Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
Alert Reader Denise writes:
“…Doctrine! It has provided me with much insight into rogers. In a nutshell: they will always be the ones to say no. They will do nothing to disturb the boundaries, the lines that frame their world. clarks need to take notice of this. The sooner the better. I leave it in your hands, Clark, to explain to new readership the why. Maybe you need to write the answer in the form of a post.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And since we are talking about rogers**
Our Friend Zoe says to us in a Comment, she says:
“… my new roger is settling in to his new environment a bit too well… coveting my office…I loan my office out readily without reservation, but he made it very clear by saying ” I want that office… when are you leaving?” and has left telltale signs of his usage… I may have a rogerian twist and be a clark at heart… but never piss off my scott.“
Sorry. The ‘damage’ is done.
Not to ‘baby-coat’1 our assessment, but you are witnessing a roger challenging your membership in the herd. How is that possible, you ask? The frickin guy got there 20 minutes ago and he thinks that he can include himself in the group? ( you say with not a little emotion). What gives him the right to try that? If you are in possession of any of these thoughts, I hate to tell ya, but you have just painted yourself a lovely shade of blue2. It is totally ‘too late’.
Not ‘too late’ to make things right, restore the proper balance, achieve an understanding among the players in this little drama…. just ‘too late’ to avoid a ‘conflict’ with the roger in your environment.
If he had perceived you as another roger or a scott he would have:
- presented his credentials, not to meet your approval but to allow him to ‘tune himself to the herd’ (you know how the sound of cattle and herds of cows are often presented as a single ‘MOO’ ? well, I think our Progenitor roger will attest to the fact that what is heard as a single MOO is, in fact, comprised as a harmony among the members… your roger probably started with presenting some of his history to everyone he came into contact with…to hear the pitch of his new herd)
- presented his ‘soft-underbelly’ if he thought you were a scott (at least, a predominant scottian female)… but this observation is moot, because in that particular tango, the woman leads… (at least initially and to the extent that the average person is able to see
So… now you have yourself a roger feeling like he can enhance his standing in the herd by making you appear more and more the Outsider. Remember, a dominance move by a roger, in contrast to that of a scott is never made ‘alone’. While he may appear to be addressing the matter of use of the office space to you directly, most of his efforts are actually directed to the others in your environment. rogers always work in the context of the group, the herd. It is this ‘contexting’ that rogers will base their strategy on, that and, be on the lookout for (him) invoking referential authority. ( Hey, I know you love your space..I respect that, but we were talking about how, with the practice growing we all need to work together more…”)
All kidding aside. you now have a problem that, interestingly enough, can be seen as a manifestation of the trap that would appear to an inherent aspect of the desire for self-improving oneself. You rightly know that you can ‘over-come’ this person’s attempt to reduce the quality of your personal work environment. But at what price? The Doctrine states that we all retain access to those two worldviews that are not our predominant worldview. In your case, (we hear you say), ‘ a clark with secondary rogerian and tertiary scottian aspects’. but…. but! here is where the conflict begins to manifest. (If) you are a clark, then your personal reality is that of the Outsider…which makes perfect sense given your situation. You can access your scottian aspect and inter-act with this roger as would a scott, and as we have already said, if this were a scott-on-roger thing, none of the the above would be happening. So, you can dominate the roger rather decidedly. But then what? Will you trade your predominant (clarklike) worldview for a victory in a single circumstance? Or… is there a way to reach an understanding with this person? unfortunately, the Wakefield Doctrine says ‘no’.
Well, sorta. We’re playing with the words now. clarks think, scotts act and rogers feel. So, if you want to reach an understanding, you are out of luck. That is not to say that there is nothing you can do, but it should not be thought of as an understanding.
Lets return to a strategy we have previously offered: ‘love your roger‘ This is still the preferred strategy, but it will require a bit more….finessing. Yes, you should ‘love your roger‘, but that does not mean (as is all too often the case with clarks), you must allow him to do as he wishes. But, to love your roger requires that you relate to him on an emotional basis… more than that! you must regard him on an emotional basis. We’re using italics here to convey the idea that, if you are able to know him completely on an emotional basis you will be relating to him as a member of the herd. That’s right! trade that lovely azure coat for a comforting wrap of brown and white spots!
(will continue later today…. )
Wait a minute!! If you haven’t seen it yet, watch the scott and roger…. everything is right there. (the roger looking to left and right for the herd that is his context, his invoking referential authority, his offering of emotional currency…his love).
1) a rogerian expression of sorts… a fascinating characteristic use of language found only in rogers…here, go to the page on rogers down towards the bottom
2) a reference to the description of a clark in the context of a group, or perhaps it would be more realistic to say, ‘a clark in contrast to a group’ in any event, the term ‘blue monkey’ is a remnant of grad school days when we learned of (or came to believe that we learned of) an experiment in which one young monkey was painted (more likely dyed) blue and returned to his troop, you can imagine the result. In the Wakefield Doctrine we use the blue monkey image several ways, as a symbol of the innate outsider-ness that clarks exhibit when in a social setting, and it is also used to refer to (a) clarks self-sabotaging by make an extra effort to ‘contrast their differences.
About clarkscottroger
What you said today, about 'loving your roger' struck a cord with what I have observed and put into practice over the last few months.I think a clark can use their natural inclinations and core personality to enhance their world.
At church, I noticed two women who were loved and adored by everyone. People clamored to say hello when they walked through the doors and beamed when they were singled out by these two. What surprised me was to see that these two were clarks.
Yes, I am sure of that.
They are not part of the herd, and they are not scotts.
They are above the crowd, so to speak. They don't let their status as outsiders bring them down. Think about it: a princess isn't part of the herd. She is above the heard, but loved.
These two women use their sweet, kind personality to make others feel loved. When rogers say, "She is the sweetest person," it is not a put down. It is said in amazement.
...Learning from their example, I stopped looking at myself as left out and started taking the initiative to say hello to those around me. To inquire about them and really listen. I may never be part of the crowd, but people smile when they see me. It is a blessing to know I can make someones day brighter.
Through all this, I realized that by standing firmly as an outsider, others don't have the chance to push me around. My neighbor, a roger who has tried to bully my family many times in the past, yelled at me one evening. I stood my ground and spoke to him calmly, refusing to take responsibility for his attitude. He finally backed down, and I walked away. He has avoided all contact ever since that day.
In TaeKwondo, I have found that knowing why I am there and what my goals are, I meet helping hands along the way. The rogers smile at me when I walk into the room and the scotts give me space.
I really think that when a clark is comfortable with who they are, they will make for themselves a place in the world. Look at most of the scientists who have changed the world. Read or watch Ender's Game. There is an advantage to being the outsider. There is an advantage to being the sweetest person they know. Own it. Enjoy it.
Hi Molly
…as I find increasingly, people of a like mind who are seeking to learn find themselves at common points along the path. the ‘language’ (which stands in for a map) varies from person to person, as does the course of the path, but it is through the same country and so we at times meet and relate our adventures (hey, did you see the giant….? no, we missed that but I saw you at the Mall of Despair… and we were one day behind you at). (A clarklike way to say, “Hey Molly! good to hear from you!”)
I’m smiling as I read your Comment, as it has so much in it that is true/coinciding-with-where-the-current-Doctrine-thinking-is/suggesting some insights/fun to read.
It’s funny how the strategy of ‘loving your roger’ is, besides being a (further) development of the perspective that is inherent in the Wakefield Doctrine, is such a challenging concept! The aggravating thing (and the most fun thing) about this kind of activity (i.e. learning the secret of the universe) is that while we must use words, words tend to be static things. (‘It means this because that’s what it means’). I have taken to using the term ‘wordtools’ to refer to language (or parts thereof) as benchmarks/placeholders. (“Hey! Lets use this word to represent ‘A’ until we discover ‘B’ and then we might have to invent ‘C’ or possible just modify ‘A’ to ‘A’ and ‘a (implying ‘B’). )
…may have to do a damn post on this!
Pretty interesting. We’re currently dealing with a horrible Scott at work, one of the whiney ones.. In general, I guess our team is pretty rogerian, we’re a great herd ;-)
Stephanie
I totally look forward to anything you can share about the workings of (your) team. As a clark, I have limited opportunities in that regard…lol
(One of the meta-projects here at the Doctrine is to try and devise, compile, discover or create a language that is effective among all three worldviews. Very ambitious, yes. But why the hell not? The challenge lies in the fact that the ‘language’ of each of the three worldviews is fundamentally different. Or…it might be better to say, the foundation for the (development) of the language of each is fundamentally different. clarks think, scotts act and rogers feel. You can immediately see the problem! I am a clark. By definition of my personal reality, things are to be learned and understood, there is a rational explanation for things… which is true (in my reality). That statement has no basis, not ‘standing’ if viewed, hypothetically from the perspective of a roger or a scott. …because one is grounded in emotion, the other in action. ya know?)
So tell us about your team!! there’s a clark there…we know it lol (the one who seems to always a step ahead, which is sometimes a good thing but very often is a pain in the neck…that one! probable clark).
so in dealing with this Roger at work I have to say I’m going in as a roger not a clark. He has been doing what you said about dropping his credentials and other things that will make him part of the herd. I think I participated some time ago in comments about loving your Roger (sounds borderline obscene)and I definitely subscribe to that practice. When I commented in the past I believe I had mentioned Metta meditation which is a Buddhist practice. So I have been kind of going in that direction, meaning I have to say this Roger doesn’t know that I’m uptight at this point. He may suspect I am a Clark and we may know that by his actions and what he said about my office…but I truly don’t think I’ve painted myself blue at this point. And mostly because I have been practicing Roger love. Zoe (not skip)
.
zoe
interesting problem. I want to believe that the ‘loving your roger’ is not simply a passive acceptance of the intrusion of (another) into ones life. One of the aggravating benefits of the perspective offered by the Doctrine is that I am able to look at the idea expressed as ‘passive acceptance of the intrusion of another…’ and by virtue of the fabulous conditional tenant that is necessary to properly apply the Doctrine, to wit, ‘everyone does everything at one time or another’. This simply means that the Doctrine is not about separate experiences, (some things are scottian and somethings are clarklike), rather it is about how a thing manifests in a given worldview.
so the significance of ‘passive acceptance of the intrusion of another…’ is one thing to a clark and (very possibly) something semi-totally different to a scott or a roger.
we benefit by being aware of that..
did I infer passivity? certainly invoking my roger when I am predominantly a Clark isnt passive….right? a matter of fact I think I’d feel less guilty if I was more passive….I somehow feel like I’m being dishonest with him
Help me Abby… ha… sounds like an advice column there …sorry….
zoe
no… it was more my (poorly) expressed view that an approach that does not entail confrontation becomes an act of passivity. By doing so I, unfortunately betrayed a less than sufficient grasp of your (own) ‘expression’ of the ‘Love your roger’ (LYr) strategy.*
I would like to rescind my statement implying that the strategy is a ‘passive acceptance’…at least until I can get some this frickin clarklike baggage out of the way
lol
* I think acronyms give it a bit more …objectivity
you crack me up! I do so love coming to this site!
Maybe you speak of “radical acceptance” ?
zoe
sure…but only if I am not accused of being subliminally erudite wait! I take that back… that is part of the ‘proof’ of the primary characteristic of the clarklike worldview… acquisition of knowledge/information for it’s own sake (which is not really an accurate statement, the Doctrine holds that the insatiable curiosity of clarks is in the service of the need to be like real people, to not be apart. This is founded in the belief, by clarks, that they are Outsiders due to a deficiency in understanding.. how to ‘be like everyone else’)
…talk about ‘..has a fool for a client’ ! lol I will stop now. I believe we are in agreement.
two points:
1. your erudition is likely rarely subliminal… as you so accurately pointed out when you did the “backsies” thing (Hi Dyanne!)
2. I suspect we will rarely be OUT of agreement.
To Clark – just started a comment. Hit the wrong button. Presto, gonezo. I will return at a later date. But while I’m here….This post struck a chord as did the comments. rogers. clarks. To clarks I say simply, it is not a rational understanding, it is an emotional connection (with rogers). It is not a choice, it is feeling the place from which the roger is relating. For a clark, this does not come easily. It is the most foreign land of them all. At least for clarks with secondary scottian aspects.
I have tried for years to “understand” rogers. You have to find a way to put on a roger suit, let the material envelope you…’sall I got right now.
Will try this again. Tried yesterday, apparently never arrived or was deleted.
Hello Zoe. After reading the account of your interaction with a roger, I was compelled to comment, being something of a Roger myself.
For you, that was a very personal affront. But might I counsel that it was not so much about you, but about the space itself.The space represents something very specific to the roger, and if you can determine what that is, you’ll be much better prepared to deal with him. You’re a secondary target, if even that. It’s all about the space.
I think you are completely correct! It is about the space… I suppose what irks me most is we work in a fairly close knit community of people (ie everyone knows each other from previous practice) He is no exception and is completely aware of how crass that question would be to me specifically. (I am at end stage lymphoma and working a fairly limited schedule) He even asked me about my health in a conversation previous to asking when I would be leaving the practice. So while I do accept it is about the space I also accept…God what an A******.
zoe
lol*
You guys are great about the comment love… Thanks
truly =)
zoe
* “God what an A******
While roger continues his (contribution), which, I appreciate, in that while the Wakefield Doctrine is rather effective as a predicator of behavior and a revealer of predilection it is always help to talk to the natives.
I suspect that my ambition to find/create/devise or just plain makeup a language that is (directly) understandable by people from any of the three worldviews is both not very original and a very long shot… it remains totally fun to try.
But I still have a question about what actions are called for or suggested by a social …. dilemma such as the one you are describing. (Unfortunately all too common a situation. In the spirit of gross over-generalization, I think I will say of all work-place conflict to rising to the level of toxicity to cause distress sufficient to carry over outside of working hours the breakdown is: 63% rogers as the proximate cause and 27% scotts and 10% clarks
Is that just cuz youre a clark? HAHAHA
zoe
well….duh!
lol
I was wondering why I found myself agreeing so emphatically… *snort-lol*
Clark, be a good lad and take out the big YOU up there, would you? Thanks. A whole sentence that comes out in caps. Thought I got it all.
Hi again, Zoe-
LOL. But one must always endeavor to use one’s adjectives to full and proper application; i.e., F****** A******.
Sounds like you have a very despicably rogerian roger on your hands. He should be forciby edged out towards the herd’s perimeter, and left behind entirely. His sort is an embarrassment to the rest of us.
The best way to accomplish this is to expose him completely. He’s likely made those comments to you in private; so just allow that the others in your community are made aware of his ham-fisted attempts at herdal positioning. That should do it. He’ll writhe, cringe, whimper, and complain that he’s being treated unfairly. Don’t fall for that,though. It’s the best thing for him. Excruciating embarrassment has a way of seasoning a guy.
And, of course, as anyone would, make sure to wire the office space with some C4. You may ultimately have to reduce him to protoplasm.
Very sorry to hear of your lymphomatic ordeal, and am beaming positivity in your general direction.I think it comes in on an AM frequency.
roger
(if I may)… my own curiosity here is, what do the roger ‘experience’? (of late I have been saying, ‘if you correctly infer the worldview of the other person, you will be win a position to see the world as the other person is experiencing it’… the choice of the word experience being quite deliberate).
(…as a clark in a situation comparable to Zoe’s…all too common an experience), what I experience is, a feeling of disruption of my workplace, followed by (for me) a curious self-consciousness-rage reaction. lol thinking that’s a clark with a secondary scottian aspect. But I immediately identify the source of not-rightness, now there was, at a time previous to the Doctrine, a reaction on my part of puzzlement.
What I’m getting at is that all of my emotional reactions were manifested as ‘why is this person doing this to me’ and ‘what can I do to stop them’… i.e. pretty much a rational approach (albeit with some emotion, but the emotion is, in a sense, an after product of the ‘relationship’)
the Doctrine holds that “rogers feel” their ground state, the subjective context is that of (an) emotional experience of the world. Of course, thought and all the common means of communicating with the objective world follow, but it (the thoughts, plans, intents and actions) of a roger rise from an emotion ‘relationship’ to the world.
so, what’s it feel like to be this roger of zoe’s?
Clark, Now there is a question…
I was also thinking about your reaction as a Clark with a Scottian second on board. Its foreign to me to be having that self-conscious-rage reaction. Mine with a Rogerian secondary aspect tend toward feelings of guilt and an enhancement of the not-fitting-in feeling that comes natural to Clarks, and I would think to a roger in this predicament as well (being that they want to belong) although I don’t know enough Doctrine to say that… Either way though the self-conscious Clarkiness is there all the while.
Hi Roger… I leave for a few hours and the whole place goes wild! Thanks for the positive albeit AM vibes… I tend toward talk radio anyway so its all good!
I think this man if I wait long enough (which wont be long because he is such an effing A******) will do my herding to the outskirts for me! I think he will be a case for elimination by natural selection. I may be a Clark (and I am not going for shock or heart strings here as my earlier revelation of my situation is not in my usual behavioral repetoir…ie I don’t tell a lot of folks) but the folks that do know my situation are fierce protectors and as far as they are concerned no one is taking anything from the dead girl…
Love the roger? Dude. You’re speakin a foreign language. HAHAHA.
As for me, I’ll just retreat to my own little world and talk to myself in Spanish.
Oh and just for the record, I don’t know what the hell I’m doing with the poetry stuff, but eh…it’s fun to play with words. That’s all I’m doing. I don’t even think I’m playing them right. ;)
Cyndi
but ain’t that the fun part?
‘love the roger’ is, of course, figurative a ‘finger of speech’ (a line from one of the all-time great movies, ‘The Little Shop of Horrors’ the original starring Jonathon Haze and the wonderful Jackie Joseph…totally worth seeing, if you can find it.)
Speaking of Dr Dolittle, I think I need to do a Post on our scottian brethren next!
We will probably be able to agree that a shallow/ young/ inexperienced roger is just a little bit immature and self-centered. That’s not meant to be an insult; rather a statement of general level of development.
So if you have a clark’s atypical ” why is this person ( a roger…)doing this to me ” reaction, consider this; the roger isn’t necessarily/probably not doing stuff “to you” so much as they are simply ” doing stuff”. The deep level of intent perceived by the clark is very likely not there to begin with. The roger almost certainly has another much more self-involved agenda he’s pre-occupied with.
So what of the more mature Roger?
I think that last line covers a bunch! I truly don’t think my Roger is giving me ANY thought… I think that’s whats pissing me off….Is that my secondary Roger tweeking?
Thank you Zoe for generating this conversation. The concept of rogers acting without a focus on the person but rather the situation is fascinating. The idea of it not being a “personal” thing somehow doesn’t ring 100 percent but then perhaps that is the self conscious clark talking lol
If I am understanding the roger correctly, it is about what a thing/person represents as it relates to the herd. Seems to me, having said that, that a roger cannot completely remove the “personal” from the situation.
Have to run, will be back tonight!
Denise
Zoe
RCoyne
that last statement, Denise is, I believe the key!
“…..roger cannot completely remove the “personal” from the situation.”
(now the following will sound obvious to the point of redundancy) but it is always personal to everyone. It is the context of the ‘hey, what are you doing to me’ that the Wakefield Doctrine proposes to offer a new, additional way to look at a situation. When we consider the worldviews of each of the three, ‘personal’ acquires a different… it almost always accentuates the defining quality (of the worldview). For a clark it is ‘how can you do this to me, are you saying I am different?’ to a scott it is ‘what is this that you do to me (FIGHT/FLIGHT) and to a roger it is ‘who are you to do this to me, I am doing whats right?’
This situation/interaction/relationship exists in the lives of all three, it simply manifests differently, according the characteristic of the (individual’s) worldview. The point of the Wakefield Doctrine is to offer an alternative view.
You, RCoyne are correct in describing the discrepancy between Zoe’s … (not her perception, not even her interpretation…. it is better to go all out and say ‘how it went down with her’ as being the “deep level of intent perceived by the clark” because she is a clark.
I think this is a good time to invoke the Doctrine rule that says, “the Wakefield Doctrine is for you, not for them” And this is not simply an admonition to not accuse a roger of being a fuckin asshole, nor is it saying to the roger, “too bad, we said it first”, rather the intent is to remind us that ‘it is real to them’. The correctness of assigning intent to the other party is moot, although not without a price. To any degree that you assign the other person a quality that reflects what is within you* then you have the start of a problem… er a conflict.
so rather than assign a correctness badge, the Doctrine will say… ‘hey you picked this thing up! it may feel like a gun or a hammer or mirror but the use of it is totally in your hands.’
too early for the metaphysics!!
lets go find us some scotts!
HEy!
* which as we all know is frickin everything lol
holy cow you guys I think I get it!
! Scotts! Scotts! Scott!
Absolutely correct, First Downspring. Rogers can never remove ” personal ” from the equation. With the undeveloped unformed ones, it can manifest as a torrent of emotion, sweeping everything before it. They are seldom ever in control, and are likely not even particularly aware of that. They just presume that others’ perceptions are the same as theirs.
But the older, more mature rogers…battle-scarred,ruggedly attractive…and that’s including the girls…should they choose to integrate into any particular herd, it’s because that group has an inherent overall value of its own that they can add to, and learn from.
Otherwise, they’ll keep their distance…like a lonely old buffalo bull who can’t quite keep up any more. So sad…
I suddenly feel like writing a poem.
Oh, right…I have absolutely no idea how to do that. I’ll go check on the sweet potato pie in the oven instead. ( Yes, really.)I make a serious sweet potato pie. I am an old buffalo bull who makes pies. And burritos. And have dabbled in French onion soup. I have much to teach to the calfs…if they would only fucking slow down a little…
:( awwwwww. (Wow…powerful roger juju.)