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

Damn! Wednesday already. Two things: continuation of the very excellent discussion that zoe triggered yesterday in response to the day’s Post and a quick look at the week ahead.

(thing A):

Tomorrow is expected to be Thursday, pretty much all day long,  that means there will be a Guest Post writer, guest posting here for Guest Post Thursday Guest Post! It’s the completion of the second full cycle (of worldviews), so it will be a clark! Don’t miss it!

(B thing):

so, at the end of yesterday’s Post, I mentioned the rogerian worldview artifact that Kristi gave us in the course of her Post (last Thursday). The funny thing: I could not find the actual quote until this morning. You can imagine how relieved I was to see that this thought expressed by Kristi, that I was assigning great and significant value to, and …and one that stimulated a very enjoyable, productive and insightful discussion, actually existed!

…anyway. I did find, in her guest Post, the quote:

“According to the Wakefield Doctrine, it is because I am a roger, a person who makes sense of the world through rules and order.  Without the structure of expectations, I am a bit lost.  I think my secondary, yet significant, clark-like tendencies also play a role; I’m unsure if I am welcome in a place where rogers actually seem to be in the minority. “

((New Readers? three worldviews, ok? one is the personality type that reflects growing up ‘the Outsider’ (clarks), the other is the person who lives in the world of ‘the Predator’ (scotts) and the third, the life of ‘the Herd Member’ (rogers), ok? one thinks, the next acts, and the last feels ok?  Of course, in the world of a clark, reality is constantly subject to change. Black can become white, pink is mistaken as subtle, a whisper is a shout and what we know about ourselves changes as we relate it to another. if you’re good with that, welcome to the clarklike worldview!)

so lets get to the Comment discussion thread:

• (zoe):  “Security in an expectation? Explain please? “
• (me):  “what??! explain??!  why are you always picking on me like this!!!” (not real Reply) however, to quote a long gone and beloved friend, “I did not make that statement!” …and then, Progenitor roger stepped out of the shadows (like a sous chef hiding in the walk-in cooler)… I was surprised but very glad to see… a roger providing (a) view from the Herd…
• (roger): “Security in an expectation makes perfect sense to me. Stands as a good definition of trust.
  Of course that doesn’t mean you’re always warm and fuzzy about it. You can reasonably expect 2+2=4, but you can also reasonably expect a terrorist to try to kill you.”
• (Denise): “…rogers find security in expectations which I can see would relate directly to a roger’s need to always be prepared. Per the highest authority, rogers do not like (to put it mildly) to be unprepared!”
• (back to the trouble maker): “…so if a Roger does not perceive the herd as their group…then where does the expectation come from? If there’s always a need to be prepared , & a need to be part of the larger herd, then doesn’t that infer an expectation from an outside source? (you know kind of like the pressure the clark is percieving.) and again its just totally possible I’ve been overthinking everything today…..” (which raises, of course, a core issue with the challenge of knowing the reality of the three worldviews… while the thorniest of questions, it is the most productive, provided the language is developed)
• (me): pretty much what I just said… “as to the ongoing process of the insights made available by using the Wakefield Doctrine as a tool, we must remain alert to artifacts that may be provided, consciously or not, by any of the three personality types… (an example: the concept of ‘referential authority’ is a major artifact of the rogerian worldview, it is a symbol that resonates with all three personality types, but most importantly, it it ‘true’ in the reality of rogers
• (Kristi): “Structure of expectations”–I had to go back to the post, because I didn’t remember writing “security of expectations”. I thought, is he talking about me Kristi, or the other Kristi? Not that “security” changes the meaning much. The phrase was in reference to me trying to figure out exactly what was expected in way of the guest post. If I know the rules, I know what to do.”

nice eh?

(to be cont’d)

lol… fun song: