Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
Yes, we really did use a reference to one of the most famous of the miracles in the New Testament in the title of today’s Post.
Before our more literal minded Readers ( yeah, the rogers, who else? ) get themselves worked up, lets get right to ‘the statement that is being made’. Everyone has heard about the miracle of the loaves and fishes. We (just) learned from our friends at wikipedia that this is the only miracle that is repeated/re-told in all 4 Gospels. Quick re-cap of the story for our non-judeo/christian/Western culture Friends:
This is also known as the “miracle of the five loaves and two fish” given that the Gospel of John reports that five small barley loaves and two small fish supplied by a boy were used by Jesus to feed a multitude.
According to the Gospels, when Jesus heard that John the Baptist had been killed, he withdrew by boat privately to a solitary place near Bethsaida. The crowds followed Jesus on foot from the towns. When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick. As evening approached, the disciples came to him and said, “This is a remote place, and it’s already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy themselves some food.”Jesus replied, “They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat.”
“We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish,” they answered.
“Bring them here to me,” he said.Jesus directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children. ( our friends at Wikipedia )
The story is told and re-told for various purposes and to make a variety of points…true generosity is limitless, the power of sharing and the nutritional importance of seafood as a source of Omega-3 fatty acids. But what lesson can we take from this story that would help us with (using the Wakefield Doctrine) to improve the quality of our own lives? Two things:
- the Wakefield Doctrine is for you and not for them
- there is no single, global strategy for improving the quality of your life
- (and) it does not have to make sense in order to work
When we say, ‘the Wakefield Doctrine is for you and not for them‘ we mean that it (Doctrine) cannot be used to change the behavior of other people in our lives. We sometimes look around and think, ‘My life would be better if only so and so was different’ or ‘I would be able to do this, if only they would not do that’. The Wakefield Doctrine lets you understand why people act the way that they do. That’s it.
The Doctrine maintains that you have the capability of acting as the other two personality types do. If you are a clark, there may be times when you would be best served acting like a scott. If you are a roger then there are times to be clarklike.
And, most of the time, knowing about clarks and scotts and rogers is just plain fun as you watch people act just the way you read about in this blog!
Get it?
No? well pass me the fish sticks anyway!
About clarkscottroger
It is the lazy (or is that unenlightened?) man’s expectation that, in order for life to be better, the people in their lives need to “be better”. People are who they are. It is the individual alone who has the “choice to make things better”.
I dub today “wax philosphic like a clark in the morning, eat someone for lunch (as a scott would) afternoon, participate in a rogerian happy hour evening” day.
Only if you pass me the tartar sauce first!
lol
I think I understand
I think therefore I am
I think because of how I feel
Bravo, sir. Bra-vo.
Now what about all you other lugheads out there! Yo, Rev. Coyne. Step away from the stove.
And you! Little Miss Molly. Where the heck are you? Let’s get some discourse going. This is right up your alley.
You other FOTD’s! A little help for my friends?
That’s right. You, the “silent” contingent of Doctrine readers. Now would be an excellent time to comment.
(as a certain Lady might say), “you’ve been told”
I just got up, and I am seeing times and on your posts that don’t even exist for me yet…
I was thinking of wearing something pink and flowing with those boots. Early 60’s styling, with some sort of embroidery and gloves would be fantastic, but I’m not really into such.
While you can’t change people, you can find better ways of working with them. Ways that fit with their way of thinking.
I’ve found, when chatting online, that rogers don’t like answering to Hey!!!, but they will answer to Hey…
The difference is subtle, but the results are not.
Agree. (in a sense), the biggest value (of) the Wakefield Doctrine is to allow to know the reality that the other person is waking up to, and this is crucial to being able to identify with the other person… even the rogers lol
Funny Molly that you bring up the “hey!” thing. You are so dead on with that one. I have a particular person I e-mail off and on and I can safely say that every time that person begins the e-mail with “Hey”. No ! after the greeting. Just a simple “Hey”.
Another rogerian person comes to mind who verbally uses it as a greeting and vocalizes it in a particular, specific type of monotone. Geez…..do they know these simple quirks about themselves? LOL
Backing up to the first sentence that was made (2nd paragraph): what you haven’t come right out and said is that the “better ways of working with them” has everything to do with our own choice(s) of behavior which has the ability to illicit a change in the other person’s (behavior).
While I fundamentally disagree with: “Ways that fit with their way of thinking,” I know what it is you are saying.
“The difference is subtle, but the results are not.” Yes, true thing. I expect nothing less astute from a fellow clark. A shame that it is only we like people who get the subtlety part of it all. LOL
Totally agree on the hey thing, rogers do not be liking surprises (visual: endless prairie, full moon clear skies herd of cattle numbering in the thousands single gunshot from the middle… cattle-shaped dust clouds)