Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks [who are the Outsiders], scotts [who are all predatory and aggressive] and rogers [damn, there are a lot of them])
Today’s Post is by courtesy of (a) Comment and (a) Post written by Cyndi and Melanie, respectively.
From Cyndi:
“…So…it was the “other dude” (not Jack Nicholson) who was the roger, right? I totally see Nicholson as the scott here…I enjoyed the video. I’m curious…how would you say the clarks commented on the storm? LOL…I’m thinking back to what I’ve posted and I’m sort of like, well, these things happen, I’m pretty sure people are all right, I need to get on with things and I’ll help people if needed. How’s that? Typical clark response”
(In my direct response to Cyndi’s Comment) I wrote: ‘Yes’
In retrofit,1 I think that, that answer, while an appropriate answer from a clark to a clark, does not do justice to the idea (of the) thought (shaped by the worldview of a clark) that Cyndi was intending to present. There is much for scotts and rogers to learn, by virtue of what her question represents to a clark. To be the Outsider at a time of shared stress and trauma and bad shit in general, is to bring out the best (in clarks) and yet (to the dismay of many clarks) present an image and impression that can be mis-interpreted as the worst (aspect of the clarklike worldview).
Not to be coy3, by way of addressing Cyndi’s question, I will invite the Readers to Comment on this statement : “why is it that clarks are capable of (no, make that driven to) give everything to individuals but nothing to the group?”
In all sincerity, we look forward to any and all answers and insights. It will be interesting if any scotts or rogers will offer an answer/perspective-of-their-worldview.
From Melanie Chisnall:
in a Post she wrote at her blog Scribbles and Smiles, the penultimate question being: ‘How do you deal with panic attacks?’
How useful and productive, spanning the entire range of personality types, can a question be? The issue of anxiety, in the context of the Wakefield Doctrine, is a Chapter in and of itself in the Book Project.2
The first and most accessible benefit, to be acquired from Melanie’s question, is to be found in the reminder that: when applying the Wakefield Doctrine to any situation, it is essential to remember that ‘everyone does everything, at one time or another‘.
There are no exclusively clarklike or scottian or rogerian ideas or acts, thoughts or emotions. The value of ‘worldviews’ (as the source of personality types) is that you can take any situation, act or circumstance and infer how it would ‘manifest’ to a clark (in a world where they are natural Outsiders) or to a scott (living where she is beset by other predator and tempted by prey) or as a roger would perceive it (shaped by Rules and order and accountability). To do this, to put yourself in the worldview/the personal reality of the other person, is the whole damn point of the Wakefield Doctrine.
The question, by virtue of being presented here, expands the question: ‘what is anxiety (to you) and how do you deal with it?’
To stay with a three part format, but to break up the page a bit… a word about worldviews:
- there are 3 characteristic worldviews that account for the 3 personality types of the Wakefield Doctrine
- the worldview of the Outsider (clarks), that of Predator/Prey (scotts) and the world of the Herd (rogers)
- these worldviews are real, real as the…. well, as real as the most reliable constant in your worldview!
- no, the person in a different worldview does not need to pay more attention or listen closer… different reality, remember?
- nothing weird or metaphysical…no flying, no secret brain powers (well, maybe a little lol) just a difference in relating to people, places and things
- it is the difference in the character of the three worldviews that holds the greatest value to us what would self-improve ourselves
- we all have the potential, capability, capacity, whatever you choose to call it, to experience the world as do the other two personality types
(218-339-0422 excess code: 512103 #)
About clarkscottroger
”why is that clarks are capable of (no, make that driven to) give everything to individuals but nothing to the group?”
Because in the worldview of a clark there is no group, just the individual and his (or her) struggle to make sense of the world and those other individuals surrounding the outsider clark.
@Steve
true dat… think (of course, lol) what is (in the case of many, not all clarks, just many) involved in the connecting of (our) emotional selves with another! (yes, you have done well and we advancing way, way fast in this Doctrine thing).
the answer is implied by the reason that clarks are the best people to have in a true emergency situation.*
*contrary to first guess that it is scotts who are best in this situation, they are simply the most noticeable (effective when they choose correctly the course of action, not so much otherwise)
Scotts would never outwardly display stress or anxiety. In fact, by virtue of being a scott, most do not exhibit these emotions. Scotts are sure of themselves. And even if/when they did (“everyone does everything, at one time or another”) to display anything else would be tantamount to becoming prey.
I say this as sure of myself as a scott can be. Anxiety is as serious as a heart attack. The trick (for a scotts) is to remain in control.
@Jennifer
“…The trick (for a scotts) is to remain in control.”
agree, but the danger in that approach (and by implication, the danger inherent in any single strategy) is that if it doesn’t work, it works against you. (To me), anxiety is very much like a scott, both draw the power of ‘implying more’, not just ‘hey, watch out or I will do this to you’ rather it is implying there is something un-stated.
a male scott will walk up to the guy that outweighs him by 50 lbs and is half a head taller and says, ‘come on!! let’s play!!‘
the scottian female will stand there and clearly not try to convince anything of anyone, all the while appearing to be… ‘better not, you might not be man enough‘
cool how the characteristic expression of aggressiveness, in scotts, appears to be diametrically opposite…
make sense?
lol
(I use the phrase “heart attack” to stress the seriousness. Not meant to compare to)
Makes perfect sense (wise ass)
I can’t speak for all Clarks but, from my perspective, the group represents outsiderness. The group is what you are outside of. It’s intimidating and can seem impossible to manage “the group” being on the outside. It isn’t that a Clark doesn’t want to help on a grand scale, but feels more empowered on an individual level. The individual is where there is the potential to connect, make a difference and do some good.
@ Jasmine
in this case I believe you are speaking for (all) clarks… especially in the matter of finding the individual a more… ‘suitable’… ‘appropriate’… ‘(the closest to what our worldview permits)’
well said
All right, you got me to comment other than at the end of the day, LOL. But when I saw that one-word response, I just *knew* there was more to it than that. :D
Oh and yes, I completely agree: I’m *always* concerned but fully recognize that my capabilities are somewhat limited in terms of offering my help. I live far away, I could donate to the Red Cross, but really, I’ll spend the day brooding about how I hope people are making it okay. Outwardly, I think sometimes people don’t think I care, but inwardly, I’m freaking out.
That being said, the news reports are starting to get better, and our human spirit will prevail.
:)
@Cyndi (but this is the other side of the day!) lol I have enjoyed all of the Comments, showing as they (the Comments) have always represented, insights into the worldviews (of the three personality types). Both in the sense that the Doctrine itself is reinforced and effectively made more expansive in it’s scope.
(…I know, a simple Good Comment would have sufficed! lol)
OMG! Now I’m so confused! I don’t know if ima Clark, a Roger or a Scott!
Very enjoyable post and most enjoyable commentation!
Lead pic – Michael Rappaport. What a clark! (yeah, come on. who and what is he looking at. LOL. it’s always in the eyes of a clark)
Edward Hopper? Off the top of my head I’d go with a clark simply by the nature of his work. Or rather, the “ethereal” tone/theme of his subject(s). I don’t know. Guess I’d have to go read about him or something…..
@Steve – astute, on point
@Jasmine – :D nice composite of words. again on point. Would like to hear from you more often.
@Cyndi – we’ll be talking soon sister LOL
@Kelly – I will visit your site and see what I can see and maybe help?!
@Jennifer, you scottian woman you – glad you are here to give an alternative viewpoint. Very helpful:)
@Melanie and the subsequent question of how I deal with anxiety? Intellectually, in my head. I cease indulging (any further) in the emotion that anxiety feeds (upon).
For clarks this is not an overly difficult thing to do(retreat from the emotional aspect of a thing) . For rogers, it is next to impossible to “dis-associate” from the emotion of the event/thing/person causing the anxiety and for scotts, anything goes! All I can say is just be prepared to duck run or otherwise stand aside. lol
What more can I contribute to the initial question: ”why is it that clarks are capable of (no, make that driven to) give everything to individuals but nothing to the group?” Not having any great experience dealing with groups (for the obvious fact I am a clark) then it would seem to make sense that dealing one on one would be more “successful”. But I feel like we have left something out. Aside from crisis type situations or catastrophic weather events, a clark has to first feel a “connection” to another individual. On this note I will stop. All the scotts have long since fallen asleep, the rogers have lost patience and focus and the clarks…hopefully you guys are still reading:) Besides I know at least one clark out there (Molly) who gets what I’m saying about feeling a “connection” with a person. Without it, you simply don’t exist.
Damn! What did I have for lunch today? Yo, first roger! No doubt “somebody, somebody put something in my drink” LOL
“Serenity now” Kelly:) If I had the power to send you a Wakefield Doctrine hat (for your damn head), it would have roger in the red lettering.
You have the ability to “run the figures” on the other 2 (clark and scott). Take another peek and I think you may come to the same conclusion.
It seems to be a general consensus among us clarks that we pretty much have a sense of ourselves (being a clark) when reading about clarks and we seem to experience a sense of identification if you will when reading comments submitted by other clarks. Try crossing Item #1 off the list.
And remember, there is no “better” or “best” worldview/personal reality. They are what they are with all the good, bad and the ugly! lol
What else? Ask yourself if you are by nature an impulsive person? Do you care what others may think of you if, for example, you start going off at some loudmouth at a PTA meeting? Hey! There’s a question right there: would you, without thought, react to a “loudmouth” (in that scenario) in a manner that some might consider “inappropriate”? Does social decorum have a proprietary place in your view of “acceptable” behavior?
The Doctrine is both challenging and fun. Once you get it you won’t want to unget it:) I seem to discover something new, some other aspect or element of the Doctrine with each new person who converses here.
Hope to see you again! And I will be going back to your site!!
You know I must be tired, because this blog is quite well-written and I’m sitting here going…”dooohhhhh”. Anyway, just coming by to show my support!!!
thank you Julie, not just for the visit, but for inviting me into your very cool group! I have enjoyed every, (challenging*) minute here, totally glad to be included.
I would be happy to send you a Wakefield Doctrine DocTee, when I get them in… a number of the others in the group won a DocTee in a contest from last week, unfortunately the contest is over, but I would love to send one, as a token of my appreciation and all
As I did with the others (who won the prize), I just would ask that you let me know ( in a comment ) if it is alright for me to use the email you left (as part of commenting) to get a mailing address. (yeah, I know! we’re a little ..strange about (some aspects of) privacy ’round here.)
Thanks for stopping by!
PS: (The answer is roger) lol (but remember that we all retain the capacity to experience the world and (sometimes even act) as do ‘the other two personality types’
* kinda selfishly of me I joined thinking by associating with people who really know what they are doing, blogistically-speaking, that some of that would rub off on me!