the Wakefield Doctrine ‘reality writ small’1 | the Wakefield Doctrine the Wakefield Doctrine ‘reality writ small’1 | the Wakefield Doctrine

the Wakefield Doctrine ‘reality writ small’1

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

20120823-plato-cave

Simplest way to understand, to use, to participate in the fun and insight offered by the Wakefield Doctrine? Start with:

  1. clarks think
  2. scotts act
  3. rogers feel

then, ‘prove’ to yourself that a) you are one of the three personality types and 2) learn the character and nature and typical behavior of people who are of the ‘other two worldviews’

…finally, look around, observe the behavior of the people in your life today. Some of the personality types you have to look for, as they are hiding (and), others you can’t possibly miss, as they are making certain that they are noticeable. You know the coolest (and sometimes spooky thing) about this here personality theory here? The clarks and the scotts and the rogers in your life know exactly how they are supposed to act. Seriously. They have not read this blog or know anything about the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers and yet, as you observe their behavior, as you watch how they react to common, everyday situation, as you see how they deal with frustration, respond to temptation and overcome adversity  you will have a moment where you think, “now wait just a damn minute! this is a set up, that guy at that blog told them to act like that!

Sorry. (or not).  It’s true. clarks act like clarks whether they are purple-hair-streaked girls at the 7/11 or awkwardly kind baggers at the Safeway or even your daughter’s Kindergarten Teacher (who looks at her pupils with such a calm love and acceptance, then you can’t help but notice the slightly guarded and distant look that comes into her eyes when she turns to talk to you)   and scotts are so scottian in the real world, funny and helpful and brash and outrageous, they are so kind (and yet you feel some kind of thrill of something, anytime they are being helpful) and they are so focused (on you) that sometimes you feel a little….uncomfortable and they are so… dynamic and never…stop  and the rogers  well, they’re there they are the majority and they are everywhere and sometimes, (especially if you’re new at this Doctrine thing), you may have trouble distinguishing the scotts from the rogers (interestingly only with the males,  you will never have difficulty mistaking a scottian female for a rogerian woman. ever) but with rogers  it is always personal, it (whatever ‘it’ may be, such as,  how you do your job, how long the traffic light stays on red, how unfair the rules are or how important tradition and family is and how there is never enough time to explain) always has the roger at the center, it simply is never not about them. scotts… they may choose to be at the center or they may prefer to be off to the side, for them (the scotts) it is about the prey and the hunt. (in a good way, of course) (lol)

Alright. There it is, the Wakefield Doctrine.

HEY!!! Wait a damn second!

Watch for a return of the Wakefield Doctrine Series: ‘Video Interviews with Interesting People  ‘

I might just have gotten zoe to agree to a Video Interview!!

(no, not in person. the ‘Video’ of the ‘Video Interview’ is me in my car with my guest on the phone and we can hear everything as I drive and ask intelligent and insightful questions.)  Maybe tomorrow. Maybe next week.

 

 

 

 

1) yeah, a bit on the obscure side, but then when I looked up the original expression and all, I felt alright with it  and now that I’m done writing the Post, this title is totally without relevance  oh well

 

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. zoe!!! yeah!!! THIS JUST GETS BETTER AND BETTER!

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      lol

      hold that thought… it’s been a while since I did one of these interviews (a whole series of them from last year are on the Doctrine youtube channel)

  2. So, I was at the electronics store this week, trying to find a new microwave after our old one crapped out, when I walked by the computer section and remembered your little trip to Staples a few weeks back. Went over with the best intentions to switch them all over to the page of the Doctrine, but they obviously knew that there are people out there up to things, and locked the pages. Party poopers!

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      Stephanie

      Clearly ‘the Man’ knows we’re out here and won’t be ignored much longer! lol (the first acts of Wakefield Doctrine browser guerrilla warfare!)

  3. zoe says:

    re your foot note… I dont even know what the hell that quote means if it were pertinent… what does it mean? and thanks, even if its a lie its nice to think someone thinks I may be interesting… fool…lol

  4. Denise says:

    simple. succinct. they are everywhere “acting” their parts.

    strong rogers v scotts. sometimes tricky to tell the difference. and there lies the challenge and beauty of the doctrine. breaking it down further. the whys of actions/reactions are the clues to a person’s reality.

    starting to get a grip on rogers in the workplace. as in grooming my rogerian aspect. it’s true though, there is a natural revulsion (as a clark) to the rogerian “worldview”. it is the inability to completely understand it. it being based on emotion and all. how challenging – to understand the “emotion” of rogers when their entire outlook is based on the non-rational!

    whoever said “the world is a feeling and I am responsible for how I feel” must be a roger LOL

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      Denise

      it is the inability to completely understand it. it being based on emotion and all. how challenging – to understand the “emotion” of rogers when their entire outlook is based on the non-rational!

      precisely the problem, the challenge and (all clarks would be thinking, ‘fine, I get that. but there must be a simple thing that I have overlooked’) maybe it is to refute the reasonable, to ignore the obvious and sensible and indulge the non-sensical side? nah. all of that is well thought out

      …it must lie in a ordering of the rational with the intent of letting oneself act on ‘pre-impules’ (whatever the hell that means)…