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

(originally published January 24, 2010)

‘with apologies to Bob Newhart’

(…yeah, one of those Posts)

Hello?

Oh…hi!  No, not at the moment, just trying to come up with a new Post…

Post, for the Wakefield Doctrine…I thought you knew!  Yeah, we actually went ahead with the idea,  yeah online and everything!

(...Nah, not working. Too dated and self-referential. But, I’ll keep the video clip because, well, because it is Bob Newhart.)

here, let me get out of the block quotes……

ok, better!

To follow up on yesterday’s Post:

…you know how we’ll look at one person’s response to  a situation and think, “a scott would have done this….” (or) “I’ll bet a roger would have made that come out differently” ?  (This) is a time-honored method used by many of us in our efforts  to better understand the Wakefield Doctrine ‘in the context of ‘real’ life’, however,  there is a flaw to (that) viewpoint.

Lets start from the start.  I ‘m a clark. I engage in a conflict-situation with another person, the outcome is…whatever it is. A clark will, for the most part, be resigned to trying to be satisfied with whatever the outcome of this interaction may be, but, those of us aware of the Doctrine, might also reflect on the exchange to the effect,  ‘well, a scott would have done this and that is why their results would have been (different) than mine.’  Wrong….or rather semi-wrong.

The error I am making in our example above* is that not that I know how a scott would have responded to our sample situation , we all know the scottian personality type well enough to know what they would do! ( “…final reports put the body count/number of broken hearts at….21 but authorities are not yet making an official statement.” )  The mistake I’m making  lies in focusing on what I know a scott (or a roger) would do in the situation that I experienced…when, instead,  I should be trying to understand how the scott (or roger) would have experienced/perceived the situation.  Let me restate.
You get home from the grocery store and realize that the checkout person double charged you for, at very least, 6 separate items. You get in the car and you drive back to the store. When you get there you see the Store Manager standing 2 aisles down from the checkout person that double charged you. That is the situation. We’re still assuming you’re a clark and you’re still assuming that something in the Wakefield Doctrine will let you get through this situation better by knowing how one (or both) of ‘the other two’ would handle this situation.  This is the point of today’s Post. It is not what a scott or a roger (or a clark) could do, it is ‘what do you see when they walk in the door of the supermarket?’)

I will leave it at this point for the benefit of our early-leave for-work-people to read and respond.

The situation as it manifests to each of the three worldviews would be:

1. a clark would see:
2. a scott would become aware of:
3. a roger would decide to:

 *****
if there are any clarks in the Reader pool who would like to participate in the Wakefield Doctrine Thursday Guest Post Thursday as a guest post (writer), please reply by 10pm. if you are not certain of your predominant worldview and you would answer the following question(s) as ‘TRUE’, then you probably are qualified. The Questions:

• you are pretty sure you understand the Doctrine but are not 100% sure, but don’t mind admitting it
• you wonder if there is a part of this quiz that you may be missing, so you will wait and see if anyone else responds
• you think you probably would enjoy the idea of writing a guest post, but are not sure if you might not mess it up, though if this question were posed (to you) in private, you would totally be confident in having something interesting to say

tick tock, binyons!  tick tock   (it is currently 6:22 pm EDST)

*****

* what example??! I don’t see no example, all I see is one person imagining meeting another person, something happening and then a lot of time spent by the first person thinking about…. oh!  that example!  ok, continue!