Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
Couple of things… then a Video Post.
Vocabularies and Tests
Two Projects: a) Wakefield Doctrine Common Language and 2) (the) Wakefield Doctrine Predominant Worldview Assessment (WDPWA)
a) compiling a vocabulary that will allow understanding between worldviews, an example: referential authority: the quality of reality in the rogerian worldview that maintains there is always a source of authority in any and all situations and it is separate from the sum or the parts.
2) developing a test, an assessment that will help people to determine not only their predominant worldview, but their secondary and tertiary aspects. (We will be sending beta versions to a number of people for their input and such. Kristi, Jen and Denise and Cyndi and Considerer…)
Video:
right here
About clarkscottroger
You sound exactly like I thought you would. EXACTLY.
Also Google Chat was easy to install.
Also you completely Wonder Woman’s Amazonian tribe is LEGIT.
Also don’t you see Clarks as more passive aggressive?
Also http://utopianist.com/2011/06/5-societies-run-by-women-and-what-we-can-learn-from-them/
Also I hate it when people think I’m stuck-up. I just don’t have anything to say yet.
(FYI: The accident was caused by someone vlogging while driving.) ;)
With love,
Clarkette Rogeina.
@Tracy
…so for the next Video Brunch I can put you down for one (1) s’il vous plaît?
lol
good points (especially the thing about Wonder Woman*), that will be an interesting study, i.e. how aggression is manifested in a society in which women are able to manifest (their) aggressive drive directly. (Of course, there is still the matter of what a scottian woman ‘looks like/appears/behaves’ in a culture such as the one your propose
…the question is, what is your favorite foot coverings?
* hey! pretty good joke!**
** the Doctrine maintains that we all have the (potential) of all three personality types; everyone have one predominant worldview (your personal reality) and (possibly) a secondary and (possible) a tertiary aspects For example: my predominant worldview is that of the Outsider, the clark which is to say I am an Outsider but I have a significant secondary scottian aspect and a very minor tertiary rogerian aspect.
Most likely.
Wonder Woman – thank you for deciphering that sentence as it seems I forgot a few words in its creation.
Regarding the clarks, because we tend to spend so much time observing, we understand people and thus have evolved to be quite the manipulators. Depending on what kind of clark you are – that super power can be used for good or evil. Or both. :)
Tall, tall heels in the summer and tall, tall boots in the winter. I’m business from the knees up. From their down? Total hooker. Oh and home or home/outside – barefoot. Drives my husband crazy when I do yard work barefoot.
*I know, right?!
***My scott percentage? MAYBE 0.05%. At the most.
@Tracy
Will be interesting. The process of determining (one’s) predominant worldview is, at once, subjective and objective.*
All three types wear (or not wear) shoes and boots and such, what shoes mean to you will be a clue to which of the three worldviews is your predominant.
We have a saying about the Doctrine and learning one’s predominate worldview, ‘you can’t get it wrong‘ meaning, of course, no matter what you think your worldview is, it is what it is, calling yourself a roger when you are a clark does not make you less the Outsider, you’ll still suck at math. Eventually you’ll notice that things didn’t feel right, the descriptions of the world would seem off…
(So far, everyone who learns the Doctrine and plays with it/uses it seriously on themselves? they always learn something about themselves that they didn’t know before using our little personality theory).
* consider the three worldviews, which of them seems to be make the most ‘sense. Another way of putting it, think of the worldviews as ‘lenses’, look at your world through each and see which yields the sharpest image, i.e. is the world a place of action, force, impulse or is the world ‘out there, around you’ a place where ideas are the connection between you and everyone else or is everything connected, your life a journey of discovery of the proper actions, the right way to do things, the seeking of reward from the people in your life. Figure that out/do that/feel for the connection and everything will follow.
Dress our heads up crazy?! Let me tell you buddy, it’s not always about color. LOL It’s about expression. It’s about style. For years I went to Altered Images, my stylist a clarklike female. Thank God:) I entrusted my wig wearin’ haid to Sharon and if I ever make it back to my home state before I’m too old to walk and she’s still in business (probably not but a nice fantasy) I’ll be sitting in her chair:)
What we clarklike females do to our heads, what we wear on our feet and how put together our “fabulous clothing” is simple self-expression. Not who we hope to be, want to be, or who other people think we should be. Unless of course we’re experimenting. LOL
I’m kinda tired now but I’ll be back. Why? Because I want to discuss how clarks manifest aggression.
Tracy……rogers are the passive aggressive ones. I’m curious as to what makes you suspect clarks are the p/a of the 3.
Nite. Nite.
Just finished watching a documentary on Jimi Hendrix. Jimi was a clark. But if you didn’t know but you were familiar with the Doctrine you would have watched this doc. and seen it for yourself. And, and! you would have heard people talk about/describe Jimi using terms often used when describing clarks. Ex. one person referring to Jimi (his creativity, uniqueness) “he didn’t have any boundaries”, or how he was compared on stage v. off stage. On: he was someone else, Off: quiet, shy, reserved.
The other amazing thing was watching part of a clip from a 1979 interview with Eric Clapton talking about Jimi’s death. Eric had recently found a rare left handed strat that he wanted to give to Jimi. Soon after buying the guitar he was at a theater and coincidentally so was Jimi except they were on separate sides of the theater. It turned out to be the night before Jimi died. As Eric is telling the story, tears barely held in check, he says…..the next day…..he’s dead….now I’ve got this left handed strat.
Somebody. Please. Get me a paper bag. I get it. rogers are all about emotion, their world is based on emotion/emotional expression, the walls (of that world) are tar papered with the stuff. (no-o-o, I’m being exuberantly truthful)
But I couldn’t help think Eric’s real deal was – hey, look at me, at how bad I feel because I went out of my way to buy this guitar especially for Jimi and then he had to go and die.
OK. Now I’m really going to bed.
Yeah, I’m back. What of it?! I think a conversation about how aggression is manifested by clarks, scotts and rogers respectively would be helpful.
I daresay you are correct when you say clarks often use words (to manifest aggression). And not just the big ones. It’s how they use them.
Point in fact, I left a comment at Considerings this morning. Lizzi wrote a really, really nice piece of fiction. I read the comment immediately prior to mine and hold on nelly! I experienced an immediate reaction. At once, scottian in nature. But then, it got filtered through my head. Damn. I’m a clark. Instead of calling out the individual as a roger and how their comment was about them and not the author and her story, I implied such and even then you’d have to know the Doctrine.
What was so bad about what this person’s comment? Nothing. There was nothing wrong with the individual’s comment. I simply recognized it as being made by a roger. I recognized it as a simple statement/comment that wasn’t about the well written piece of fiction on the page, but rather about the person making the comment. It was all about them.
How can you tell you a roger? Yes, count the pronouns. No, I’m not “roger bashing”. Some of my favorite writers are rogers. Hell, I’ve been living with one for 18 yrs. Just want to know how it is you guys have the balls to write and say the things you do sometimes.
P.S. Clark, if this be not helpful to the conversation of the Doctrine, please feel free to delete this.
@Denise
han, you’re good. Conversations like these (in Comments) are both useful and aggravating. Useful because (when they are correct) they are there to be read and understood, aggravating because sometimes, the best of idea are the rsult of statement/correct/re-statement/modification… you know like when people talk in real time. But what the hell, the Wakefield Doctrine (at least at the present moment) is for them what understand it …eventually I will develop my rogerian aspect sufficiently to cause my writing to be more…accessible.
So that’s why I suck at math. I have been looking for something to blame for YEARS.
Regarding the passive aggressive aspect – from what I have learned so for about the WD, and I realize I’ve barely scraped the surface:
Scotts: Are just aggressive. Because that’s who they are.
Rogers: Go with the flow – their opinions are those of those immediately around them. If the herd is aggressive they are aggressive, if the herd is just going to take it, then then they just take it. I suppose if the herd was being passive aggressive they would also go with that flow.
Clarks: Are passive aggressive as a part of their manipulative super powers. Not to be bratty, or self absorbed, but to make others see what they want/need them to see or do what they want/need them to do. Their power of observation is bar none.
Feel free to school me. The Roger in me won’t cry. Promise. ;)
@Tracy
you are tracking well, (in learning the Doctrine), one of the reasons that these Video Brunches are so good is that in a realtime conversation it is possible to help people connect certain dots, the result is a whole order of magnitude greater appreciation!*
Scotts, a predators living in a predatory world/reality and having grown up in that world, developed behavioral strategies (personalities…sort of) that reflect this
rogers as well
even the clarks
The one factor I would add, for your consideration is that, since the Doctrine says that personality types are merely the sucessful adaptive behavioral strategies of people trying to survive and thrive in the world they are heir to, it is all about how a person expresses an emotion, an idea, a thought or an action…whatever and not that one emotion or idea or thought or action is exclusive to their ‘personality type’.**
we say, ‘everyone does everything at one time or another’.
so to get the most out of this here Doctrine here, consider this question: yes scotts are the ‘aggressive ones’ but clarks and rogers also have aggression within their hearts…’what is aggression a roger how do they manifest it?’ same with clarks…
this is a handy way to ‘keep the Doctrine a tool and not an answer….’
(I’ll be back later to correct my spelling and grammar and such.)
*this very sentence being the best example, be a lot easier to say ‘hey it is their reality, it’s not a choice!’
** one of the reasons why the Doctrine is totally superior to all other systems, at least those that can be used and enjoyed by non-beard-wearing, wire-rim glasses seeing college psych department rogers who are intellectually incapable of making the distinction between lab rodents, grad students and curious clarks that they may come into contact with on the rare occasion they migh leave their chi squares behind and talk to actual humans…lol
Damn, the video stopped after a minute and a half :( Well, I enjoyed that minute and a bit anyway, lol. Just wanted to pop in to say hi and that I’m still here reading your blogs every week – maybe not all of them, but most of them. Hopefully I’ll get to joining one of your hangouts one day ;) Have a fab weekend!
@Melanie
I’ll check and see what’s wrong! don’t want you to miss the part about clarklike females! (I have a little to say about scottian females and their clarklike counterparts…nothing bad, of course! lol)
Hey congrats on the job! All of you guys (Cyndi and Considerer) are doing so well, setting goals, working hard and getting where you want to be, very cool to see and hear about! Yes, the hangouts thing seems to be catching on… Iw ill invite you each time, and eventually schedules will align. (Last week we tried a 1pm local time which would be, I believe something like 6pm your time. But we are flexible and will see what works best…if there is a time of your week when you know you normally are just hanging out at home, let me know and I will set on up for that time).
“Sometimes it’s fun, sometimes it’s a pain in the ass, but it’s always interesting.” Haha I loved that.
I have to be honest and say I thought Europe in general was more open to women being more aggressively dominate or expressing wider ranges of being aggressive (maybe I just thought of this being sexually – sex positive)
Some sprinkled insults in there “if you have the brains” in there >..>
;-)
Jak at The Cryton Chronicles & Dreams in the Shade of Ink