Tuesday the Wakefield Doctrine (the worst best day of the Week)

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

1920-10-Popular-Science-Norman-Rockwell-cover-Perpetual-Motion-400-Digimarc

Hey! It’s Tuesday!! (“...the day of week that starts out making you feel confident that you can meet the demands of your life, only to force you to admit that, like it or not, you must submit to whatever demands your world has in mind for you… and the next hiding place is 4 frickin days away!” yeah, that day of the week!)

If yesterday’s Post could be thought of as being ‘the back cover’ of the book, (‘the Wakefield Doctrine ‘you can drive, but you can’t hide”), then we need to write the Preface today.

the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) is the product of a lifetime of effort to make sense of the world and (the behavior of) the people in it. From the first time it occurred to me to sign a Birthday Card to a member of my immediate family using my first and last names, (I couldn’t have been more than 5 years old), right up to about an hour ago, I have worked towards finding ‘the Answer’.  Up until the moment that the core concept  of the Wakefield Doctrine appeared before my eyes (the ‘Eureka Moment‘), I did what most people of my predominant worldview does: lay low and watch for clues, gather information and try not to stand out too much. It is kind of amazing how resourceful we are when we don’t think too much and (we) rely on our instincts, that silent voice that says ‘uh oh… freeze’. It is not that I was completely successful in getting through early life in stealth mode, but I saw enough on a daily basis, to bring home to me that I:

  • was ‘apart from’ everyone around me. they knew my name and where I lived and everything, but no one among them gave the slightest indication that they knew how I felt
  • did not seem to have feelings the way that the people I observed had; sure I got mad (frustrated), I got happy (hopeful), I even got sad (hopeless) but it never seemed to be the same thing the others were doing
  • did not realize until a minute ago, how ingrained this emotional …’separateness’  of mine actually is, until I noticed that I just used the word ‘got’ instead of ‘felt’  ….damn! is this a Doctrine or what?
  • was not always noticed as an Outsider, and to blend into the background provided me with the best vantage point from which to observe and learn
  • came to believe that my expectations were almost always exaggerated, at least when I permitted myself to imagine a change in my life… I would not just be like everyone else, I would be better than everyone else
  • also realized that while I did not enjoy being in the spotlight, I would not permit them to ignore me and so I learned to influence the friends that I acquired at various stages of my growing up
  • was convinced that once I discovered what I didn’t know, (that everyone else did seem to know), then I could become a real person

and so, until I experienced the moment of insight in the music store in Pawtucket, I lead a fairly normal life.  (lol,  no! it’s ok  I’m laughing too…  )  (ok… that’s enough).   Just because I had a certain insight in the early 1980’s does not mean that the Wakefield Doctrine sprang into being, complete with clarks, scotts and rogers. Well, actually it was the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers, right from the beginning. The critical insight was that, maybe we all live in a world that is just ours, in a certain way, personal to us, a personal reality. Now, I never felt that this required any major leap of faith, or that being personal meant that my world had exotic and strange creatures and abilities….  er, wait a minute.  I think it sort of does imply that.

In any event, I spent the next 20 years or so with the idea that there were three personality types, three ways of experiencing the world and I watched and learned the the different ways that these three types seemed to relate to the world.  More and more I would talk about  ‘those scotts!’ and ‘jeez how do the rogers do that’  and ‘poor clark, she needs to step outside of herself for just a minute, it would not be as hopeless as she believes!’  Then in 2009 the decision was made to write a blog and the rest is semi-current history.

there is a saying around here, ‘the Wakefield Doctrine is for younot for them ‘

it seems that most people, upon reading about (in a magazine), hearing about (on a television show) or chatting about (on ‘the Facebook’), a new personality theory simply can’t wait to try it out on: their boyfriend (who is not as wild as your parents think), girlfriend (who if only she would tone it down, and not be so….so, your friends would love her), husband (who works hard and is a good provider, but when he gets into that silent, not-depressed-but-not-happy mood, you want so much to be able to do something), wife (who sometimes, you know she can be so kind but then, out of nowhere she lashes out, usually at the person who least expects it,  maybe she won’t do it so much), boss (who can be such an asshole but then, at times when it is just the two of you talking, seems to be so interested in your ideas)   …all because people love personality theories for two reasons:

  1. it confirms what they want to believe about themselves
  2. it offers an excuse to try to change the other person
the Wakefield Doctrine does neither of these things  …

 

 

 

 

 

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. zoe says:

    Fabulous…

    I think I may have to unsubscribe… I am always sitting at my desk and willing to be distracted when this comes out… I feel like such a stalker…

  2. Ever since I’ve learned more about this from you, I’ve found it pretty relevant. I can see lots of Rogers around me!

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      Michelle

      …well, current estimates have the rogers making up (yeah, right, like they ever make up first…well sometimes, if she’s a totally scottian woman, but for a clark I would not be holding my…. oh! is this thing on?) probably in excess of 63% of the population!

    • Denise says:

      And that makes perfect sense Michelle, you being in the “majority”!
      Most of us can identify our own kind pretty easily. Which gave me pause to think that even those not acquainted with the Wakefield Doctrine “know” who is different and who is not. Vague, I know.
      How is it that labs know their own “family” – other labs, golden retrievers. They instinctively recognize those dogs as one of their own. And they relate themselves in a particularly familiar way. A “comfortable” way.

      • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

        Denise

        that surely suggests the ‘of a world’ model of the worldviews, as opposed to perceiving the worldviews (as an individual). but be careful, you may be overlooking a simpler path, as I may have almost done the same.

        you speak of recognizing your ‘own kind’, with the implication that, say a roger can see a roger in this world of ours, as can clarks and scotts (their respective own)… but the Doctrine seems to say, that it is the ‘world it self’ that is the difference, not the individual. I am a clark because the my style of ‘coping behavior’ reflects my existence in a world in which I am an Outsider. (It gets distinctly ‘slippery’ on this matter), but it is the world, not me that is different, at least when it comes to spotting a clark (as opposed to a roger or a scott).
        still moot, as there is clearly something within all of us that makes spotting ‘our own kind’ very easy.

        • Denise says:

          Yes. It is “the world itself” for the individual. The one that is walked through every day. The world of a clark, the reality of a clark contains the same landscape, if you will, of all clarks. I wake up to the same world as any other clark. So too, a roger wakes up, gets our of bed and walks the world of a roger. The same only different. scotts, ditto.
          The glasses we all reach for on the bedside table…the ones we put on to see….they are of 3 styles. (go ahead – you describe what the glasses look like (literally) for the clark, scott and roger lol)

  3. Lizzi R says:

    *SNORKS* I LOVE how you ended this :) Love it.

    How goes the mission to be a roger?

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      Lizzi
      in all seriousness, I would have to ask you (and or anyone who does not answer to the identifying pronoun of ‘me’…) I know that I am more prone to totally being discouraged alternating with getting pissed off at the success of total, well-meaning strangers.

  4. Outsiders. pfft. I am the paragon of outsiders. Case in point: the school where I work? Yeah, LOTS of wonderful hippy, granola-types. When I worked in public school, that’s the persona I emulated cuz…it was just a little different.
    Now that I work with so many like-minded people, I find the need to be slightly different: I dress up a little more, wear a little more makeup (and I’ve ALWAYS hated that stuff…ew), and actually maintain a little distance.
    So thus a question is prompted: on some level, do clarks enjoy being different? Do they actively seek out “being different” just enough so they can remain the outside observer? I would argue yes: it’s more comfortable there. They blend in some, but…once everyone’s “the same” in a group, I as a clark feel the need to stand out – if just a little.
    And, to some extent, we CAN step outside ourselves, up to the point where we get tired of it and revert back to our natural state.

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      Cyndi

      Excellent point! Two things: the core definition (of the personality types associated with the worldviews) are the result of answering the question, ‘how does the person relate themselves to the world around them?’ I relate myself to the world around me as (would) an Outsider… a scott as a Predator and a roger as a member of the Herd.

      and since we are Outsiders, there is nothing wrong with thriving, a little, with that style! (when I was in college, the late 60’s 70’s if you look up the fashion and style, the clothing was fairly stylized… bell bottom pants, moccasins and or sandals or boots, long hair and fringe (very big…the length of the fringe on your jacket was so a status thing…) in any event, I took to wearing 3 piece suits and wingtip shoes… what a surprise, right?

      and your final question, I agree with your answer that we do consciously embrace our Outsider-ness on occasion. It’s what we do, it’s what we are.. the value of the Doctrine is in the various examples I use (for fun): the 20-something join to a job interview in a bank with piercings and purple hair, or the combat boots and trench coat being worn while, at the same time trying to blend in with another group… it is the perspective on our Outsider status that the Doctrine affords us choice. It doesn’t say what we can or can’t, should or shouldn’t do…just tells us to know that we are perceived a certain way by the others and no matter how ‘right’ it may be that we have the right to be different and how it’s wrong that they make certain assumptions, the reality is the reality.

      (clarks sometimes like to believe that what they believe is the right thing, should carry some kind of extra weight or authority that will offset negative assumptions about us… but, as we know… a roger sees us as a roger would, not as they should and a scott sees us as a scott would, not as they should… that, for me is the value of the Doctrine to us)

  5. Well that’s about the best description for Tuesday that I’ve ever heard.

    The rest I am too tired to decide what I think about it. Which probably makes me not a clark, a scott, or a roger, but a worm. Or something.

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      Lisa

      thank you… no to the rest of that (Comment). The cool thing is that when it comes to learning (and then) using the Doctrine (for fun and profit), you can’t get it wrong…and you can’t ‘break it’. The Wakefield Doctrine would maintain that you have a predominant worldview (you are a clark or a scott or a roger) whether you are directly aware of it or not, it (your predominant worldview) is discovered when you answer the question, how do you relate yourself to the world around you. With time (and interest) you will come to know what your ‘personality type’ is, and, …and! we have a saying that relates to your saying, “Which probably makes me not a clark, a scott, or a roger, but a worm. Or something.” (the) saying is, ‘everyone does everything at one time or another’. What we mean by this is that, unlike a lot of the other personality type systems, we don’t look at certain acts or interests or jobs or dislikes or strengths or inclinations as ‘making us a clark or a scott or a roger’… it is always about how you do this thing. (and I don’t mean to say, ‘how you feel about this (fill in the blank)…rather we say, ‘how does this thing manifest for you’.

      a lot for 11 (on a Tuesday night)… keep reading and asking, the experience most people relate (about the Doctrine) is that they ‘get it’ up to a certain point and then, for no apparent reason everything falls into place…and you know the stuff we know