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

No, I’m not only being serious, (with today’s subtitle), I am sincerely appreciative of the insights that are to be found in the Comments on yesterday’s Post. Before I tell you why I can make that statement, let me cite two other Comments:

Oh, yes, that phrase fits very well! :-) Knowing that everyone was laughing at me (or at least at my mistake–no one except John actually knew I was the author of the title), really the best choice was to laugh, too. That way they were laughing WITH me, not at me. (Kristi)

(and)

Here’s the sad part. As clarks, we set such high standards/expectations of ourselves we often lose sight that others most likely do not have those same expectations (of us). Therefore we’re not really in danger of “failing”. Only in danger of “failing” ourselves. (Denise)

(New Readers? the above Comments were written by people representing the three personality types of the Wakefield Doctrine. As such, you can, (after learning the characteristics of the three worldviews), obtain a glimpse of three different worlds! No! really, we are quite serious. Read on.)

If there is one, simple-to-a-fault, statement about the Wakefield Doctrine, ( as a roger might express it: the condensation of the Doctrine), it is this:

clarks think, scotts act and rogers feel

Why these Comments? What insight into the three worldviews do they offer?

• (we’re being a little unfair to Dyanne),  in using only one of her Comments.  That being said, we know that she would not complain about how we’re not using her Comments in the ‘correct context’, not framing them to allow Readers to appreciate the full and comprehensive meaning that she intended…  (if you turn your good ear to face the middle of the country and ask every in the room to please stop talking, just for a second, you might hear a sound, off in the distance,  “Hey!! I said good job in pig latin ’cause your Post was about languages! That’s it! Lighten up! Move on! Lifes too good to sit and ponder implications!“*) scotts tend to speak with ‘special characters’…a lot! (lol)
• Kristi illustrates the identification with the Herd… as a roger, she is not immune to feeling uncomfortable or ill-at-ease, however she lives in a world that she knows that she is ‘a part of’… (you know that meme out there, seen on many a spare tire cover on the back of jeeps and SUVs. “Life is Good’? Kristi, if she did not own one herself, would smile when a car with that saying on the back passed her on the highway.) Heck! you really want to know how different a roger is from a clark?! do you?  well, if that car (maybe a jeep cherokee with the spare tire on the back door with ‘Life is Good’ on it, or even just a bumper sticker), cut her off on the highway because she was driving too slowly,  she, (Kristi not Denise or Dyanne) would smile. She would not be happy at such driving, she would not be approving of such rudeness, but she would not be swearing and thinking “what a jerk!”  Well, maybe a little… lol But what would happen is that she would know, (or one might insist on saying, ‘choose to believe’), that this other person might be in a situation that made the aggressive driving unavoidable.  This is not to say that Kristi, (or rogers in general), are very forgiving people (anything but!)… but she would tend to identify with that other person, and understand, even while being annoyed at such dangerous driving. (that particular inference, i.e. the driving being a threat to other drivers is a huge insight into how the rogerian worldview is experienced).
• Denise (who is a clark) writes and writes, offering not one solitary answer (and therefore only a single, valuable insight, i.e. high risk bet), she provides us with everything she has, offering all she knows (in the context of her Comment) on the subject, assuming that we might want to play with the parts and possibly come to our own, different conclusions. …all for free. No demands that it be acknowledged, satisfied that she was considered a significant participant in the conversation.  We all know how much most people value the free stuff, right?

* this, to use an old cultural reference, is like me saying, “I will now do an impersonation of Ed Sullivan.  “Its been a really good shew…really good shew…”**

** famous TV guy in the early 60s. This is, of course, meant to imply a badly done impersonation… that I might have simply said, ‘this is a badly done impersonation’ never even occurred to me…. no, really, did you not read the bullet point about Denise’s Comment?!