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

Yesterday’s Post generated this Comment from our friend zoe:

“So, when you look around your world today, remember this simple Doctrine suggestion: ‘see the world as the other person is experiencing it.” ...that implies such a willingness to be understanding which some/most? aren’t readily accessing….but i know what you mean…its the old Hill St. Blues, ” …be careful out there.”  (which was followed by)

I get what you’re saying, but you are a guy who is willing to try to be understanding… some times I’m just a miserable b**** and don’t care about anyone’s experience.”

My Reply was to (re)define the intent of the original statement, i.e. the Doctrine does not necessarily charge us to understand the other person, rather it is about our accepting that there is another reality forming the context for the other person’s actions.

Invisible language? Yeah, you read that correctly. Today we’re talking about invisible language, non-rational references and a number of other, easily mis -construed/-interpreted/-understood qualities of a person’s worldview. Before we get to the fun part, lets review:

• clarks are those of us who grew up and have come to relate ourselves to the world around us as Outsiders. clarks are ‘apart from‘…. their coping strategies, style of interacting with others is predicated on the notion that a) we are different from everyone else, and 2) it might be best that we not let them become too aware of this fact. To that end, clarks are:  quiet, subversive, funny, intelligent, caring, short-sighted, creative and needy, (we) hate to be the center of attention but we will not tolerate being ignored
• scotts are the people (you have a best friend who is one) that relate themselves to the world around them as would any good (i.e. successful) Predator would…  scotts stand out from the crowd, this is seen when they are approaching (a) crowd or building a crowd (around themselves). scotts are aggressive and impulsive, loyal and fierce defenders of those they identify as being a part of their pack, they can be the best of friends and the most embarrassing of best friends, mercurial in temperament they are natural problem solvers however their solutions are invested in the immediate return, rather than a long-term solution, they are natural…and reckless leaders, great lovers and terrible enemies… scotts show their personal worldview in their eyes
• rogers are most people and while their strengths are not exhibited directly by the majority, the principles that they live by is… rogers relate themselves to the world around them as you would, provided that you knew that, somewhere/somehow the world makes sense…if you grew up a roger, you were never alone (although you might feel lonely at one time or another), if you are a roger you know that there is a Right Way and a lot of other ways, you never rest unless you know that you being true to your principles at which point, work is no longer a chore, it is the part of you that you share with the world around you… rogers are responsible for a stable society and rogers account for repressive cultures, rogers are both the innovators of science and the forces that resist anything new, rogers are: judges, politicians, engineers and physicians (but not surgeons), firefighters (but not police), Teachers (of those already educated) and leaders of people if only by common consent

What was that about invisible language?  rogers speak (an) invisible language. The vocabulary that we all share is employed, however, there is a dimension to the language of rogers that is: a) invisible to clarks, b) amusing to scotts and 3) essential to maintaining the Herd. rogers speak to others, in the course of their day,  the way that some surgeons choose to have music playing in their operating room. It (the music), is not playing in order to inform the surgeon in what he/she is doing, the music in playing to connect the other people in the operating room (to the surgeon), and so with rogers, they may communicate specific information to others, but the underlying principle, (i.e. that language serves in the worldview of the Herd Member), is to associate (themselves) with the others. These ‘others’ are not, I repeat, not limited to people who are physically present at the time of the communication.   …go ask Ken Burns, Stephen King, JK Rowling, Fanny Farmer, Emily Post,  or Paul McCartney

The point? Referring back to zoe’s Comment thread yesterday, it is not that we would understand, (the behavior of others by virtue of knowing their worldview), in order to approve or disapprove… it is simply to confirm that these differences are real.