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

Excellent insight/question in two Parts, from DownSpring Cyndi:

Part 2:
(So my question is this): was he a clark and only a clark? He did have a little bit of scott in him because when he got pissed off, he’d raise hell, haha, but is there such a think as a “very private” clark? I mean, we already lead “observer” lives, but we’re often guilty of sharing too much to try to cover that all up. He didn’t. What gives? Was it his after-war trauma? Or is it possible a clark is 100% clark (no secondary or tertiary) and doesn’t over-share?

Part 1:
Husby and I were discussing how clarks often say way too much in social contexts just to try to “cover up” our “outsiderness” from the very often present rogers.
Okay, so the subject of husby’s dad comes up. The guy, we think, was a veritable clark, too. But, he had been in Germany in World War II. He was a sensitive guy, and very, very traumatized after returning after the war.
All his life, he was a true thinker: he was a civil engineer, introverted, and very witty.
But, he never said more than what was necessary. In fact, he was an extremely, extremely private dude, and never revealed too much about himself. He was a great observer, but managed to do it in a way that didn’t alarm people.

*you wanna know why I enjoy this Doctrine and the ensuing discussions, these days? I was in the process of formatting your Comment and I re-read the line, “… he was a civil engineer”  and the thought popped in my head, ‘well, as a clark that should come as no surprise’.  lol*

This Comment is of perfect timing, as I have been struggling of late with the question, ‘ok, they all get the Doctrine, what do we do next?!’  I read in your Comment, a couple of topics that may not have gotten a lot of attention recently.  The most significant, (of the topics) is: the nature of the secondary and tertiary aspects, how they affect our behavior and whether they can be developed to our deliberate benefit. Even more basic a question, which I’m glad you mentioned is: “…is it possible a clark is 100% clark (no secondary or tertiary) and doesn’t over-share?”

absolutely. The Doctrine maintains that we’re heir to all three worldviews. And though, as clarks (and as products of Western culture ) we tend to think, ‘things must add up’ there is no necessity to have a significant secondary or tertiary aspect. I personally know of people who are predominate clarks or scotts or rogers with, (effectively), zero secondary aspects.  So it is very possible to have people who do not have that additional spectrum of behavior that a secondary and tertiary aspect can account for in an individual.

I liked the idea expressed in your Comment about how clarks tend to,  “…say way too much in social contexts just to try to “cover up” our “outsiderness” from the very often present rogers.”  (funny, I was going to elaborate on your point with something about the things we say are meant, in part, as offerings to the social gatekeepers around us, to try and buy our way in…and I re-read your Comment and that’s exactly what is implied by your choice of the verb ‘say’  (as opposed to quite a few other words).

(Finally), I like that you remind us of the principle of ‘everyone does everything, at one time or another’…. meaning: go to war, chose engineering as an occupation, etc…. all three do it, what matters is  how do these things manifest in our predominant worldviews. (there are even scottian engineers!!  my god…their homelife must be insane!!!)

HEY!  new Readers. you know you like what you’re reading. and, don’t worry, you’ll pick up the details and the list of characteristics of the three (to make it easier to identify a person’s predominant worldview), in time…  but if you want a very quick insight into what we are discussing here today, follow this link to Cyndi’s blog and watch the video there in that Post.  It will be a perfect illustration of a clark with a significant secondary scottian aspect.  go on, now…. come back and tell us what your thoughts are on the vid.  (the one you were supposed to go to, scott!! ok, I know you got distracted….  here is the link to the Post at ‘the ‘tude’