Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
the search for the balance between: clever, slightly-quirky, nevertheless ringing true and straightforward and not too silly continues…
Driving everything is the need/desire/hope that asserted itself with the decision to take the Wakefield Doctrine out of my head and put it out on the sidewalk (yeah, eww).
But, here I am (Post 1,098), trying to write like I think that people will read and think that I know something that they would value, if only they understood it better.
Contest!! What is the problem with the previous statement? (… no, wait! not contest. A good contest has a single, unambiguous answer that is not-googleable and is recognizable, (once stated), as the only, correct answer. I (almost immediately), realized that this would be less of a Contest and more be like an Essay Question: ‘The fictional characters Moby Dick and D’Artagnan and Katharine Kavanaugh have one thing in common, explain what that is and, using the plot of their respective stories illustrate (t)hese differences and compare and contrast.’ What the hell kind of contest would that be?’1 …not be a very good one!)
For the sake of my feeling that I’m bringing something new to the blog today, I will re-state the reservations that I have, (about how the Wakefield Doctrine is being presented) and, subsequently how it makes for a pretty good non-contest, (using the lead sentence above2).
The Wakefield Doctrine maintains that we, all of us, live our lives in one of three worldviews (personal realities): the life of the Outsider (clarks), reality of the Predator (scotts) and the world of the Herd Member (rogers). By knowing the characteristic behaviors of these three, it becomes possible to infer the worldview of ‘the other person’. Once we have (correctly) inferred the worldview of the other person, we will know how they ‘relate themselves to the world around them‘, and once we know that, we know a whole lot. Enough to understand them better. Enough to have a good shot at anticipating their reactions to situations. Enough to change the nature/quality/tone/satisfaction (of) our interactions with them. (the Wakefield Doctrine also) maintains that, while we all have one predominate worldview (personal reality), we never lose the potential of ‘the other two’. This allows us, with sufficient work and effort, to identify with those of a different worldview.
Why this was a bad contest question? Because the ‘correct Answer’ would have been: c (all of the above).
Now… a good contest question??
The predominate worldview of the author of today’s Post is:
- a scott because ______
- a roger as anyone can see, if you consider ________
- a clark, well, to start ____________
Free secret prize to the 3rd person who answers this Question correctly!
Hey!! before you go!!! Lizzi has moved her blog to WP… the correct(ed) link is in the blogroll…make sure you have corrected your links (better yet, go over and visit her…tell her the Doctrine sent ya)
Also… mark your damn calendar!! Thursday is the beginning of a new cycle of Guest Post Thursday… be there or have attributed to your ownself the attributes of a figure containing all 90 degree angles…yo
1) the Answer to the Contest that wasn’t is: “…the first problem, clark, is that you are looking at the process, (of promoting the Wakefield Doctrine), as a clark, the second problem is that you are still uncertain of your true ambition with the Doctrine, and the real problem is that you still believe that only with a rogerian worldview, can you present the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine in such a way as to attract a broad, general and popular audience.
2) you know the part about ‘trying to write about….’
About clarkscottroger
“But, here I am (Post 1,098), trying to write like I think that people will read and think that I know something that they would value, if only they understood it better.
Contest!! What is the problem with the previous statement? (… no, wait! not contest. A good contest has a single, unambiguous answer”
here is your winning answer: you are thinking to much, send hat, please. jeh
too, not to. and frist. have a good day
second contest: what they have in common: they are all fictional characters: send hat please, jeh. that makes two you owe me
“The predominate worldview of the author of today’s Post is:
a scott because A SCOTT WANTS A HAT, TWO HATS
a roger as anyone can see, if you consider WORDplay WORTHWHILE,, kewlbubbly!
a clark, well, to start a clark has a lot of hats.”
1)send hats now, love “finals”. <–scott
2) love finials <– roger
3) love the concept of something, anything finalistic yet what does finalistic mean in all of its actualityness? I think I might perhaps need to discuss this in depth in tomorrow's Post. Or later today if I have some time I hope.<–clark
I know you are over here! I am just–over where? MONDAY?
SO help me GOd if that woman gets a hat before me you are sooooo dead to me!
rolling here!!! “OK fine”, (<–trying the terrifying passive-agressive approach that all clarks hate and that Scotts, being way too blunt, never use).
Hey, clark, send our hats out at the exact same time. jeh
you will be really glad you did.
you know we are gonna wear them! totally weAR THEM. !!!
you know that scotts (can) be our favorites….but, jeez! it’s not like I’m a roger (lol…. reference to the rogerian, inborn natural instinct to embrace all that comes with being the preferred food group of the scottian people….expecially male rogers to female scotts…I mean, a single nod (by a scottian woman to a rogerian male) and those guys will show up with their own supply of A1 Sauce and packets of salt and pepper)
exactly. do you have my address?
I think the author may be dabbling a bit o the ol roger today! (as previously stated…)
Oh, hey jean, didnt see you up there!
Oh hi zoe! xoxoxoxox big hugs!!! <3 jean
Nothing like a hat (for your damn head) and I notice that Zoe has very cleverly REFRAINED from answering the questions yet, because that way she gets to be THIRD and get the secret prize.
So here ya go, Zo (aren’t I a good and wunnerful poet?) I will post these and you can come back and claim your win.
The predominate worldview of the author of today’s Post is:
a scott because he is perfectly happy telling everyone to join in a contest, and has staged a perfect forum for others to arrange their own selves heirarchically, so that he can figure out his position amongst them.
a roger as anyone can see, if you consider that in actual fact, the very thing he has created – The Wakefield Doctrine itself – serves as a source of referential authority, and so he may indeed be more rogerian than anything else.
a clark, well, to start he hesitated before hitting publish, wondering whether today would be the day he hit upon THE idea for getting this out to all the scotts and rogers, before feeling the suck and pull of the abyss which seemed to say “But it’s a tool for clarks, and those others won’t be interested anyway” and then he listened to the voice, recognising its absolute truth, whilst simultaneously (almost) enjoying the fact that every other clark, at some point, has felt this way. He probably then stopped to think and properly appreciate the synchronicity of clarks, or made toast. One of the two.