle you are doing just fine. In fact you are doing exceptional well. I say this because, while you seem to be experiencing some of the initial difficulties that we all encounter, you appear to be enjoying the process (of learning, of resistance encountered in the act of learning, satisfaction in overcoming the resistances) so far. Being who I am, I will choose not to say, ‘give it time, you will eventually get the thing that you are missing’. Instead, I will say, you scotts are a tenacious bunch, keep at it.’
As I say to Michelle in reply to her Comment on the Post (‘…another fairy tale’) everyone ’round here has a secondary clarklike aspect, otherwise you would simply be seeing an odd (among a universe of odd) blog and keep on moving through the endless pages in the blogosphere. But you did not… so that implies a clarklike aspect.
As I say often on my video Posts, ‘if you’re still listening, then you have that special quality of intellectual confidence, combined with a curiosity that makes things like the Doctrine really fun’.
And, in closing, let me re-assure you, Melissa. The thing about the Wakefield Doctrine is that ‘you can’t get it wrong’*
* yes, that is a teaser line meant to get you to say, “now just what the hell is that supposed to mean?!!?” lol