Part II the Wakefield Doctrine ‘hey, find your own Part I. this Doctrine is not always the easy, simple, anyone-can-do-it Life Tool that we sometimes imply it is’ | the Wakefield Doctrine Part II the Wakefield Doctrine ‘hey, find your own Part I. this Doctrine is not always the easy, simple, anyone-can-do-it Life Tool that we sometimes imply it is’ | the Wakefield Doctrine

Part II the Wakefield Doctrine ‘hey, find your own Part I. this Doctrine is not always the easy, simple, anyone-can-do-it Life Tool that we sometimes imply it is’

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

Thank you Miss Crump

You know how we say that you can’t get this wrong?  Well, that’s still true. But that is not the same as saying this Wakefield Doctrine is anything like easy.  Hell, I’ll take it one step further, this Wakefield Doctrine is not easy to understand.  By ‘understand’, we mean, of course, ‘to see all aspects of ourselves when the unique perspective inherent in the use of the Doctrine is turned inwards.’ That kind of understand.

Lately I’ve been re-examining my role here at the Wakefield Doctrine. When I started writing it, the job description simple and direct: explain the Principles of the Wakefield Doctrine in a way that anyone coming across this blog could read, understand and use it in their lives. We charged all new Readers to, ‘learn the characteristics of the three worldviews, observe the people in your life and infer how the (other) person ‘relates themselves to the world around them’.

And so the years passed, fun Posts, some serious Posts,  all written with the intent to tell Readers about the Wakefield Doctrine. With time, people began to ‘get it’. People who, with no direct contact or interaction with me, read the blog and learned to identify the clarks and the scotts and the rogers in their lives. And they shared their discovery. Slowly at first, Molly and Claire and Nell Rose, then Cyndi and Lizzi and Michelle, finally zoe and JnyStephanie and Christine. Until today when there are people in the world, people who may never have written more than a couple of Comments, finding opportunities in the course of their everyday days to stop and think, “…well, he was being a little overly excitable, even allowing for his   scottian aspect, wonder what’s wrong?” or perhaps “…little Lisa is such a clark, she has so much potential!”  or even, “hey!! I did my best don’t try to lay no guilt trip on me, roger!“, these new Readers learned the Principles well enough to extrapolate and use the Doctrine in ways in their respective lives that I did not necessarily describe. Cool.

And so, with the Principles firmly in the grasp of those who are capable (and willing) to pass along this unique, useful and fun approach to human behavior, what’s left for me to do?

…it took me a little bit to ‘remember’ what I am supposed to do. (But then again, I am a clark). It was just the other day, during a vidchat or a TToT blgohop or perhaps in the course of an exchange with a Reader in the Comments, it dawned on me that is was my job to explain the Wakefield Doctrine for the new Reader. Just like it’s always been.

 

…and so all of this Post today is, essentially, the result of Comments from zoe and Lizzi and Jny:

“…how is it that, though we know better, most clarks are inordinately concerned with the positive (and avoiding the negative) regard of strangers? Not only that… but we can find ourselves ‘factoring in the impression our actions might have on a total stranger’….  a person that we know fully well that we will never, ever see again!!  And yet we do.

(and so I Replied to zoe): ‘you know why this is? why otherwise smart and mature and reasonable people can allow their lives (and, by inference, the lives of their families and friends) to pivot on such a not-really-important factor?”

it is because, ‘clarks do not know how to take‘.

 

 

Share

clarkscottroger About clarkscottroger
Well, what exactly do you want to know? Whether I am a clark or a scott or roger? If you have to ask, then you need to keep reading the Posts for two reasons: a)to get a clear enough understanding to be able to make the determination of which type I am and 2) to realize that by definition I am all three.* *which is true for you as well, all three...but mostly one

Comments

  1. FRIST. i LIVE FOR THIS

  2. You are right. It is true, My husband, a clark, loves to joke around in the post office. He is giving of his clarkian sense of self when he does this, And as he is very quick and witty, Everyone enjoys this. As I am not with him when he does this, I do not know exactly how many people it is that he say enjoys this. However I can tell you that I have been told by many people countless times that he should be a writer for any late night TV comedy show, and in fact he SHOULD. i do KNOW this for a fact as he cracks me up dailty

    • zoe says:

      So a Clark’s worst trait really IS codependency!

      • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

        zoe

        don’t know if I would go so far as to say ‘worst’ lol

        clarify the use of ‘codependency’…. in the context of ‘trait’ I don’t think I quite agree… I think that codependency is more of an unintended consequence of giving into the fear

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      Jny

      yeah, clarks we got the ‘witty’ thing down pat (and often include ‘droll’) along with that… now scotts, they’re ‘simply fuckin outrageously funny’! hey! thank you for the suggestion of a ‘three’

      scotts make you laugh
      clarks cause you to laugh
      rogers just stand there and tell funny stories!

  3. Lizzi R says:

    Take?

    Except negatives. We AMASS them

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      Lizzi

      there is a(n) inference to this term (take) in the context of the clarklike worldview meant to imply the idea that many of us clarks know that we are permitted the company of everyday people (family included) strictly on a basis of continued good behavior. of course, we do not have a clue what ‘good’ should mean and, instead, default to the everything to everyone else, maybe we’ll be given something out of the goodness of the hearts of the people we are surrounded by.

  4. Denise says:

    Enjoyed today’s post. Then you had to go and end it with the “take” thing. But it is a true statement. In order for clarks to “evolve”, self-develop, if they want any chance at the life they dream about? then clarks must learn to take.
    It is the nature of clarks to be giving. clarks are the selfless ones, the ones to put others first.
    I’m feeling a rant coming on LOL. Anyone gonna stop me…. how many clarks out there have self esteem issues? Huh? That’s a part of the equation.
    clarks need to re-align their “normal” way of thinking, step back and see that “taking” is not a bad thing. clarks deserve the same as anyone else….am I right?!!!
    the Doctrine. Simple, yes. Easy, not always. Harder still? Translating the thoughts in my head into understandable, simple, English.

    • zoe says:

      sorry clark, but I’m sticking with my original assessment. People who don’t know how to take are people who either need to be needed …or dont feel they deserve to recieve…normal for them or not ,its codepedent. NOT that it needs to be labled.

      • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

        zoe

        agree (with how I believe you are seeing it) disagree (from the perspective of the Wakefield Doctrine)… simply because (on the basis of the character of the personal reality of the Outsider) co-dependent implies a relationship (from the perspective of the participant, as opposed to an outside observer) or something…. interesting topic as it requires the Doctrine to be …not translated, more reconciled with (a concept) found in the mainstream… continue

        • zoe says:

          Holy cow. …I think I understand you…..scary…lo!l

          • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

            zoe

            my condolences… lol I was going to email you to see if you wanted to call in during the day so I could do a video interview….

            • zoe says:

              yeah this understanding thing has left me feeling a bit woozy. I did answer your previous email. Boy I wish I had known about that it would have been a helluva lot better than what I actually did today…next time! Thanks for thinking of me though….is this where you start chanting “zoe has a Roger… zoe has a Roger?”

  5. findingninee says:

    I can remember the first day I came here. I was confused, and trying to understand, and asked you where an autistic boy might fall into the personality tests. Little did I know then that autism had nothing to do with the Doc, and little did I know how little I knew. While his personality is still emerging, he’s obviously a well, I’ll wait to say what I think he is and let him decide on his own. But I appreciate your kindness then, on not telling me what an uneducated Clark Scott Roger newbie I was. And now, here you are, and here I am, and this is a place where I feel at home, and understood. Which is a Roger dick way for a Clark to say thank you I suppose. And to give the obligatory bloggie XO MWAH but mean it, and not know how to mean it other than that.
    Great Post.

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      Kristi

      the Doctrine exists in isolation, but it is only useful when there are people who use it, have fun with it and talk about it… (your point about when you first came round is very accurate, in fact, that just happened to be about the time that the concept that ‘the Doctrine is for you, not for them’ was coming into it’s own… and your being a real person in the real world showed us how that dictum need not be a negative thing, not a limitation (of the use of the Doctrine) rather an example of how this thing can be used however it benefits us, as individuals that most…
      I am glad to know you (even if my scottian aspect is somewhat more….constrained? lol)