Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
Hi! New here? Glad to have you visit! Lots of fun facts, interesting insights and one totally unique personality theory here! There’s just one little thing…today’s topic? Well, we’re thinking that this might not exactly be the best way to be introduced to the Wakefield Doctrine. Not on your very first exposure to the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers, at any rate.
If I might make a suggestion?
Either go back to the landing page (www.wakefielddoctrine.com ) or, if you really feel like reading a Post, how about this: “bullet points and block quotes…” You will enjoy it, much more! …or write us a Comment…or get mad and continue on to your original destination, www.bicycles-men-and-logos.com or www.stiletto-persuaders.com. Or stay, cause now that you have been personally challenged with our little bit of advice, you are going to get through this come hell or high-water….clark1
Have been making the rounds, talking to everyone2 and the acceleration of the ‘understanding of the Wakefield Doctrine‘ is really impressive…and daunting. By ‘understanding of the Wakefield Doctrine‘ I don’t mean the core principles, e.g. there are three characteristic worldviews (‘personal realities’) and what people call a personality type is merely the normal, appropriate response to the world as it is being perceived, I mean more expanding our understanding of what we mean when we say, “in the world of a clark, a banana is rarely ever just a banana, at least the first time” or ” I scream, therefore I am“. The goal is that the more we learn about the characteristics of the three worldviews, the better we are able to understand the people in our lives. …when they are acting like complete assholes or are simply being exceptionally obsequious!
The current ‘buzz words’?
referential authority
The hottest of ‘hot topics’?
(influence of ) secondary aspect on coping skills
Hey! Lets try something different today. I am going to stop writing at this point. You read and if you feel like adding to the above topic bullet points, write in…if not, then I may return later in the day and put up something racy, who knows
1) and we know it’s you… most of the people coming here and ‘getting’ the Doctrine have been clarks..although we are seeing that change lately…whatever
2) meaning DownSprings and Friends of the Doctrine, of course
About clarkscottroger
“referential authority”? Yo, clarks! When it comes to the rogers…ya got none! LOL
Yeah, I know. I’m supposed to supply meat with that sandwich but right now, I’m jonesing. Not enough sleep and only 1 coffee so far. I promise to return after sufficient caffeinization. I would suggest that a roger comment while I step out and give us a lowdown on that concept, the “ra” stuff. Everybody knows it’s true. And if you really think about it, a clark with a strong secondary rogerian aspect, well, you can see how that influences your decision making, or perhaps your decision making skills. Extrapolation+analyzation+referential authority+fact checking = too long a time making a damned decision!*
(ramble, amble, stumble, trip
get me to the coffeemaker lest I trip
over more stupid words
not even in a row
please, please
just let me
go……)
Here’s another talking point: how it is that most clarks are dilettantes, scotts, charlatans and rogers? politicians?!!
To channel Joe P – ok,ok, ok. Not a REAL authority as in a person, hence the term “referential”. It’s more of an implied thing. In my opinion, it’s a made up thing. But there just the same. The phrase “you know what they say…..”. It’s the “they”. Whenever a roger says overtly or implies “that’s not the way it’s done”, they are referring to how it should be done according to, you know, the people who know. How it should be done.
Again, where’s my help?! Everyone knows I am still suffering a head cold and we all know how that goes. Medicine or not, I’m gonna get my thoughts translated here somehow, some way….today. LOL
Hey, there could be a clue in this discussion for sussing out the rogers among us. We all know the rogers are the tough ones to identify:)
hey we all about the production values ’round this here Doctrine here
Secondary aspect as coping skill….well that ‘s just self-explanatory, isn’t it ?
You start with the concept that your more-or-less adult personality core may have a few issues after all; the secondary aspect is simply discovering the courage to possibly move beyond those boundaries.
That usually implies years of therapy, alchoholism, finding Jesus, losing him again, six marriages, Led Zeppelin, and the magical grapefruit diet.
Or, God help you, the freaking Wakefield Doctrine.
I’ve always done well with Zeppelin. Try to live your life with the same attitude that Bonham drummed with, and you’ll be fine. And don’t take any crap from prissy lead singers.
They’re probably scotts.
…almost always scotts ( particularly when all they do is sing and demand attention ).
Secondary aspect as coping skill….well that ‘s just self-explanatory, isn’t it ?
this is a little more slippery than it may seem, especially since we are just beginning to consider it (dragging it out from under the front porch, like a dog needing a bath)… our Rocky Mountain DownSpring (molly) will, no doubt, have some input, as she indicated recently that that was a topic of (her own) independent study*.
My own opinion is that the 2ndary aspect ‘colors’ a person’s strategies, more than create (a strategy), another more musical way of saying it, lets consider the predominant worldview as what says what kind of band you are playing and the 2ndary as determining your likelhood of sucess.
… you are in a 4 piece metal band, and your 2ndary is roger…then you better think about playing bass or keyboards (maybe drums) …if your 2ndary is clark… then stop twirling the microphone, button your shirt and pick of that Precision**
* independent study!! god! I’m afraid to ask… what other aspects she is develing into
** Precision: to all the ‘normal’ people, who did not spend all your ‘learn a skill and have a normal life’ time acquiring knowledge that very little practical value, is a bass guitar, specifically a Fender Precision bass
…and I lost my chance to buy a very bee-u-tiful Precision back around ’88 or’89. (sigh)
So. What if you decide you want your secondary to be something other than what seems to come “naturally”. What if, after identifying your predominant self (as a clark, scott or roger) and what appears to be your 2ndary you think, “geez, I really need to be (fill in the blank) more, or I sure could use whatever so and so has (is) to achieve my goals!” You cannot mention secondary without inferring the tertiary seeing as there are 3 worldviews.
…. “No, I am not better yet and still taking cold medicine”……
good point, but it is implicit in this whole exercise that the goal of the Wakefield Doctrine is to codify (mmmm, cod!) the process by which one might develop both 2ndary and tertiary aspects to a point that they are available as called for… all of which implies that one knows what one wants out of life*
*something that one should not assume they are cognizant of…self-knowledgistically speaking, of course. But the metaphysics are for another day and another picnic…today the focus is on one becoming aware of one’s own 2ndary aspect, the dynamic of which (this self-examin ’em) will be quite interesting as it may present to us the first clue to a ‘language’ which will aid the communication between the three worldviews (e.g. a clark being able to describe to a scott what a roger is experiencing)**
** exciting times are upon us!
wtf? Jimmy channelling a future Angus?
As I said it to Clark the other day, the difference I see is this: The first aspect is how one sees the world. The second one is more likely to control behavior in a given environment. I see this especially in a work related environment, where the person is proficient, but not comfortable. The secondary aspect allows one to do the job the way it needs to be done, without changing how one sees the world.
Last night I went out to eat with two friends: a scott and a roger. It was interesting to watch the dynamics. The roger was the loud one, but the scott still lead. I just sat back, watched and enjoyed the time.
lol
….”I just sat back, watched and enjoyed the time.”
We (clarks) may be the outsiders, the weird ones with the funny fashion choices and the tendancy to mumble, but we are never without entertainment! While we have always seen the world as an endlessly facinating place (“out there” lol), the Doctrine allows use to superimpose some consistancy to the antics that are always going on around us.
“The first aspect is how one sees the world. The second one is more likely to control behavior in a given environment”
…agreed on the alignment of the ‘effect’ of the (pre)disposition to perceive the world a certain way. I think the concept will (and should) remain somewhat slippery as we acquire the language to allow us to talk about behavior as being an experience and a perception, at times a simultaneous event.
(part of our discussion last night) focused on the idea that the work right now is focused on ‘understanding’ the three worldviews. The word understanding is in quotes because I recognise that, while the reality-appropriate desire/drive/impulse/need for a clark is to ‘understand’, in the world of a scott or a roger this concept is expressed differently.
…we will want to hear more about the roger-scott show! lol