Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
…I know that zoe is looking forward to the crazy(er) Posts that are inevitable when one embarks on a everyday-a-new-Post Challenge, however, the blog gods have smiled and yesterday’s Post saw a couple of Comments that caused me to say, ” Readers who are expressing a slight (though endearing) confusion on the matter of figuring their worldview, how cool is that?”
(visual: zoe’s frown of disappoint begins to waver and soften, eyebrows reversing their downward aspect, “hey skip! come here! Clark’s going to try to charm rogers!”)
from Sandy Ramsey: “You know, I don’t know why I have to keep coming back to decide where I fall. Can I be a clark with a side of roger? That seems to be where I find myself every time I look.“
from Pattie: “I am still very confused about scotts, rogers, and clarks. Does it help that I know that I am an ENFJ?”
from Lisa: “Somehow managed to read through post and comments and not be totally confused…that’s a step!”
To paraphrase Gordon Gecko, ‘…confusion is good’. Why do I make such a bold (and annoying) statement? Because the one thing we have found to be necessary, on the part of new Readers of the Wakefield Doctrine is what we used to refer to as mental flexibility, i.e. the enjoyment of preposterous notions, intriguing puzzles and plain old ‘hey! imagine this!’. I take heart from the Comments of Readers who say, “I understand this thing but it doesn’t seem to want to work for me” or “…I know what the three worldviews are but I am equally all three” or “what do you mean I’m just a member of the Herd!” and “…did you just call me a &*#&(^ Predator?!?!”
The Wakefield Doctrine maintains that, at a very early age, we all find ourselves in one of the three worldviews, (that of the Outsider-clarks, the Predator-scotts or the Herd Member-rogers) and that it is the coping strategies and skills we develop dealing with this personal reality that makes us clarks, scotts or rogers. Another way to put this: how do we (or the person we are trying to understand) ‘relate ourselves to the world around us’? We would ask ourselves the question: ‘Am I/are they relating to the world as would:
- an Outsider who lacks the assumption of belonging, finding solace in the intellect as the path to what they believe they lack, while enjoying a freedom of options and the truly genuine creativity that can only come from being outside of the normal expectations and requirements of the common-sense world
- a Predator who lives to thrive and thrives on life, moving through a world/day alert to certain danger and focused on providing the basics and subsistence for the pack, taking what is found for what it must be (as opposed to: what it might be/what it may hope to be) decisive in action, limited in reflection always passionate
- a Herd Member who knows that they belong, the underlying relationship to everything is so fundamental as to be nearly imperceivable the relationship of this person (to the world around them) is one of certainty and the relationship of this person with the others in world around them is knowable, that this knowing is simple and direct (a) ‘Right Way’ and…other ways. Tradition is a value, in and of itself, and to demonstrate evidence of tradition is the greatest good
ya know what I mean? so try out the rogerian worldview, why doncha?
the really cool thing about this here Wakefield Doctrine here is that you …can’t….get…it…wrong. You have a predominate worldview. One. Not all three. Not none of the those three. One of the three.
the real challenge for those-who-might-be-rogers is not what you’d think! (I know… you clarks and (some) scotts are thinking, “…hey rogers live in a world of certainty, exactness….like engineers they have a problem when there is not a 100% clearly perfect match!!! that’s why rogers have a tough time finding their predominate worldview…they’re looking for exactihood!”)
While that is very close and nearly the answer I was going for, what I was thinking was that rogers, upon seeing something where people seem to be sharing a common idea, expect to immediately identify with the thing that those people are sharing. …. but upon closer examining, there are lumps and inconsistency and outrageous statements. Something must be wrong.
Thanks to Kristi for her comment regarding the use of the designation ‘Herd Member’ it is kind of ….inciteful? lol but then, a few years ago we heard from a few scotts about the use of the term Predator …’hey! what the hell! that’s kinda mean and suggestive of one of the Great Cats or wolves what with the attack first, rip apart the foes and seduce…. oh yeah, never mind.’
Two things about the inciteful and provocative language: a) it actually, when you get down to what we originally referred to as ‘Original Behavioral Metaphor’ all three of these are kind of accurate and 2) this Doctrine is not a stolid, op.cit., academic-worthy personality theory… it’s fun it’s exciting and, even without the inspired insights into human nature…. it’s meant to make you yell, and laugh and cry. So…lighten up and enjoy whichever parts of this thing that you want.
About clarkscottroger
*eyebrows raised into hairline*
Hey I really liked this one! You are so right about rogers looking for the perfect fit keeping them from zeroing in. ..my secondary confirmed it….frist?
frist
(now… either get back here in the underbrush with me before we spook ’em or take these horns and brown ‘n white paint and get out there and look satisfied with the world!)
***rustle,rustle,rustle***
lol
Moo.
(lol) (cut it out) (oh, that’s right, you can make that joke ’cause your secondary aspect is rogerian).
I didn’t know how to write an elephant sound ….. perhaps a herd of yak? Rhinos? See? How do you write those?
Moo.
(or to get totally clarklike) ‘Mu’
lol
Hahaha snort hahaha!
First, great video. That is the second awesome video/song I’ve seen this morning. Gonna be a golden day (as the old cereal commercial claimed).
The more I read (and I have to say I think it could be your one-a-day approach this month that’s clarifying things for me) the more I’m going with Clark first, Roger second. And I can tell you this for sure – they fight one another at times. Can one have two equally dominant worldviews?
Lisa:
a) thank you, it’s been a challenge and I’m bound and determined to make it through the month
b) no
c) lol how, in-the-name-of-Ken-Burns, can there be equal dominants? …. ask Christine or Dyanne… they will not only shed light on the business of dominance that took me having a scott to explain it but they might suggest that being a roger is not all bad…
d) you are doing exceptionally well (whichever your dominant worldview ends up being)… remember fun first correct second!
What does the “no” belong to?
sorry….
to the question: “Can one have two equally dominant worldviews?“
It is possible, though, that in a particular situation, the secondary worldview is dominant, right?
Kristi
very good insight… welcome to the leading edge of the Wakefield Doctrine!
(if the following makes you think “psshaw! mere semantics!” stay with me, it is semantics but so is the Wakefield Doctrine), the role/function of the secondary aspect is still in it’s rudimentary form. We know that (some) people have a significant secondary aspect (though not all people…it is not necessary that ‘the math works’ i.e. 1/3 1/3 1/3) there are a lot of people, (perhaps the majority), who have a predominant worldview and no significant secondary (or tertiary) aspect.
for me, I experience my secondary scottian aspect mostly at times of duress, pushed to extremes I will go all scott. that is my experience
however, there is another way to look at secondary aspect.
there is an old saying here at the Doctrine: ‘everyone who comes around and stays and enjoys it is either a clark or has a secondary clarklike aspect’
…so the secondary is not necessarily a ‘Mr Hyde’ thing…. it can be a gently, whimsical influence too!
thank you for this challenging question, I will follow up on this quick, off-the-cuff answer with a more considered response as soon as I get out my closing this afternoon (lol)…. you rogers! always with the matches under the shoes….
Definitely, but I’d be inclined to suggest that it’s when the primary worldview just doesn’t ‘fit’ – I tend to go scottian when it’s all about the FUN and being lairy and leader-y. Or, as Clark said – in times of duress, when things just need to be DONE, not thought about.
exactly ‘(second) jumping off point’ for the discussion of secondary aspect! will continue, if you don’t mind in the general Comment
I get totally confused by the whole thing. I don’t know what the hell I am. the voices tell me different things at different times.
exactly!
(no, that is fair! lol)
very engaging discussion of the (nature/role/function) of the secondary aspect….
Kristi starts us with her suggestion that, “…that in a particular situation, the secondary worldview is dominant, right?” and Lizzi followed (allowing for half-a-world separation) with, “…I’d be inclined to suggest that it’s when the primary worldview just doesn’t ‘fit’ –”
Both are tempting and both are fraught with hazard, and it all comes down to perspective. If there is one thing about the Wakefield Doctrine, it’s perspective. …but everyone has perspective, the difference for us here is our choice of perspectives. The Doctrine is predicated on the perspective that maintains that there are three characteristic worldviews, the miraculous (that’s ‘cool miraculous’ not ‘lets take a walk across this lake miraculous’ …lol)
thing is that there is an internal consistency within the predicted behavior and preferences and likely choices, all based on the nature of the person’s dominant worldview.
The problem with the proposition that ‘the secondary worldview is the progressive response to the dominant worldview being insufficient in a given circumstance’ is that there would not be a dominant worldview. And the Doctrine is, from one viewpoint, simply a cataloging of behavior and coping strategies that are the natural response to a given worldview.
ok…I’m getting a single from WP something to effect to take the gigantic discussion outside, this is a Comment thread not a quadrangle… lol I agree…. plus I totally see a Post in this topic and god knows I don’t want to use up a perfectly good Post here in the Comment section!
glad to have the input that is appearing, it’s fun and interesting…. hey! has anyone seen any scotts around today? lol yeah, I know