Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
Was it last week someone was talking about testing…or insights into personality…or maybe it was one of those stray thought paths that spring up as I try to write a Post. In any event, I was trying to find an image that would convey the idea of a certain type of psychological testing, specifically a test called a Thematic Apperception Test (TAT).1 I kept wanting to find the Wyeth painting, ‘Christina’s World’ among the images used in administering this test, but I could not and then (as often happens) another rabbit ran by and I followed it to god knows where and (I assume), I wrote a Post. In any event, this morning as I wandered around google… started with Kristi’s reference and very fun quote from ‘Ulysses’ I somehow ended up with a page of images that included the above. (Now that I think of it, I was following a trail that included the phrase ‘the nuns ringing the Angelus bells’, however those images were too weird (I know!).
I will keep this brief, as the start of the workday is racing towards me like the un-seen horror in a nightmare.2
the Wakefield Doctrine is not an answer, it is a tool… a perspective. The best use of the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine results in (one) being able to ‘see the world as the other person is experiencing it’
The Wakefield Doctrine is unique and it is useful and it is fun.
the fun this weekend was found in two realms: the Wakefield Doctrine Saturday Night Drive, the Wakefield Doctrine Sunday Morning Video Brunch and the Wakefield Doctrine (participation as co-host) in the TToT.
so what is your favorite nightmare? mine (as referenced in this weekend’s TToT) was fairly bland:
I find myself with a group of people out side a large building in an unrecognizable location. We all seem to know each other and there is a sense of ‘hey, lets do something!’. One of the people in the group, who I seem to know (in that wonderful holographic mix of people, all different and distinct and all bundled into one person) says, ‘the hell with you, I going into this building and win‘.
I feel the need to help, (combination of desire, friendship and protectiveness for the person), but the building is simply reeking of ‘bad things… not simple fear, not even simple anxiety but bad outcomes’. There is an aura of danger on an elemental level.
…in any event, she grabs a flashlight and runs into the front door. I’m like all, ‘shit! now I gotta‘ and follow her into the front door and up the stairs that are the only choice. Now, while I feel the anxiety dial start to twitch, I recall previous dreams all involving large three level buildings where none of the rooms lead in to the same room more than once. As in, get on one floor, follow the hallway, pick a door and then, if you turn around, not only will the corridor not be the same one you entered from, there is a good chance that the frickin door is not there… and the anxiety level builds and I can’t stand still, it is a combination of a (need) escape, a (desire to) rescue and (overwhelming need) to avoid a very serious trap.
Ok! time to go word, where hopefully the rooms will remain stable, lol.
There you go, Lizzi
1) hey, you gots to read this Wikipedia reference! They mention two people as creators/authors of the TAT, Henry Murray and Christiana Morgan… who out there doesn’t believe that this is a classic roger and clark collaboration? lol… if you need help with this, write a Comment already!
2) There have been calls to do a Post about nightmares… prompted by a mention of such a dream in this week’s TToT
About clarkscottroger
Mine is the ghost at the foot of the bed. Not one of the times I enjoy being part of the herd!
Michelle
is it a ghost of a recognizable person or ‘simply’ a ghost. I can’t remember the last time I had a dream involving ghosts. It will be interesting if we see any distinctions’ among the three types for the form of nightmare.
So what does the dream MEAN to you? Cos I can see a pretty clearish meaning, but yaknow, as with the Doctrine, dreams tend to be meaningful only to the individuals…
Lizzi
exactly!! like the Doctrine itself, the stories of dreams are me/us not for you/them… however, there is the fun of seeing the ways that a clark or a scott or a roger might express what is (often) common human drives and needs and such… (the old Doctrine saying is appropriate here: ‘everyone does everything at one time or another’)
So would it be possible to say that there might be a ‘typical’ dream or nightmare scenario for each ‘type’? Or is that too scattered to draw together. Hmmm. Needs more input. Might have to try to find out more about the nightmares of our rogers and scotts…
Lizzi
that would be cool.. though I suspect we would need a ton of people responding on the dream thing. I would argue that (ones’) predominant worldview would shape a persons dreams ( think movie Directors: Christopher Nolan, Quentin Tarantino and ….and (gots to think of a rogerian) Stephen Speilberg! but, (to my understanding) dreams have access to everything, which might include (no, it should include) our secondary and tertiary aspects.
(…you just like to create work for people, don’t you? lol)
(love the notion..am totally happy to know that there are people able and willing to push the boundaries…explore the unknown…Doctrine style!)
I’ve never been a big fan of the TAT. I think it tends to deny the person being tested their own point of view as it relies on the interpretation of the tester. A tester who is often steeped in psychodynamics. Whereas dreaming and the doctrine both rely on the point of view of the individual who is “me” the test taker –not “you” the tester…so while I understand your search for an appropriate photo, I think the Doctorine deserves a better model than the TAT… just out of interest how did this whole doctorine thing start for you anyway? is it someplace in the pages of this blog? I’m just interested may be nosey is more like it.
zoe
I agree about the subjectivity (interference/projection) that would seem u-avoidable with the TAT. As odd as it may sound, ‘this Doctrine is for you, not for them’…has it’s origin in my thinking about how often people come across ‘personality tests/assessments’ and the next thing you hear is, “oh honey? could you come read this?” lol
the ‘eureka moment’ for the Wakefield Doctrine is fairly non-romantic (i.e. falling apples, flying cigars or golden plates)…it can be found here.
so now that I’ve gone off on my clarky-TAT tangent. Back to the topic at hand– so what about this dream thing? do you think we finally cut loose in our dreams and act out counter to our typical personality types?I’m thinking about my recurring dream which is full of Clarkisms… but I never get a chance to react in it so who knows if I would remain true to my clarkiness?
zoe
good question. For me it would not be so much that most of our dreams are of a nature/style recognizably consistent with our predominant worldview, rather what does those parts (of our dreams) that would appear to be grounded in our secondary and tertiary aspects be telling us?…or better, offering us?
(back in the day, I used to like Perls’ approach, ‘it’s my dream, I’m everything in it’ (semi-paraphrase))
so, while I think there is productive value to looking for our predominant worldview and secondary and tertiary in our dreams, I think that the primary value is support of the principle (of the Wakefield Doctrine) that we all have some degree of access to the 3 worldviews… this is huge, as this (access) holds the key to the Doctrine being a total killer form of self-development system.
ya know?
Ya Know, I totally DO get that but the Clark in me wants to point out that if I were more Rogerian I would likely frigging DO something in the dream instead of running out of time (every stinking time I have the damn dream)!
zoe
now that you’ve opened the door to the idea of how would the three worldviews manifest in a dream/nightmare. I would suggest the simplest overview, clarks think, scotts act and rogers feel might not be sufficient guidance…that, by virtue of the fact that we are talking about nightmares, we should more properly be looking at what the three worldviews are not… for the person.
…but then again, maybe it is the intrusion of the secondary and tertiary aspects that result in what we are referring to as nightmares… sounds like a topic for an Afterschool special
(If I recall you are asserting a clarklike predominant worldview and a secondary rogerian aspect… that I find plausible, for reasons that space and typing endurance prevent me from going into here, but it is a topic (the effect of a secondary rogerian aspects) that is of great interest at the moment. more to follow.)
Is this a recurring nightmare?
I once did an art project of a nightmare I had when I was 4: I was kidnapped by a scarecrow in a graveyard who took me to his lair in an abandoned cabin, tied me down on a revolving table. Holy moly. I still shudder at that.
Cyndi
lol ( I laugh, not in a cruel way, more in a ‘thank god the scarecrows have your name and not mine’ kind if way)… this topic of recurring nightmares is pretty insidious, at first you think of one dream (probably the last) but the idea sticks in your head and then ‘the other’ dreams start to get remembered… I have a couple of odd ones (getting into fights with dogs!! lol seriously).
I like the revolving table…nice touch!