‘tonic over dominant’ …the Wakefield Doctrine… how your ‘secondary aspect’ (might) influence your life | the Wakefield Doctrine ‘tonic over dominant’ …the Wakefield Doctrine… how your ‘secondary aspect’ (might) influence your life | the Wakefield Doctrine

‘tonic over dominant’ …the Wakefield Doctrine… how your ‘secondary aspect’ (might) influence your life

October 12, 2012 By

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the ‘personality theory’ that is ‘predicated’ on the experience of ‘personal realities’)’*’

Advisory Warning! Today’s Post is for expositionary purposes only! Readers and Followers of the Wakefield Doctrine are familiar with the type of Post that you see before you today, intriguing title with overtones (for the rogers) of information (for the clarks) in abundance, followed by a serious warning (for the scotts). Yes, I believe we have everything we need for a Friday-sort-of Post. On to it then!

Every one knows:

  • we settle into one of three characteristic worldview at an early age (3-5) and this becomes our dominant personal reality which in turn gives rise to the name of our personality type (clark or scott or roger)
  • we never lose the capacity to experience the world, however briefly and/or, sporadically as the ‘other two’ personality types
  • when we first learn about the Wakefield Doctrine, we often think “OK, I am clearly a clark, but there are times I must be a scott what is wrong with me?”
  • depending on our dominant type, our reaction to this confusion/mixing of the 3 types will be: a) confusion and an effort to reconciling the discrepancy, b) rejection of the whole Doctrine as  flawed or 3) deciding there is, must be, a 4th or 5th personality type that you missed and making up new names (rogerscotts!)
    (Which of the three reactions you experience depends on your personality type, of course!)
Recent discussions in these Pages about this issue (of seeing more than one personality type expressed), has led us to create a term for the condition in which a non-dominant worldview occurs frequently enough to influence the behavior of the (person) in their dominant worldview. We now refer to this as a ‘strong secondary aspect’.  Now this is not a fourth personality type. As we enumerated above, the Wakefield Doctrine has always maintained that the ‘other two’ worldviews remains with us. In fact, many people never have the experience of seeing the world as their ‘non-dominant’ types. I know of quite a few people who are ‘all’ scott  or pretty much ‘entirely’ rogerian. Try to keep in mind that, at this point in the development of the Wakefield Doctrine, we are not limiting ourselves to the symmetry compulsion that afflicts much of the Western culture, i.e. ‘if we have three types that the percentage must add up to 100’**
However, we are seeing that some people experience ‘the other two’ worldviews quite frequently, therefore this development of the concept of a secondary aspect.
Dig this: lets say you are a clark. All of us would recognise you if we met you, e.g. minimal eye contact, mumbled speech, purple streak and iron spikes as fashion accessories and really great shoes. Fine.  But if one day we came to visit you at work, and as we look on from a distance, the new Executive VP stops by your desk and makes a remark about your tattoo. The remark is meant to be funny but clearly intended to hurt. But today things are different, to the amazement of everyone in the room, instead of laughing off the comment, you reply quietly and we all see the VP ‘stopped cold’. Not only that, you stand up at your desk and say something to him, kinda quiet like and the VP clearly becomes uncomfortable with what you are saying and  …runs out of the room. (OK, they don’t actually run, but you know what we  mean).
We are witnessing a person with a dominant clarklike worldview expressing a strong scottian secondary aspect. (Of course, students of the Doctrine all realize that after the amazing confrontation, you will go back to mumbling and laughing too much and worrying about what will happen when you next encounter the Executive VP… after all, you are a clark!)
Thats the use and value of the concept of the secondary aspect.
Any questions?
The Title? ask the progenitor roger for how that ties in to the vid and such, do I have to spell everything out?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sBABTZuL44

 

* Quotation marks are also used to indicate that the writer realizes that a word is not being used in its current commonly accepted sense:

Crystals somehow “know” which shape to grow into.

In addition to conveying a neutral attitude and to call attention to a neologism, or slang, or special terminology (also known as jargon), quoting can also indicate words or phrases that are descriptive but unusual, colloquial, folksy, startling, humorous, metaphoric, or contain a pun: Dawkins’s concept of a meme could be described as an “evolving idea”.

People also use quotation marks in this way to distance the writer from the terminology in question so as not to be associated with it, for example to indicate that a quoted word is not official terminology, or that a quoted phrase presupposes things that the author does not necessarily agree with; or to indicate special terminology that should be identified for accuracy’s sake as someone else’s terminology, as when a term (particularly a controversial term) pre-dates the writer or represents the views of someone else, perhaps without judgement (contrast this neutrally-distancing quoting to the negative use of scare quotes).  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark )

** hah, seeing how we have 3 types, good luck with getting to 100

Related Posts:

Share
Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , , ,

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. Downspring#1 says:
    October 12, 2012 at 11:23 am

    If I may? (“Yes, perhaps I am getting ahead of the game but I can’t help myself, there are some who learn at an accelerated pace”) Take a closer look at the example given: the clark “standing up” to the new VP. It may be instructive to note that the VP is a roger. How do I know? Re-read the sentence that was made.
    I’m not going to explain it for 2 reasons. 1) there are scotts out there who can’t handle my lengthy comments but who understand the Doctrine. (why no, Jennifer I don’t mean you! lol) 2) I don’t want to send the conversation wa-ay off track. “Stick to simple facts ma’am” – about how the secondary manifests itself.

    OK, I’ll turn the mike over to the clark (progenitor) and the roger (progenitor), both of whom have recently been engaging in some fairly interesting, informative, commentation. (psst, give an example making the VP a scott) Yeah, yeah I know I’m skipping ahead. So sue me!)

    Ludwig has and always will be my most favorite composer. Once upon a time, I enjoyed playing some of his masterpieces (piano). His music “touched my soul” as they say so naturally, me being a clark, thought “hm, Ludwig… a clark?”. But alas, who could ignore the signs. He was, in my opinion, a roger. Family ties, his attention to his studies, his emotional outbursts….there is much to indicate that my Ludwig van B was, in fact, a roger.

  2. RCoyne RCoyne says:
    October 15, 2012 at 8:30 am

    Lovely, lovely Ludwig Van…

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:
      October 15, 2012 at 8:46 am

      …so back in those days, there was no recorded music (obviously), so were there ‘bootleg listeners’? People who would go to a performance and come back to the pub and sing at people for a fee ( “6 Marks for the whole first movement?”). Come to that, how available was the ‘idea’ of music at the time?