Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
Time for one Post before the end-of-the-week bloghop(s)1.
Anyone interested in the pre-beta test/assessment questions that I’m working on… let me know in the Comments and I’ll put you on the email list. There are 10 questions, (at this point), and I’ll be looking for feedback on the questions (whether they represent a common enough life situation to be engaging).
Hey! Friend of the Doctrine Amy has some good news!! She has published her-own-damnself a book! Very cool for 2 reasons: a) she has published a book and 2) she published a book despite the forces within her that tried to prevent her from doing so! We all have this within ourselves… go to her Post, let her tell you about it.
Video Brunch for the weekend…schedule remains open. Sunday is the favored day, seeing how, in this brave new Century, most of us have to work on Saturdays. (Hey! there’s a thought! How about a Virtual End-of-Summer Cookout? (“honey, no! don’t move my tablet!! I’m cooking and everyone is watching me flip the burgers! …no, I don’t think they need to see your new bathing suit… this is a Cookout, not a Fashion Show“) Most of us reading this are clarks, so start thinking about how much fun that might be…maybe we’ll do something.
Doctrine Puzzling Lesson of the Week:
‘everyone does everything, at one time or another.‘
I was getting depressed the other day because of another personality Post that was wildly popular …and well written. I forget what it was about.2 In any event, I watched the thread of Comments from people who enjoyed the Post and were relating how well it described them, and I found myself thinking, ‘damn! I need to learn to write better, real fast’. But the real camel crushing came when one of the Commenters wrote, ‘yeah, but I am a high functioning introvert’ (or words to that effect). I immediately thought, ‘wait a minute! that doesn’t make sense!‘ right away two things occurred to me:
- no one doesn’t enjoy a personality theory, especially one that they can apply to themselves (in a way that is not too scary). Personality theories are mirrors and no one can resist a mirror. If that is true, the Wakefield Doctrine is something that everyone should enjoy, so why the lack of millions of readers… the only answer is: I have not expressed the Wakefield Doctrine in terms that anyone, other than the exceptional3 can understand, apply to themselves and enjoy.
- how good is a personality theory if the user has to stick qualifiers into the really cool personality traits? people do this, of course, in order to enjoy sharing the fun (of the personality theory) with his or her friends?
- of course!, I thought, these theories are saying, “here is what you have for qualities and traits and such, therefore you are this personality type”4 and the Wakefield Doctrine takes an entirely different approach.
…which leads us to the statement, ‘everyone does everything at one time or another’, which is to remind ourselves that the three personality types of the Wakefield Doctrine are not a collection of traits and attributes, rather they (the three worldviews), are the characteristic way that we relate ourselves to the world around us. There is no job or occupation, hobby or interest or even a life situation that is clarklike or scottian or rogerian.
So, were someone to say, ‘hey man! my wife is a High School Librarian…that means she’s a clark, right?’ The answer is: not necessarily.
Why? Because the Wakefield Doctrine maintains that we all experience the world from one of three characteristic worldviews, and in (each) of these worldviews, the profession of ‘High School Librarian’ manifests in a way that is specific to the person’s worldview. Only by observing the High School Librarian and inferring from how she relates to her job can we know which of the three is the person’s worldview.
So anytime you think…is this a scottian thing or is that a thing a roger would do, remember’ everyone does everything at one time or another’
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1) why that would be:
- Finish The Sentence Friday (from the startling mind of Janine, the comedic head of Kate, the delightfully lascivious thoughts of Stephanie and the well-balance brain of Dawn) It’s a very popular blog hop, so better get started, get it in early.
- Ten Things of Thankful Considerer and Christine and a group of insanely creative and imaginative writing-people start the party first thing Saturday and don’t stop until EOD Sunday. This is easily the coolest new bloghop in ‘the sphere’ part traditional Gratitude List part… free-for-all, there are conversations springing up all over the place, inside comment threads, on each other’s Post there’s even a metaphorical small town that writers will use… try it! If you are bored with the weekend where no one seems to Post come to the TToT you will not be sorry! and….and! Cyndi and Kristi and Rich are known to stum…stop by!
2) This is only half true, I know it was about being an introvert, but not reading the actual Post compensates for knowing what it was about.
3) yes, dear Readers, I did call you exceptional. no, don’t let it go to your heads…your qualities are yours, Doctrine or no Doctrine…ya know?
4) maybe a teensy bit overstated, but my feelings were still hurt by how everyone likes them better than us….
About clarkscottroger
There, there! poor hurt feelings. Let me know who they are and I’ll never let them into the Ten Things hop ;) (nah, I’m not that mean)
I’d be up for beta-testing if you want a ‘familiar’ look at it, though if you want someone still seeking to ‘get’ this, try Dyanne – she’s been asking for a test*
*Yes, yes, Kristi – the test that was YOUR idea. I am attributing properly now, I hope, which may go some small way to reinstating that status I just had stolen by Shanique…
@Considerer
if anyone thinks this Doctrine makes self-development easy, think again! invoking one’s rogerian aspect* can be a bitch! lol
on the questions: I think the first step is to have questions that describe everyday, common scenaria (and given the fact that I just used the word scenaria without the slightest hint of self-consciousness, I may not be the best source of what rogers and scotts consider everyday situations!), I will send the list to anyone who would like to receive them and I will, in fact, be open to additional questions.
hey Kristi! Melanie! now that we have broken the barrier of College fashion, from the Wakefield Doctrine perspective, any thoughts on how else we can insinuate ourselves into the real world? perhaps a blazer with a small taste crescent ‘the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers‘ on the breast pocket?
*in my case my rogerian aspect is a minor tertiary aspect. ‘yours’ may be different.. of course
I remember you mentioning this in your conversations before….that there is no profession specifically Rogerian, Clark or Scottlike, only different approaches to the profession. That’s why there are so many different branches of law, and so many different kinds of teachers!
@Michelle
exactly! and you make an interesting point with the idea of different approaches to Teaching, in that from a career-counseling perspective, Teacher (male clark) not a good fit for Middle School, rogerian female Teacher: better in the High School grades, than, say the 1st, 2nd or 3rd (those children are so un-organized! lol)
the same will apply to (how the three types) manifest in the legal profession: litigation: scott intellectual property: roger(I know! you would think clark, but have you ever tried to talk to the people in the Patent Office?) Public Defender (do I even have to say? lol)
very good line of inquiry, Michelle I trust you will want to be on the mailing list? (if so, let me know if the best email is anything other than what I have here)
I KNOW THAT WHICH YOU REFER. HAHAHA. And I followed up the comments with, “I’m highly functional and CRAZY.” HAHAH.
Okay…anyways, what the hell was I even talking about? LOLOL…Oooh, I know, it was a thing from the Saturday call…”threads” of the personality types: you know, Clark-Scotts, Clark-Rogers…hey, wait a minute…is it possible to be a “Clark-Clark”? I only ask because I’m NOT that, but…you were telling us something about a Scott who was ALL scott…so does that mean he’s a scott-scott? And what of the clarks: is a clark-roger more outgoing than a clark-scott? Or is a roger-clark more outgoing than a scott-clark?
@Cyndi
lol excellent! no! (lol)
three worldviews. one predominant (from early childhood is the actual reality the person exists in and experiences) and the (possibility) of secondary aspect and tertiary aspects.
Important to remember that the secondary and tertiary can be negligible (no need for balance or symmetry)…
all people have a predominant
some people have a predominant and no significant secondary and tertiary (the friend I was mentioning… he was simply a scott)
many people (virtually everyone reading the Doctrine more than once) have significant secondary aspects and (to some degree) a tertiary aspect that is noticeable
work is on-going as to the significance of the secondary and tertiary aspects how they affect us, how they might be useful in self-development
the correct nomenclature would be: (for example) me I am a clark (predominant worldview) with a significant secondary scottian aspect and a marginal rogerian tertiary aspect…
ya know?
Thanks so much for the shout out! :)
I agree that your readers are exceptional and maybe more intelligent than average (and I’m not just saying that because I’m one of them). I also think you are right that people love a good personality test – I think they like these personality theories to make them feel good about themselves, even their not so pretty sides. I know that for me, the doctorine has helped me to accept and embrace my clark-ness, which is what most clarks probably need! I don’t know that Scotts would be all that interested long term in reading about themselves because (perhaps) they don’t need such affirmation? Just my thoughts on it.
And popularity – I will never understand why so many people love certain things and casually pass over others that are so much more interesting, in depth or just plain better.
I’m starting to come to terms with the fact that my readers are a very specific type. Not everyone enjoys my tone or view (can you imagine! Lol!). Somehow this is news to me! Not everyone “gets” me in real life, so why would I expect them to online? I’m learning to be okay with that…I’m not there yet.
Hey Clark! I like this new comment format!
As soon as I leave this comment I’m heading over to your house Amy to read about the book. CONGRATULATIONS!
Funny that I just finished Virginia Woolf’s “a room of one’s own”… Reading your comment Amy, I would suggest that you be “okay with that” because frankly, you may not have to be anywhere! As a clark, there will always be folks who “won’t and/or “don’t get you:)
Your readers most certainly are comprised primarily of clarks and rogers. (yes, I said “primarily”. no, I am not excluding the scotts!)
You’re pretty much on the money there with the scott/affirmation thing. The reasoning why of it is where the Doctrine gets interesting =D
Just going to state from the get-go: don’t fucken hate me. A lot of this is fresh in my mind since I just marathoned your posts.
Bleeding green just happens sometimes* In the end, it’s best to lick your wounds and carry on, because a lot of the time (all of the time) it’s a waste of energy to focus on, being it’s negative. Where one can be envious and jealous of another’s success, they could instead be happy and thankful that someone has found such success and believe that they themselves are capable of accomplishing the same. Trust me, the second will bring such a greater wealth of peace and love. I’ve dabbled in talking about this (if you haven’t noticed) in different forms with Lizzi and recently very briefly alluded too in one of Kristi’s posts. Those are a bit different in circumstance, but my message remains relatively the same.
I’ve accepted not everyone will like what I have to say, and some may even be quick to burn the “bridge” spanning the gap of space, time, and metaphysical connectedness we all share. That okay by me, because like it or not the “connectedness” still exists (whether they know or accept it or not**).
I’m getting off track… I think jealousy happens (different than doubt, but on the same end of the spectrum, naturally). I’ve experienced it with my blog and I can’t understand why meaningful posts I made (to me) pick up any traction, while others less substantial in “message” do.
As for your blog and the Doctrine, it IS different in the way it functions. You aren’t specifying one single end all be all personality to an individual, and so it may not work the same way as other personality theories in terms of designing a test.
That being said, however, there is the fundamentally human nature/need to want to be able to discern such information in a casual way ( via a test of some sort sometimes). It makes it simpler, easier to understand, and — for some — just simply easier to relate to (and possibly fun…). I know you discovered the one test (the List one), but it seemed to require having knowledge about which predominant personality you are. I never asked in that post (not sure why), but what were the results meant to show in doing so? More of an emotional reaction of the level of success with how much was completed on the list? Maybe it was explained and I completely missed it. If so, I apologize.
Where I want to talk about some is the nature in which stance is taken with the Doctrine. I recall in that video last Thursday (and mentioned in my comment) something along a statement of “having brains” if you were still watching the video. I realize you and I are newly acquainted and so I may not be completely familiar with humor (humour?), so the very fact I missed that is not lost unto me and this is basing on the possibility it wasn’t mean in such a fashion (given mention of “exceptional” above).
I’m sure you already know this, but there is a point where people determine what something they create is going to be made for. I think it’s near impossible without a smidgen of an idea of a focus. Another tangent – my father and I debated my After Armageddon pieces I wrote a few months back. His argument was my use of vulgarity and violence will cut out a chunk of people [readership], where if toned down it would be suitable for a much MUCH wider audience. This is true, and I knew this, but I had already determined what demograph (<–that right?) or audience I was writing for: Adult. The series is to be gritty, vulgar, and violent. It was set to be that from it's very core at time of conception.
Much the same, I feel you've likely already had this process and determination from the beginning with the Wakefield Doctrine. Which audience are you wanting to appeal to/target/etc. I understand the Doctrine is for everyone, and you can't break it, but how the information is presented and how relateable/accessible/explained will play a huge role. If it's going to be viewed as more "high-brow" "intellectual" and that is the focus then that is what it will be, and it will exclude those who may not grasp the understanding without being directly spoken to about (and sometimes not even then), which I understand you do not oppose in the least, but stating for the sake of the point. I'm not saying to "dumb" anything down, by any means.
Some people may just not "get" it. Like people don't get the movie Inception, though I feel it's not an overly complicated movie at all. I'm not everyone. It's where one begins to creep into the mentality that "I am better" or "smarter" than other said individuals that you have successfully crossed over into negative territory, and in doing so, it will show and if that is alright and desired, it won't really matter, but it will affect those that possibly participate and/or happen upon the Doctrine.
It's just, as there is Astrology, Numerology, Tarot, other personality theories, etc etc there is always a place for the Wakefield Doctrine. Where all of these things are for everyone, they aren't. Just like the Wakefield Doctrine is for everyone, it won't be, but yet still be.
I hope I made sense without being overly offensive!
*Like Amy publishing her book…
**Suckas!
Jak at The Cryton Chronicles & Dreams in the Shade of Ink
@Jak
Yes you did, and no you weren’t.
My goal (the aim of the effort I expend on this Wakefield Doctrine blog and other activities) is to develop an understanding of the principles that (I believe) are inherent in it’s under-lying premise. So Step One: learn more about how to express the insights that, as a tool, the Doctrine can offer and most importantly the way that the Doctrine can be a tool in the effort to self-develop oneself… Step Two: learn to write a lot better real, real fast.
The problem is not that the Doctrine is too difficult to understand an sue, the problem is that I ‘took up’ ‘writing’ 4 years ago. (Fortunately the seems to come with it’s own motivating energy! I said to the others, since I started the blog there has never been a day that I have been bored with it. Even more telling, is that I feel something…that lets me do things that I would not in a million years want to do (in any other context): video tape myself… meet people… and push myself to write the blogs in the company of (‘in front of’) people with vastly superior skills…because I believe that this is the fastest way to improve my own skill. But in terms of the other areas’ of my life this goes way against my natural impulses.
But hey, it’s the Wakefield Doctrine. It’s uniques and useful and fun. And hopefully I will become skilled enough to write about the Wakefield Doctrine in a style that anyone can read, learn and put to use in their own life… right away.
In the mean time I finding like-minded people. It’s no secret (hell, the Doctrine predicted) that clarks would comprise the majority of the initial audience, for reasons that we all understand. And there is evolving or developing or accreting this sense of something among the clarks here… not quite a group, certainly not exclusive… more a matter of… hey! you’re a movie guy! Remember that movie with Forest Whitaker…. something about modern day samurai? there was a scene I recall (amazing about that, it was what 10 years ago) anyway, Forest’s character is walking along the sidewalk and sees someone walking towards him and he recognizes another samurai …they didn’t go on to hang out…they didn’t go get a beer, but there was (in this scene) a sense of sharing that enriched both (characters)… something like that
Alright good deal :)
I think your writing is good, and writing for 4 years is a good chunk of time! There is that aspect about “voice” you mentioned before that I think is important to remember as it’s always going to be there in some fashion, but I guess there is a difference between formal use and casual use. I think.
I am indeed a movie guy :) I believe the movie was Ghost Dog and it’s pretty impressive you even referenced it, because I don’t think many people have even heard of the movie lol
I don’t trust Lizzi with a sword, though…
Damn I failed to use the “reply” function lol
@Jak
NP as I have this now ‘no moderation’ (for anyone who has already Commented)… it is good for the ‘conversation’…I will be working on getting something together for the TToT tomorrow… always fun