#25 the Wakefield Doctrine (you know you understand this stuff, but part of you really doesn’t like it when you get like that ) | the Wakefield Doctrine #25 the Wakefield Doctrine (you know you understand this stuff, but part of you really doesn’t like it when you get like that ) | the Wakefield Doctrine

#25 the Wakefield Doctrine (you know you understand this stuff, but part of you really doesn’t like it when you get like that )

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

Great-Expectations-007

a clark and a roger interacting:

  • the bad aspects (just saying) are the rogers fault and the clark’s responsibility
  • clarks are drawn to rogers for the very obvious reason that if anything is the opposite of ‘the Outsider’  it’s the ‘Herd Member’ (see? the label Herd Member is not all bad)
  • …of course, that’s the obvious and fairly superficial ‘reason’  the real reason is that rogers feel (as clarks think and scotts act)… rogers are ‘of emotion’ just as clarks are ‘of the rational’ and scotts are ‘of action and activity’
[our more astute Readers will be muttering to themselves, “we get where you’re going with this… the complimentary and the complementary, and like that, tell us more! Before you end this Post.  Yeah we’re interested in the way that the individual worldviews…those personal realities that this Doctrine depends so totally on, exactly how they connect to each other.“]

a roger and a scott interacting:

  • any bad aspects (there must be some) are (the) scotts enjoyment (and they totally don’t mind admitting it) and the rogers pleasure (and they’ll be loathe to admit it, even to themselves)
  • scotts are natural predators (hey! it”s a behavioral metaphor, get out those imaginations that you often forget you have, that, when reminded that you have (usually by a clark) you’re pretty darn good at it) and the rogers are natural prey (nah… not even gonna try).  just ask yourself: when you have an interaction that leaves you exhausted and yet eager for more, is that person a scott or a clark?  ‘could be any of the three’ is the default rogerian response, we all already know that so don’t bother) (lol)
  • I don’t know!  like in nature… ya know?

a scott and a clark interacting:

  • any bad aspect (sure, but it’s one of those ‘the bad is still good things’) is a result of the nature of clarks and the way a clark relates themselves to the world around them.  for the scott, the bad would be the other person getting tired, injured or used up (for the clark it gets more interesting)
  • if a scott is a lion (or a wolf or a tiger or a shrew (no! really!  look it up!)  then a clark is an armadillo (or a porcupine or a whale (yeah, I’m gonna keep the whale in the list, a bit of a left-turn, metaphorically-speaking but still good)  and the basis for this comparison has to do with the clark’s tendency to not pay attention to the world, while at the same time having near limitless potential and never learning how to be reasonable when in adversarial mode.
  • the flaw in (a) relationship between a clark and a scott: scotts are always establishing ranking (ever changing dominant/submissive standing among the members of the pack), clarks are mostly passive… the problem with a clark’s passivity is  that ‘mostly‘ thing….lol

 

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. zoebyrd says:

    And on a totally different subject. ..I think I saw your kitchen on NCIS this morning….confession:I was channel surfing for spongebob, doing the roger thing…having tv on for background noise.

  2. Well, if nothing else, I would have to say that your post-a-day this month has given me opportunity to understand this WD much better.

  3. Pattie says:

    I think I finally understand now. I am a thinking feeling actor. Thank you for the lesson.

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      you are welcome!

      I trust “…a thinking feeling actor.” is what you would hope to be. The Wakefield Doctrine is as cool as it is, in part, because it offers ‘an additional‘ perspective. So if provides help with (any) system, then we done good.

  4. Denise; says:

    Liked today’s post. I’ve had more relationships with rogers so naturally I would like more discussion of the clark/roger couple combo.
    Of course now I’m thinkin’ I wish I knew then what I know now, Doctrinistically speaking. How life would have been different!
    Yes, yes. I know what you would say:)