Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory that is more a ‘way of looking at the world as the other person does’, thereby gaining useful insight into their damn personalities)
clarks: the Outsider. clarks can be difficult to notice, (but) easy to identify. They are everywhere, but have a form of protective coloration that is sort of like a messed up chameleon, always leaving some part of themselves ‘un-background-colorated’ (picture the lizard totally indistinguishable from the rock they are sitting on …with a bright blue head!) For today, try this:
- smile at everyone, the ones who respond with a ‘smile’ that consists of compressing the lips while (slightly) raising their eyebrows… clark
- if you are at work look for the person who is working (at a desk or a machine or waiting on a table), say ‘hello’ to everyone in a loud voice, the person you see who turns their head in your direction, but does not look up (or, god forbid responds with a ‘Hi!’) theres your clark
- the young woman in the impeccably tailored business attire, is that a tattoo?.. a hint of purple in the coif? hello, clark
scotts: don’t worry about finding them, they’ll find you! scotts are the ‘center of attention’ that never stops moving. The scottian female will be in charge, no matter where you are today. Better yet, think to yourself, “If I yell ‘Fire’ nearly everyone will start running away, the one who is coming towards me? That’ll be the scott”. (er…this is meant to be ‘figuratively speaking’, you know? of course, the scotts reading this Post on their smartphones, have already yelled, ‘Fire!!’) lol Instead, try this:
- smile at everyone, the person who smiles back but does not break eye contact first…scott
- at work,as you enter the office/work area, look for the person who is already looking back at you, getting up….and coming towards you! there’s your scott
- the guy behind the desk, when you start to complain about the service in the store, smiles and asks you to tell him every detail of the problem you are having…scott
rogers: sometimes mistaken for scotts, especially in an expertise-centric environment like work or school. rogers are very prominent in their domain and combined with their genius-level sociability, they will often come across as being scottian. The evidence of their rogerian personality lies in the personal-ness of their attention, they will get you to feel that they are hanging on your every word! Don’t worry about whether you will find rogers where you are1 …if you want them to identify themselves, try this:
- smile at everyone, the people that smile back but immediately look at one of the others in the room…roger!!
- if you are at work, the person with the most photos and diplomas and awards on their desk or in their work area… and those photos of family and friends? the person displaying them will be in every single one of the photos lol rogers!
- your doctor, the judge at the trial for your lawsuit, your accountant,the Chairwoman of your local PTA virtually anyone you think of as the ‘go to’ person when you have a problem with technology or ritual or social acceptance … rogers
Enjoy the day and let us know how you make out spotting the clarks and scotts and rogers in your life!
1) current thinking holds that rogers account for 60% of the population2
2) except following times of war or other life threatening civil disruptions, being the bulk of the membership of armies and mobs, the herd is usually decimated, but their natural charm usually restores their ‘numbers’ pretty quickly, post-reconstructionistically speaking.
About clarkscottroger
As a clark utilizing the Doctrine to “evolve”, I can attest to the validity of some of the simple “test criteria” oft presented within these “walls” . Damn if it isn’t fun. (Sorry, I left the long comment over at yesterday’s post.)
Here’a another long ass comment. (sound of scotts hurrying off) You did say “let us know how you…” and since no one as commented today except for yours truly –
Actually, this is just a rant. No, not a rant because I’m not angry or frustrated. Just amazed. Maybe a little puzzled. Whatever. Since I haven’t hit the publish button yet over at GirlieOnTheEdge, I’ve decided to unload here. LOL
Let’s face it. rogers are fascinating. As a clark, I simply cannot relate to rogers and their need for/of the story/backstory (of a thing). Something must happen on an emotional level or something that goes on with these guys when dealing with a situation, artifact or event of the past.
Hell, make that the present too.
A regular conversation can have a roger insist on some sort of clarification from the speaker as to a certain aspect of the story being told.(a roger is not above putting a person on the spot to reveal all sorts of stuff that to some may not appear relevant (clarks) and if the speaker is another roger, eegads you’re in for the long haul) In fact, rogers will often ask questions that make the telling of a story go on for way longer than the story itself. Why?! I get that questions sometimes arise from listening to somebody relating a story but sometimes, well sometimes it’s just a story. No biggy. Just get to the end. Me, I don’t need a lot of detail. And that from a clark and we all know clarks are often sticklers for detail. (control issue) Again there is a subtle difference between the detail of a clark and the detail required and demanded by rogers.
What gives? Why is the history, the backstory so important to rogers. (validation of…..validation….has something to do with it right? lol)
P.S. Maybe we could talk about this on the Saturday Night Call In Show. I know it’s been discussed before but maybe I just need a refresher. LOL
you said it yourself:
clarks are sticklers for details because for (clarks) information is the thing that we value above all else…information, facts, dots-connected
rogers are about the herd, which means relationships, which means context and history and backstory information as a standalone fact has zero value for a roger, a backstory on a person or place or thing, creates a story…thats what they are after
Wow. I am so a clark, then a roger then a scott. I loved your post yesterday where it talked about “institutions” (or if it wasn’t a post it was something I came across by you, LOL). I have done the student thing and the “work for everyone else” thing. I just couldn’t take it any more. :) In any case, your posts are so refreshing. I so feel like I have a place where I can totally validate my quirky nature. :)
@Cyndi
We’re glad you’re around and get something from this thing of ours. As part of the 2nd gen, your input has total value (to us) as a reflection of how we are doing in terms of explaining this thing. Given how quickly you have picked up the principles of the Doctrine allow us to add another tool (more a more facile bit of terminology), secondary aspect is the term we have to describe the presence of one of ‘the other two’ worldviews in a person where it (the secondary aspect) is ‘strong’ enough to have an effect on that person’s behavior. Even though it is understood that everyone has the capability to see the world as ‘the other two’ personality types (‘non-predominant’ worldviews) not everyone has what we refer to as a secondary aspect. But it is a useful tool in understanding the behavior of others.
So, any questions for us on aspects of the Wakefield Doctrine that are not showing themselves clearly? We will be talking next week about how to talk to other people about this Doctrine thing, provided the situation warrants an explanation, (“er… honey? that tee shirt, that Doctrine thing is that anything like the Rosicrucians?… not that there’s anything wrong with being Rosicrucian!”) lol
Information for its own sake is just dry data. It needs to be in a context to actually have some relativity. It needs to be plugged into something. Makes the information actually useful.
To begin to connect some of the dots around you is the beginning of socialization. As a matter of fact, when you connect A to B ( A+B), you don’t just get AB. Even your passive interaction (C) is a factor too. You’re actually creating [ ABC ].
See?…Context.
spoken, appropriately, like a roger. and deliberately or not, you are also illustrating the difference between clarks and rogers.
Not only is the rogerian worldview one of connectiveness among and between people, but in your (stated) attraction for connecting A to B etc, you show how clarks are truly of another world(view). It is clear that while both (clarks and rogers) are connecting dots, facts, information and/or date… the rogers are experiencing these ‘things’ as components of the thing that matters..the herd, society, culture, whatever term you would assign to the group. clarks will gather facts faster and with more variety than a roger would dream of, but in the end will be no closer to creating a herd, society, culture or group. That is not to say the effort is pointless… clarks present these ‘facts’ as a value in the hope of being included in the herd, this is in contrast to a roger, who by gathering new facts and linking them in an emotionally meaningful way, is creating a new herd (or sub-herd or satellite herd) with themselves at the center
something like that
the key as always lies not in what is this thing, really (connecting facts) but rather it is, ‘connecting facts in the worldview of a clark is this…’ connecting facts in the worldview of a roger is this… connecting facts in the worldview of a scott is this…
Came to read this to know more about the Clarks, Scotts and Rogers. Hmm. I seem quite Rogeresque, indeed, except that I don’t quite like putting photos and diplomas at my workplace. All else seem to fit! Is there a merge between these personality types as well? will be interested to know more!
@Michelle good question! ( if anything, more of an ‘overlap’ than a merge)
The thing about the characteristics that we offer for each of the three personality types is that is not so much the literal significance of these preferences, ( i.e. photos on desks or diplomas on the wall for rogers… or an aversion to having one’s photo taken, an eclectic approach to…everything for clarks or even the tendency to physically move quickly, and be sexually aggressive for the scotts), as (these characteristics) are they are meant as clues and insights into how this person might be relating (themselves) to the world at large. If we can understand how the person relates to the world, we can understand the character (of that world).