Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

easier said than done?  no! just not nearly as difficult as it may seem at first. in fact, here’s your first lesson:  today’s ‘subtitle’?  two of the personality types will express skepticism and criticism, but one (of the three) will say, ‘where do I sign up?’  Based on these suggested responses, can you tell us how the three worldviews would manifest our subtitle, such that it is clear that the (aforementioned) response(s) are the only appropriate response?

Hey!  come back!  no! don’t run away!

Quick now, if you’re a scott or a roger, then you are halfway towards the door just because of that last sentence. Give me a minute… one short minute and I promise you that you won’t regret it. Look, granted that sentence was  a tad convoluted, but so what else is new? You’re reading frickin blogs, for christ’s sake, tell me you are shocked by sentence structure that may be a little on the confusing side. I didn’t think so! Well, ask yourself this one question and I promise to not try to keep you here. ok?  is it a deal?  Fine.  My question is this: ‘knowing that this blog is a personality types blog and all, why are you still reading?’  (  Answer is: because a part of you senses that there might be something here in this Wakefield Doctrine that might be useful.)

Back to our opening question(s) as to how our three personality types would respond to today’s subtitle:

1. scott  (male) “...hey, buddy! you visiting earth any time soon?  (laughs with total eye contact)…no! hey, you’re a pretty intelligent woman, I betcha you have a lotta interesting ideas, come here, you look like you need a hug”  (or) (female)“why, no I’m not sure I have ever really thought about it quite that way, and you thought of it by yourself, you are a very intelligent person to have done that… you know, I write poetry”
2. roger (female) “… really?  and you say that people follow your blog? thats really cool. You know those comments, you they sorta sound like they were written by the same person, weird huh?”  (or)(female)* ” no, I get what you say, it’s just that you’re missing one little thing, people are more than just one type, you seem to have a small group here, but I’d be careful about what you write…someone’s gonna not find it funny how you make fun of them so much. no, just want to help you!”
3. clark: (male and female) “…really? lets hear the premise” (or) (female and make)”ok, I get it…yeah,  no, I’ll try it a while… hey nice system. I think I know just the person who really would benefit by something like this”

(And our ‘follow-up’ Question?):  “...would manifest our subtitle in such a way…”

Very important concept in this phrase. What you get from reading the words, (of our subtitle), will totally be a function of your own worldview. We call it ‘manifesting’ simply because while I did in fact write those words, as part of the  Post Title, you are reading them from within a context that we refer to as:  a) the world of the Outsider (clarks), b) the life of the Predator (scotts) and c) the reality of the Herd Member (rogers). Notice that I did not say, ‘how you react to reading the word‘. The Wakefield Doctrine is concerned with ‘how a person relates themselves to the world around them’,  not!  ‘how a person relates to the world’. Key difference between the two statements. For another Post.

Back to the business of how a thing ‘manifests’ in the three personal realities.  You know the old saying, ‘everyone does everything at one time or another’? This applies to the Wakefield Doctrine as follows: we are all obviously participating in a common reality, the world is round, horses have four legs, spring follows winter… and we are all able to communicate our personal experience of the events, and situations and consequences (of these common elements).  However, from within my personal reality (worldview) how these elements of the common reality ‘present’, or are manifested  is different from how they are manifested to a person who lives in the worldview of the Predator or the personal reality of the Herd.

Quick example (courtesy of Michelle): she recently told me that she and her father were out one day and decided to have lunch in a restaurant. They found themselves standing on the sidewalk across the street from a popular establishment. If there was a police sketch artist standing behind Michelle and her dad and they  were asked: ‘What does the Blue Crane of Happy Food Swallowing* restaurant look like, the artist would render two images that would pretty much be identical.  Now, if we were to ask our hungry rogerian friend and her starving scottian father the question: ‘What is that restaurant like?’  their answers would be different. It is in the nature of the difference contained in their descriptions that we find the character of their worldviews. Michelle will speak of great service, knowing and liking the people there and the meals she has enjoyed and Michelle’s 父亲  will tell about how hungry he is and what he wants to eat and how fast and attentive is the service at this place.

Starting to get the ‘manifest’ thing?

I will go to work now. When I get there, someone will, no doubt say, ‘hey clark did you get all your Christmas shopping done yet?  and my answer will reflect how Christmas and Christmas shopping is manifested in my worldview,   well… let me show you

* ha ha a little joke for our Progenitor roger