-the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘an 18 minute Post’ (why, no, I haven’t traded in my parentheseses for commas!) | the Wakefield Doctrine -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘an 18 minute Post’ (why, no, I haven’t traded in my parentheseses for commas!) | the Wakefield Doctrine

-the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘an 18 minute Post’ (why, no, I haven’t traded in my parentheseses for commas!)

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

ex-rom-28-10_resize

(Yeah, the subtitle?  I tried this once before, i.e. the ‘clock-is-ticking’ approach to Post writing, but given that I originally intended to write about the very early ‘Basics’ of the Doctrine, nothing wrong with trying it again, today.)

the Wakefield Doctrine is gender-neutral/the Wakefield Doctrine is culture-neutral

And…and! even though I found a perfectly good paragraph from 2009 that discusses this gender/culture neutrality, I’m gonna walk the straight and narrow and not copy-paste. One of the more interesting effects of writing on the same topic over successive years is how, in many circumstances, I will pick exactly the same words to describe a concept and, at other times, the concept I’m trying to explain has, itself, changed over time. This is, to no small degree, attributable to my own perception of the readership of this post (and blog). The early days were, well, early days. I spent most of my time thinking about how to get across the characteristics of the three worldviews. Hell, I spent a great deal of time trying to find the words to say, ‘We all exist in a reality that is, to a small but very real degree, personal and the very moment we are in can be quite different for:

  • the person across the counter
  • the classroom of students we are charged with teaching about history and calisthenics, hygiene and geometry
  • those others at the Registry of Motor Vehicles, where the lines are long and the patience seems to get sucked out of us the moment we see the people who are all writing and filling in their forms as fast as possible, the better to get into line ahead of the old person who seems happy to be standing anywhere and is surely going to take.too.long
  • us at the 2nd interview as we watch the Interviewer, hoping for some clues to the right answer, like we were trying to pick up a girl at the sorority mixer…only the fear of failure is not as great
  • the person on the other side of the bed
  • being at the gym, seeing the person that you didn’t think you had become like and definitely do not want to stay like, in the wall of mirrors in the exercise room

as in, ‘what do you mean, I shouldn’t put myself down all the time?’… ‘but everyone does care about how my day went‘ … ‘nahh! she thought it was funny! you’re always making things too serious!!’

I will now demonstrate my own development, (as a blog writer), and not apologies for not knowing all the above explanations and examples were not really necessary.

damn! look at the time!! (no, really!  look at the time… wherever you are at this very moment, this is what we mean by ‘your worldview’.)
The Wakefield Doctrine is all about our efforts to accept that ‘the other person’ lives in one of three characteristic personal realities and that, if we are successful in inferring which one that is, we will be in a position to know much more about ‘the other person’ than we have any right to know. (the Wakefield Doctrine) charges us with understanding how the other person is relating themselves to the world around them…as (does) an Outsider(clark) or a Predator(scott) or a Herd Member(roger). When we understand this, we become capable of seeing the world as the other person experiences it.

Out of time! shit!  (you know how I promised to not reprint an old explanation of gender and cultural neutrality? well, did I mention that I was a clark?  and, how, sometimes for us, things change? hell, a lot of times, for us, things change. So… I’m gonna leave the reprint section in block quotes.  If it doesn’t make a lot of sense, let me know and I’ll clarify.

…we would make a point of stating that the Wakefield Doctrine is both gender and culture neutral. What we meant is that it does not matter what part of the world you are from, it’s the nature and character of your own worldview that matters (personality type-wise). We contend that the worldviews that are the basis of the three personality types are inseparable from the human condition. Further, while standards of behavior may vary from one culture to another, a person who grows up, develops and otherwise matures living in a reality best characterized as the world of Predator and Prey, will be: aggressive, inquisitive, quick to react, action-oriented with a minimum of self-reflection. That reality exists in Zimbabwe and New Auckland as well as Mansfield Ohio. Not only that, but the Doctrine maintains that gender prescribes the capacity/ability (of a person to act a certain way), not their reasons for acting. A female growing up, developing and otherwise maturing in a world where she is the Outsider, will still develop: an insatiable desire to learn new information and facts, be drawn to the fringes of whatever culture she happens to be in and have an abundance of what is referred to as intuition, all that she is permitted (by physiology as well local culture) in order to live her life.

btw. the leap from Outsider to Predator is, somehow shorter than the leap from Outsider to Herd Member. This observation appears, at first blush, insightful and therefore, promising of some value, but that’s the just a clark talking.

 

 

…so Christine wonders at the statement: “scotts love loud noises”  Remind me, it’s about time we revisited the wild kingdom, I should write a Post strictly about our scottian friends.

 

although I would love to have the talent and the skills to come up with six sentences that relate to the word or concept or quality of ‘rush’, that doesn’t mean that you, the reader will not enjoy reading those who do. so get on over to zoe’s (tbpkaI) and read them things. (Yeah, I am counting my sentences, and totally want to this come out in six sentences. but… alas)

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. Denise says:

    Yo. Frist first. Read second.

  2. Hey! Let me second that. And I’ll raise you.

  3. ivywalker says:

    Hey thanks for the shout out. The link is open til Saturday so keep counting! Believe it or not, I remember when I realized the doctrine was culturally neutral….I mean if it can characterize a Tibetan yak farmer and a Rhode Island realtor…. I am not yet TOTALLY convinced about gender . Roger thy name is Thomas! Lol.

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      you know, it’s kinda funny and/or interesting in that, while the concept was well established (gender/cultural neutrality) the ‘better’ way to explain it had to wait for a few years, i.e. “…the Wakefield Doctrine is simply concerned with ‘how a person relates themselves to the world around them’. Do they (relate) as would an Outsider, a Predator or a Herd Member.”
      so, in a very real sense, we can now be comfortable knowing ‘what makes the Hottentot so hot!

      • ivywalker says:

        I used to have what I thought was a really valid point about the gender neutrality thing but it couldnt have been that good because I cant remember it and I totally know what you mean by “so, in a very real sense, we can now be comfortable knowing ‘what makes the Hottentot so hot!” lol!

  4. valj2750 says:

    Since 2009? When did the DOCTRINE begin? And PS, the answer to the comic is the one who makes her laugh.

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      Val

      This blog has been around since June of 2009. The ‘theory of clarks, scotts and rogers’ I’ve been working on since sometime in the early 80s like maybe ’81 or ’82

      …you people say that now… but I was in high school and I totally remember how successful the scotts and rogers were… well, ok, so I was kind of invisible and I did mumble and run away a lot…but still! I was funny*
      we all know that she’s referring to a roger a clark** and a scott

      *by funny I mean the same definition of funny I have now, which still does not have them rolling in the aisles
      ** the actual clark may not appear as depicted in the cartoon

      • ivywalker says:

        you have to be funny and visible! “You people?”

        • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

          the female-based lifeforms that I recall from my high school days, I was being a total generalist!

          lol (and we clarks have that persistant, not really up front but not really as shy and retiring as we might insist we are… introverts and all… )