Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
you know, as a clark I have been accused of many things! but being self-promoting has never been one of them. I have oft been told, ‘clark, yo dude, ya gotta get out there and make ’em listen and when they listen you have to tell them how much everyone loves you!’ ( Dear Readers: these previous 2 ‘sentences’ are illustrations of the ‘everyone does everything at one time or another’ principle of the Wakefield Doctrine, to wit all circumstances, situations, imbrogliae and common everyday life experience can (and should) be viewed as each of the three personality types would experience them. Which is a long way of saying, put yourself in the: world of the Outsider, the Predator and the Herd Member and see how it appears).
Can you identify which part represents which expression of which worldview?
lol (why yes, it is that kind of morning! thank you for asking…have you noticed that this week has been characterized by some sort of comprehension sinkhole that springs up spontaneously every time to you try to convey an idea to people?…just me? oh, was afraid of that*)
From October 8 2013
Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) It’s the real deal, a perspective that will let you see the behavior of your friends and family in a totally new light. Try it!
So, about the Columbus thing. We admit that we made up today’s Title. There is absolutely no evidence supporting the contention that Christopher Columbus stayed behind and raised a family*, but given that today we, in the Currently Dominant Culture of the Western Hemisphere (motto: ” were Number 1!! were Number #1!!! ), are celebrating the Discovery of the New World aka Columbus Day( Coming to the Discovery Channel: “New World Men: Kicking Ass on a Whole New Continent!” )
Now that I’ve got that out of my system, we can on with the serious business of talking about the Wakefield Doctrine. ( Alright, if you want a ‘funny Post’, I’ll give you a funny Post! Go to this Post and after you have read it, please come back and tell me what the hell you think is so damn good about it! For reasons not understood, this Post shows up way more than it should in the list of ‘search terms’ (indicators of how Readers come to find the blog.)
You know, in the early days of writing this blog, we would make a point of stating that the Wakefield Doctrine is both gender and culture neutral. What we meant by this is that it does not matter what part of the world you are from, it is the nature and character of your own worldview that matters (personality type-wise). We contend that the worldviews that are the basis of the three personality types are inseparable from the human condition. Further, while standards of behavior may vary from one culture to another, a person who grows up, develops and otherwise matures living in a reality best characterized as the world of Predator and Prey, will be: aggressive, inquisitive, quick to react, action-oriented with a minimum of self-reflection. That reality exists in Zimbabwe and New Auckland as well as Mansfield Ohio. Not only that, but the Doctrine maintains that gender prescribes the capacity/ability (of a person to act a certain way), not their reasons for acting. A female growing up, developing and otherwise maturing in a world where she is the Outsider, will still develop: an insatiable desire to learn new information and facts, be drawn to the fringes of whatever culture she happens to be in and have an abundance of what is referred to as intuition, all that she is permitted (by physiology as well as the local culture) in order to live her life.
The unique insight into behavior and personality types offered by the Wakefield Doctrine is founded upon one’s personal reality. Correctly infer which of the three worldviews the other person is experiencing and you will know more about them than they know about themselves.Columbus? Not sure which of the three personality types…well, hold on a minute! The following is an accepted approach to figuring whether a person is a clark or a scott or a roger: eliminate the most unlikely of the three worldviews, in the case of Columbus we’re gonna go with, ‘not a clark‘** That leaves us with: scott or roger.
Put me down for: roger! (If you want to know my reasoning, you’re going to have to write a Comment and ask, preferably offering your own choice.)
*”Here’s the story …of a man named Columbo” ha, ha
*actually I’m not ‘afraid of that’ I’m a damn clark…I live with that ever damn day, ya know
About clarkscottroger
It’s so not just you clark. I have been experiencing that too. Maybe because I consider myself a clark too? ;)
Linda
god! I hope not! (who are we kidding??! I don’t hear any rogers or scotts stepping up with anything insightful (scotts and insightful? as if!!) of comforting… hey! there’s a natural word connection!! rogers and comforting….not!)
lol let me know if it gets better… hey you should join us on a Sunday Video Brunch! George and Jane Jetson will be there!
Ok, good post, yadda, yadda. HAHAH.
I came here to tell you how much the WD has infiltrated my life. Ever since I called in the Saturday before last, I’ve been having all sorts of revelations about rogers.
Okay, so we were talking about our neighbors that live at the top of the hill from us. After husby had worked on the road this past July, they’ve never thanked us or even acknowledged that we saved them thousands of dollars. We were mulling over just why they don’t like us so much.
Then BAM – it all comes down to them being rogers. When we originally “went against” them when they wanted everyone on our little mountain to chip in and pay for the road, that upset their worldview. Everyone else, except one guy at the very bottom of the road who couldn’t see why he had to pay if he uses a tiny fraction of the road, TOTALLY went along with the neighbors who wanted to pour thousands of dollars into the road. They were ALL part of the herd.
Since we’re the clarks, to this day, our rogerian neighbors at the top of the road can’t deal with us because we’re too upsetting to their worldview. Two of our other neighbors told us, “well, we’d rather pay if it means keeping the peace,” and at the time I remember thinking, “where’s their backbone.”
To further my revelation here, I remember when the neighbors at the top of the road originally approached us to fix the road (that didn’t need fixing, by the way…I have a little pregnant rollerskate for a car and it got up and down just fine) – they told us that EVERYONE else was willing to pay repair costs and that we should go in on it, too. Initially we almost caved to the pressure until my scottian side took over and I let the poor lady have it…
But anyways, the more I learn about rogers, the more I’m figuring out how to navigate around them. Hell, I’m totally an exposed outsider to everyone on our mountain, and I’m more scottian than my husby – so I’m sure I’m definitely looked upon with some amount of scorn by my rogerian neighbors. In fact, I think I scare them.
But well…since I’m already an outsider, I have to tell you that I never mind doing crazy crap in front of them now – you know, since they already think we’re crazy. One morning I stared at the wife of the couple that lives at the top of our road from our window while she was walking up and down. That was about a week ago and she hasn’t walked by our house since – not at least while we’ve been home.
Oh, this Doctrine has turned me into a study of human behavior, I swear. ;)
WAY TO GO :D
Lizzi
yeah, huh?
Cyndi
very good! (everything) about the Doctrine is just a little bit* different than most theories/systems that claim to offer help with life’s challenges. and it’s funny, one of the things I get from your re-counting of your situation with the neighbors is that you are using the Wakefield Doctrine just as intended… to allow you an (additional) perspective on the situation which, as I read it, allows you to be comfortable with a different approach than might have otherwise be the result…let me re-phrase that, it(this additional perspective) did not create for you something that did not already exist, rather it suggested an alternative viewpoint and the subsequent strategies.
and most of all, for me at any rate, is that you used it on and for yourself, not on ‘them’…
very cool
*or a lot a bit
I am using it on them… I know, I know… but you asked… how can I use it on me and talk about Mr. Columbus??? Anyhoo… I am going with Roger… anyone that can follow his gut to the ends of the earth (quite literally in this case) and despite the herds eventual mutiny… He has to be a
Fricking Feeling Roger…Well, at least I think so… Fricking Clark that I am….
zoe
you know, I was talking with Michelle on the Brunch (after you called in…everyone was all, ‘oh man! I missed it! will she be back?’ naturally, I said, ‘yes, yes she will’….lol)
in any event, the discussion of Columbus and given your putative status (consistent with Secret Rule 1.6) as a predominant clark (jury still out on secondary aspect) makes me remember one of the things we were looking at, the predominant is the baseline, the reality in which (an) individual grows and develops in…in a sense, what we are referring to as personality characteristics might easily be called the sum of a person’s successful coping strategies… but while the predominant is the first most important perspective, it is the secondary (and to an extent not yet explored, the tertiary) aspects that produce the ‘individual’. or accounts for the individual…. or something. We know that there is not perfect fit for a clark or a scott or a roger, in terms of matching the description (of the worldviews) but the Doctrine nevertheless is predicated on this predominant worldview as being the starting point from which everything else follows… getting late. to be continued, will be interested if it turns out that your secondary aspect is rogerian (note: there is no ‘balance requirement’ with these 2nd and 3rd aspects. we all have the potential but it does not have to occur in the individual, no well there is this much of one, so there must be this much of the other to even things out. in fact, I know people who are a predominant type with no (significant) secondary or tertiary aspect…and it is quite instructive to see this effect!)
I”m fairly certain the jury is in….on my secondary aspects. Although I know many a SCottian shrink, my feeling heart combined with an occassional Rogerian mindset has lead me to my second profession.