Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
zoe raises a good point…in her comment on yesterday’s Post, to wit: “...so someday when you go to market this theory of yours, will you be able to objectify your theory of the eyes ? !!!!! I think I know what you’re talking about but of course you know I keep thinking about what we were talking about before and you taking this here doctrine on the road…and well you’re very specific in your subjectivity it seems one of the few places that’s open to real interpretation….but then again I ’m a little zoned tonight so who know s?…”
So, I’ve got zoe for “behind you 113% go! Doctrine!”
I do want to express gratitude for the insights into the Wakefield Doctrine that you guys are providing. For the last 4 years, it’s been, for the most part, the feeling that I was writing ‘words into the wind’. That’s not to say that I didn’t have feedback. In the first couple of years, the progenitor roger and glenn and Ms. AKH wrote the comments, mainly words of encouragement as I struggled to get my writing skills from a ‘D-‘ up to a ‘C+’. Things began to change a couple of years ago, when Molly arrived on the scene. She was (is) the first of the new generation of Readers, people who knew of the Wakefield Doctrine entirely on the basis of reading this blog. Molly had questions. god! did she have questions! (lol) But! they were questions that the people who knew of the Doctrine before there was a blog, did not think to ask… and it was at this point things began to change. Cyndi and Lizzi and Michelle were the ‘next generation’ and, like Molly, they learned the principles (of the Wakefield Doctrine) and ‘proved it’ to themselves, without my having to say, ‘hey! this Doctrine works because…’ . (ask Lizzi about her ‘Eureka Moment’ sitting in the waiting room). And, most recently, we have zoe joining the group, bringing more challenges and insights and (suggested) lines of inquiry. How cool is that?
Well, I’ll tell you how cool that is….with the principles (of the Wakefield Doctrine) understood and firmly in the hands of these people, I’m free to push the boundaries of this thing into areas that I did not have the time for, i.e. the development of a vocabulary (for a ‘common language’ among the three worldviews), further understanding (of) the effects and implications of the tertiary aspect and finding the simplest path to enhancing (our) secondary and tertiary aspects. Lots to do!
…thanks a lot.
(lol)
So a quick review of primary characteristics of clarks and scotts and rogers. (from a Post written in 2010)
clarks: quiet, tend to mumble and are on the “brainy” side (not geeks who tend to be rogers) but clarks are the ones who are living in their own heads. If you want to know about anything that normal people don’t have the time to learn about, clarks are the people you will go to… there is one in your life, close but you just haven’t noticed them. clarklike females will dress from the “androgyny fashion collection” mix and mix, especially shoes… the clarklike males will be grey(with a splash of beige) and have virtually no eye contact when speaking to you, which if they do, will consist of strings of incomplete sentences.
scotts: never stop moving, never stop talking, never fuckin stop…sports fans to a person…your scott is the one who introduces themselves whether they are entering a situation where they are the stranger or there is a stranger entering the setting where the scott already is…when you move to a new place, the neighbor who comes to “welcome you to the neighborhood” that’s your scott…always helpful as long as “completing the task” is not the priority…scottian females…always attractive/seductive/commanding/demanding depending on the context, scottian males…always in charge…the person best described as “not always right but never uncertain…”
rogers: the most social and accommodating person you know, the roger is, in fact, most likely your family doctor, your family lawyer, your family accountant, emphasis on family…the person who knows the family history and insists that you come to the family reunion that’s your roger, the one who knows how many forks should be on which side of the plate…there’s your rogerian female…want to have a long conversation?…talk to a roger, they make it so easy to talk about yourself…the rogerian male will be well dressed and if you want to know if ascots and large briarwood pipes are still worn and/or smoked you will find the roger when you see either of them and if you want to imagine settling down and raising a family with a beautifully decorated home and be a member in all the right clubs and organisations…then a rogerian female will be near by.
Hey! Don’t forget!! Friday the tomorrowth 7pm EST Wakefield VidChat
About clarkscottroger
hey…seein how today is a bit slow, I’m sure you all won’t mind if I use this Comment space for some notes, will ya?
…so I’m sitting thinking about how to push the boundaries (of our little personality theory) and the thought occurred to me, ‘if you’re not satisfied with the answer, rather than ask again, why don’t you just change the question?’
what are you referring to? What do you have in mind?
and is the doubting Thomas painting pertinent?
zoe
I knew you’d get a kick out of that! …not all of my choices (of photos) are random, ya know
so I see! :P
zoe
now that we’ve thrown the Readers ‘off the trail’… (lol) the comment and the (choice) of photos are related to today’s Post but different-centrically…
my comment is the more interesting of the two… imo. clarks are forever asking questions (‘…the hook of a demand, I know! lol) but we often lock ourselves in ignoring the question and focusing on the answers.. and, as our experience tells us, sometimes we have gigantic ‘blindspots’…worse we are not aware of the existence of (these) blindspots.
so in keeping with the perspective of, ‘as above, so below’ if we change the question slightly, the available answers will change!
ya know?
Dammit! My ridiculous computer again…
So the comment I believe I lost… I just read your edit of my original comment (with new eyes) I do not doubt I objectify… I am a researcher at heart…odd I should end up in a profession that refuses to accept empirical data…but not if you realize my Clark nature…gotta stay on the outside don’t cha know…
lastly in response to your comment re asking a different question… how true… one can find an answer to substantiate just about anything. Im sure somewhere some researcher is toting the powerful combination of iceberg lettuce and prime numbers between 3 and 134 on cholesterol. lol,
zoe
well, the thing about the blindspot that we clarks often fall victim to… it is, I believe the faith that we maintain* in the concept of ‘understanding’ that creates our vulnerablities in our efforts to self-improve ourselfs and leads to our un-doing** so rather than attempt an ever more scrupulous check, re-check, tre-check of the answers (in the hopes that we overlooked some inference or innuendo, anything that might suggest we have learned some entirely new about this being human business), re-framing the question might be a productive avenue. I would welcome the opinion of others on my thought that, were a clark to attempt this ‘re-questionizing’ that only another clark would be a valid participant…a scott and a roger, while perhaps willing to help (re-phrase the question) would be starting from a point so far from where a clark starts that is would be, at best harmless, at worst it would generate a new line of questions within the clark… thereby continuing the whole process of…. ‘alright I know the answers out there!! I just need to find something I don’t know yet and see if it’s there!’
ya know what I mean?
*or resign ourselves to
** the worst form of this being the quicksand that we through ourselves into periodically, that is so very very toxic (i.e. there you go again clark, you don’t think they’re laughing at you?)
Im never quite sure if I am getting what you mean…sorry… but that said… I think I could see a Scott reframing the question in a productive ( ie thought provoking) way but the Rogers I know well would just annoy the crap outta me and I wouldn’t find value in theyre overexplanation of the new question… (Michelle is the first Roger I have met whom I can honestly say I find a delight… all the others I know are such a challenge to tolerate…except now that I think more about it possibly one other…so maybe there is hope for me… it is my bad Im afraid…)
zoe
I get that a lot… (something nagging at me, barely make it out… wait, “clark! you are writing long confusing sentae….stop.)
I agree about Michelle, being a very pleasant person to know and the thing (about these Doctrine interactions) is that while we know a great deal about the world of scotts and rogers, there is no substitute for the real thing. (At least for the purpose of understanding their particular brand of reality).
sorry clark, I didn’t mean to infer that your sentences were confusing .I think it’s more that I’m perpetually asking questions even while im reading. Therefore I am always reading just about everything more than once. It’s the classic case of its not you its me.
zoe
well, it was helpful nevertheless. It’s funny, here I am with the Wakefield Doctrine, which we all know proposes to provide a tool to develop our secondary and tertiary aspects, and I have to constantly try to remember to remind myself (!lolo) that my first impulse is my clarklike aspect ‘talking’ but I need to not simply go right to that thought…rather than the experience that my scottian and rogerian aspects would have (in those circumstances).
so here’s a surprise. I was thinking about this “…I have to constantly try to remember to remind myself (!lolo) that my first impulse is my clarklike aspect ‘talking’ but I need to not simply go right to that thought…” and that perhaps like me you might often dictate your comment through a phone or such app… The Doctrine is really a behavioral theory at heart and so in order to change something that you attribute to such would need a behavioral intervention to change… eg instead of dictating it may make you more mindful of your goal (ie ” I need to not simply go right to that thought…rather than the experience that my scottian and rogerian aspects would have (in those circumstances”) if you forgo the dictation for the actual written word which slows ones response and allows you more personal awareness. Of course if my assumption is wrong this is a mute point isn’t it? LOL. Damn I have too much time to think this week! You poor soul are the recipient of same… well at least some of it… yeah , it gets worse than this! Bwahaha…
zoe
well, not so sure how ‘mute’ it might be (talk about your something-ian slips!) lol
(lol… that!! that smartass/snarky remark is me acting ‘out of predominant worldview’… )
I do believe I know how totally under-estimating I am of the resistance the self can marshall when confronting even well intention efforts to change one’s spots. but…the Doctrine is proving to have more depth than even I had originally conceived and it’s been my position all along that if I am to hold it out as a ‘tool’ for personal development and enhancing insight into the the behavior of the people in our lives, then it better work on me. Proof of theory starts at home, so to speak.
the only difficulty I have with what I hear you saying about the strategy of intervention “…would need a behavioral intervention to change… eg instead of dictating it may make you more mindful of your goal” is that my experience with stepping into my scottian worldview (on occasion of extreme duress) convinces me of the ‘reality’ of each of these worldviews…and, if reality is too strong a word, then perhaps ‘subjectivity’ will work, the result is the same.
To tone down this exuberant optimism, I do recognize that my conception of the character of the ‘other two’ worldviews is ‘flawed’ by the fact that I am looking at them from the perspective of this (my clarklike) worldview. As I am fond of saying, it is always a matter of how a thing (an act, a thought, and idea or an ideal) manifests in a given worldview. a rose by any name notwithstanding… it’s different in each worldview.
that being said, this is still fun and I actually have the ego that allows me to spend time trying to find a common language… that’ll show em
ha, that WAS a helluva slip! But who puts stock in Freud when the Doctrine is around… Oh yeah, I can snark with the best of em… my scott may be tertiary but she has been in full force all effing week! LOL! Perhaps a tiger onsie is in order?