Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
…so yesterday I was talking with a woman(a clark), in my office yesterday, and since there was no one else in the office at the time, we talked about the Doctrine. I enjoy such conversations because, even though she is not active here at the blog, and our paths do not frequently cross in the office, talking Doctrine to her is different than it is with other people, (you know, like most of you), it’s more like… lets say you and I were close friends in high school and, as happens more often than not, we went our separate ways and then, 20 years later run into each other at a funeral for a person we both knew in high school. Like that. Only different.
Her understanding of the Wakefield Doctrine is solid. (Solid enough to see the rogers and the clarks and the scotts, around her, without any prompting…that good. The thing is, since she’s learned most of what she knows (about the Doctrine) from the blog, hearing her discuss the personality types has a certain… “wow! she really knows this stuff and, like, hey! that’s the Wakefield Doctrine she’s talking about!!”)
(You wanna know the weirdest thing?)
I know that many, (if not most), of you out there are responding to this last, with one form or another of, “well, duh clark!” (I must confess, my ‘knowing’ this is a fairly recent development of my appreciation of the level of understanding that is enjoyed by Readers.)
The thing about my conversation with Sally that made such an impression on me was what we expressed about rogers, (in general) and clark-roger relationships (specifically). It was one of those conversations that I am coming to recognize as ‘the new dialogue of the Wakefield Doctrine’1 Heard among all of us who understand the Doctrine whenever we (might) discuss one or another or a third someone’s life. The key element, ‘la chose qui fait toute la différence’ is that we are, all of us, sharing an insight (into human behavior) that most people are not aware and it, (the insight, not the people), is: fun and interesting and useful because we know that the Wakefield Doctrine is for us and not for them. How critical to the spreading of our little personality theory this odd little statement really is, was brought home to me recently when I was drawn into a conversation with guy who had no real interest in the Doctrine2, but for reasons both social and political the interaction happened. Within seconds of the conversation starting, I recognized that there was a certain, un-bridgeable gap, but being a clark I tried anyway. It was simply not meant to be… but the thing that I got out of that interaction was the reminder that, when I properly apply the Doctrine, I always…. (thats always) learn, or am reminded of, or gain an insight into myself as a result of the interaction. Doesn’t always do me any good. I don’t always know how it will benefit me, but it brings home the simple statement, ‘the Doctrine is for me, not for them’.
What a great thing for a personality theory to have! (We used to say, back in the beginning of the Doctrine blog, that when a person comes across the newest personality test or quiz or survey in a magazine or on the internet, the first thing they say out loud is, “oh honey! come here! they have you down to a ‘T’, you have to try this!” ) The Doctrine may be a tool, but it is not a club!
(hey, lets go old-school and stick in a vid…for later in the day, ya know?)
2)* hey, latest studies imply that there are at least 7,999,999,802 people on earth who do not care to learn to use the Wakefield Doctrine as a tool to aid their understanding of the people in their lives!
1)* (‘the old dialogue of the Wakefield Doctrine’ was, essentially, every Doctrine blog Post up to about a year and a half ago. This ‘dialogue’ was me and my imagined Readers and it was good for both of us).
* didn’t have a chance to cut and paste, I’m sure you understand
About clarkscottroger
Hey clark! what you said, affirmed! and that video!!!
You touch on a “popular” topic – clarks and their rogers. You may want to expand on this since there are so-o-o many clark/roger couples. And god knows we all have some in our families LOL.
I believe it’s possible, by changing one’s own behavior (as in how I relate to the world and the people in it), to affect interpersonal dynamics in a significant way. I mean, duh!!
Especially with the ones “we love”. Brother, sister, spouse…..the self-rewarding, yet sometimes not anticipated, result is that while we clarks be traveling the never ending road of self-development/self-improvement, we have no control over how the other person will react to this “development”. (and we shouldn’t care)
To rogers, clarks are more than a little vexing. What clark has not been made aware (by a roger) that maybe we’re getting a bit “uppity”. rogers are easily frightened when the blueness of a clark starts to melt and blend into the rogerian collective color:)
Denise
given that 2 things obtain: 1) this blog is of first value to clarks, then scotts and finally rogers and b) the topic prima being rogers vis a vis clarks…I best be writing on the darlings right soon!
Husby and I have spent dinners (mostly in public) talking WD. And both thoroughly enjoying ourselves doing it :D
Lizzi
(hold that thought) because the biggest (and hugest) and most difficult task before us is to find a common language with rogers…nearly impossible, but then, we are clarks! lol
Then their language might be food and observation and practical example.
agreed (I suspect) but two things to watch for: 1) when asked a direct question to deals with their rogerian worldviews, (if you watch closely and surreptitiously) you will ‘see’ in their eyes, their first/real answer and then they will make up another answer to say out loud. honest to god! b) is if you ask a roger a direct question about how they experience a situation (one that you have provided as part of the question), let them start to consider the question and then ask them to tell you what you just said…and prepare to be astounded….
b. really? There is so much I have yet to understand… ( I feel like someone should be saying “grasshopper.”)
zoe
while typing ‘Moby Dick’ class Comments (or should that be ‘Ulysses’) is fun, I find that even when I have the words in front of me, re-creating the thought is…. challenging….now which ‘b’ was that?
in your answer to lizzi
zoe
(lol thank you! had I any kind of sense, I would have waited and pretended I knew the reference, contained in my own Comments) yeah, thats one that will be rather interesting… shave witnessed it personally, but we certainly need independent corroboration (of this phenom).
“you will ‘see’ in their eyes, their first/real answer and then they will make up another answer to say out loud. honest to god!”
rogers are the masters of the “double entendre”. It is no coincidence that so many are such good writers as they have a way of wording/phrasing thoughts so as to imbue the listener/reader with as many impressions as possible as to the meaning of what they just said. They avoid/have a knack for avoiding the direct response!
If asked a direct question, a roger will phrase their answer in such a way that allows them later to say: I didn’t say that I wanted (fill in the blank). What I said was: (here they will quote what they said which was a non-committal, “general” response.
*mumbling to herself…”love your rogers, love your rogers”* LOL
True story; I had a pretty heavy day at work and had to handle some very serious tricky stuff… when this happens one would hope they could go to their supervisor and get some … supervision. Not so with mine as she is pedantic, ruminative to the point of indecision and totally a pain in my ass… So I bounced some ideas off a colleague instead. The colleague said and I quote as accurately as possible “Yeah I dont go to her either with stuff like this … it would be worthless and just drive me crazy… You know, I was reading your blog and went to that clark guys site… would that make her (the boss) a roger?” PRETTY COOL HUH? She went on to say she is in total disagreement with you that there are only three types but hey it’s a start!
zoe
pretty cool indeed!
lol, that is very much simpatico with that feeling of seeing the real world recognize the thing that we have been doing here, that I was trying to convey in today’s Post.
hey! two things: a)maybe a call in interview (me the interviewer and you the interviewee) for a weekly vid Post if you have a free 30 minutes this week where you can call into the Saturday Night Drive # and I’ll be in the car and video the whole thing… 2) the thought is beginning to stick in my brain that besides the fun of the Friday vidchat, we might be over-looking some value of vidchats on a more sporadic impromptu basis…if I can figure out how to schedule that… it occurred to me thinking about the short vid chat that you had with Joy this weekend… that (all) communications is going through a fragmenting, branching effect that results in shorter (individual) ‘messages’ but in concert with diverse channels … we all know that it is beneficial to talk to an engaged listener when we are under stress…not as a source of a specific answer, rather as an anodyne to the negative effects of the stressful lives we all lead, but this is proven by the schedules we keep, which have the effect of reducing the opportunities we have to do this very thing…. so I’m thinking of a ‘speed dial vidchat ring’ (very) short duration interaction with another… I think there might be some benefit
your thoughts (besides ‘push away from the keyboard, the words are in control of your mind… it will be alright once you get some sleep) lol
(tell her that ‘it’s all right, that’s just her secondary (or tertiary) rogerian aspect talking, we welcome pharisees and rogers alike!) lol
hahahha my first reaction was close computer , wake dog, go outside, prepare for sleep…. I will take both our advice and do that … will think on it and get back tomorrow… I Suspect she is fairly scottian but I am always amazed at how confused I feel about this stuff … so who the hell knows what she is….(the speaker..the boss is nooooooooooo question!) Skippy awaits…!
zoe
sound thinking…. the resistance to the Doctrine is attributable to any of the three (‘the everyone everything Rule, of course!) but naturally the ‘value’ of the resistance(used in a open ended sense, not limited to just negative or adversarial connotations)… a clark (particularly male clarks) will evidence resistance due to competition (they have, as do all clarks, their own system to explain), scotts will do it (resist) for the fun of us… (think any game with a dog, always the tug of war, the feinting is the fun part) and rogers well, because they are rogers (there is still the conversation we can benefit from for those clarks with secondary rogerian aspects…it is sure to be enlightening for all of us… (there is nothing wrong with having a secondary rogerian aspect… there are only a few that we know) (the woman in the Post today, she is a clark with a secondary rogerian)… to be cont’d