Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers )
The Video (of Video Friday) is still in a pre-pre-production status. While we wait, lets talk a little about the fun that you can have with the Wakefield Doctrine.
The Wakefield Doctrine is genuinely fun for people/children/animals and senior citizens of all ages, backgrounds and interests! I know what you are saying, “Well! Those are some mighty Bold Claims, Mr/Ms ‘Whoever-it-is-that-Writes-these-often-amusing-sometimes-tiresome‘ Posts”
Well, simply put, ‘I accept your damn challenge!’
Bullet-pointed Ways that the Wakefield Doctrine can give you crazy fun today:
- figure which of the three personality types you are and try to act like one of the other two*
- look at the person physically closest to you right now and figure out if they are a clark, scott or roger**
- stop following these directions and go and read some of the suggested Posts at the bottom of this page
- allow yourself ‘the right’ to cancel all current New Year’s Resolutions, provided that you write to us and ask for a Wakefield Doctrine hat (for your damn head)
- take off all your clothes and very quietly-Video is Ready!
* lets continue the MS list format thing:
- as a scott you will immediately do a poor, over-exagerated caricature and then lose interest;
- as a roger you will mull it over and dismiss the whole notion that you could even begin to fit your massive personality into the puny, puny containers of the other two personality types and finally
- if you are a clark…you are excited by the idea, but then become careful not to show how much you would enjoy being one of the other two personality types, ( or …the scott in any event)
** (same with this footnote):
- if you are a scott: they are a roger;
- if you are a clark…:there is no one that close…(and)
- if you are a roger, the person is a clark, but you will ignore them in favor of the nearest scott
About clarkscottroger
Valid point: knowing the Wakefield Doctrine does gives an individual an “edge”. Who does not / would not enjoy responding to a roger (for example, ‘cuz they’re the most fun), like myself in one of my own recent experieces at work – “yes, I knew you would say that….it’s because you are a roger…..and you need that quantifiable universe.” The most, most enjoyable part was seeing the look on the roger’s face. (I had already sent him to the Doctrine months and months ago. And yes, he reacted then as I knew a roger would.) And yet, his smile at hearing this sentence that was made. Priceless. Can’t get it out of my head. He knew I knew what he was thinking, yet he was still puzzled at how I could “know” him. That is the part about the WD I find “fun”. LOL
As to the part about the Doctrine not changing anybody else, it’s just for the individual is both true/not true. Being aware that you are a clark, scott or roger has already changed you. If you act differently simply by being aware of the whys and such for your own self, it will not go unnoticed. Knowing I am a clark, I can know my typical behavior independently and in a group setting however, knowing who the scotts and rogers are around me, well, that is where the fun begins! If I know how they will act/react to me and I act “out of character” , I in effect alter how they will act/react. I ramble now.
Your second footnote really made me laugh! Of course, I was in a room by myself when reading this… :)
I’m finding that experimenting with the other types is more difficult that it sounds, even knowing that they are somewhere under the surface. It is one thing to act as another type — that is doable. But to get into the thinking? Regardless of how much I read, I do not get how rogers think. I can fake it for a short time, but then I’ve got to shake myself free of that box.
good point, Molly… What you say is accurate in that it serves to illustrate (one of) the key concepts of the Doctrine, i.e. there are three characteristic worldviews that, by virtue of having them (the worldviews), makes a person a clark or a scott or a roger. We use the term ‘worldview’, but we totally mean it in the sense of a ‘reality’. Not to belabor that point, but the realness of the world of clarks, scotts and rogers addresses your question more directly.
When we say that all people have one dominant personality type and the other two remain as potential, we are saying that we live in the world of one and (are capable) of recognizing the world(s) of the other two. By knowing the Doctrine, I can infer the world that a scott or a roger is experiencing. And, the better I know the Doctrine, the quicker and better I can recognize this in other people.
To live as one of the other types! That is a matter of implication that is of a whole order of magnitude greater than to simply know of the worlds (of the other types)! It is possible, but very difficult. It is to actually live in that world.
No loss to ‘only’ know how they three types think, but one of the values of the Wakefield Doctrine is that it allows a person to go from one reality to another.
Good commentation you two…….Molly is correct in her statement. It is extremely difficult to get “into the head” of either of the other two. In her case, a scott or roger. What is typical with we clarklike people is the wanting to know a thing NOW. We understand so much of everything, (having the giant brains that we do LOL), that we often lack the patience (of a roger for example) to approach this “learning” in a systematic, to our thinking, boring, way and persist with the minutia (day after day) that one day produces the results we seek. The day unbeknownst exactly when you can say, hey! wait a minute there, I was actually caught up in a rogerian moment! Better yet, when not on cue you act scottian. The hours spent reading, talking and yes, practicing on a cognitive level will one day assimilate within yourself until it becomes a more organic characteristic. It becomes a body thing and not a brain thing.
I find it a challenge to describe my own experiences walking in the shoes of a roger and a scott. The words often do not translate well. I will say this: initially, when you have accomplished walking among the rogers as a roger, when you cavort with the scotts as a scott your body you will be the first to know. Then your brain will interfere and you will catch a glimpse of what it was, of who you were. The challenge of course, is to access the other two aspects of ourselves seamlessly and at will.
So here’s a new thing going on with me. I have developed, on an unconcious level I swear!) a particular hand gesture when interacting with folks at work. I was doing it for about two weeks. Fully aware I was doing it yet helpless to stop it. My body was doing it. Someone, most likely a scott lol, inquired as to “what’s up with this (them doing hand gesture)”?
(Hint: not typical clarklike hand gestures)
Yes.
Let us restate (for our new Readers) that with the description of the three worldviews ( of the clark and scott and roger) we observe those people in our lives and infer what the world is like to them. And this is the critical point, the world is different (to) the other person. Now, of course, we don’t mean real different reality in the major features, sky is polka dots, toasters talk to sugar bowls, but rather the world is different to the other person in the sense that some (of the people you observe around you) are living in a world in which:
they are an outsider forever ‘not-a-part-pf-the-group’ seeking only to not to standout un-necessarily, intent on learning the insider knowledge that will gain them membership among all the real people in their life;
they are a predator living in the world of predator and prey, solitary except for a grouping of necessity in a pack, forever watching for a greater predator constantly on the hunt for prey
they are members of the herd in a world that has been pre-defined and the only thing lack is that most people do not seem to understand the Rules of life and the appreciation of all that makes it up, especially it’s history and traditions
when we infer that (the other person) is living in a reality that fits one of the above descriptions then we know that they are what we call clarks or scotts or rogers
…and we know why they do the things that they do.
cool
Many scottian hand gestures come to mind. Care to share?
lol