Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
Anticipation is a curious affair for clarks. I would dare to say that most clarks might be identified, at a fairly early age, by their attempts to ‘make sense of the world’, in how they perceive and relate to the experience of disappointment. A show of hands now, please! If you are a clark (or have a significant secondary clarklike aspect), I’m willing to bet that you came up with a ‘Rule’ or ‘Law’ that applied, not only to managing anticipation, but also formed a rudimentary scheme for self-improvement. My own effort (in early adolescence) to deal with anticipation and disappointment was referred to, as ‘the Law of Reverse Expectation’. I say ‘referred to’, because it, (the Law), was not something that stayed in my head, no! it was an observation and it was, (I felt at the time), an insight into the nature of the world and I was willing to share it with my best friend. I really thought that I was on to something, and spent an inordinate amount of time thinking about how I might use this insight to increase my enjoyment of life and decrease my disappointment (with life).
[New Readers: the Wakefield Doctrine is all about understanding how a person ‘relates themselves to the world around them’1 There are three characteristic ways to do this:- as predator (scott) where the world is about immediacy (immediacy in action, in thought, in feeling), the world, for a scott, consists of prey and pack, dominance and submission, thrive-to-survive
- as a member of the Herd (rogers) the world to a person relating themselves to the day is one of a quantifiable and knowable place, where there is a right way to do things and the highest calling is to share with others that which one has discovered (to be a Right way), for rogers 2 + 2 = 4 ….always
- as Outsiders clarks relate (themselves) to a world that is ‘out there’…apart from. A clark lives in a world where knowledge and reason should be enough… and since they are aware of being different, they spend their lives trying to discover and understand what it is that everyone else clearly knows and understands.
we have a saying, well, yeah we have a lot of sayings, but the one that goes here best is: ‘clarks think, scotts act and rogers feel.’ Anything confusing about this or other aspects of this here Doctrine here…just ask.]
…so, back to the topic of clarks. The Wakefield Doctrine is beginning to demonstrate a practical value. Of course, the Doctrine has always been intended as a tool to understand ourselves better. However, the use of the word, ‘better’ is not intended in anyway to imply superiority to other perspectives, rather, we mean, ‘in addition to how you view the world, try looking at yourself (and others) from this perspective’. The Wakefield Doctrine does not offer Answers or ‘the Truth’. All we say is, “hey Reader! if you imagine that those scotts are, like predators in the wild and rogers are the stable, moving reliably Herd and, over there, that rustling of the underbrush? …clarks! If you look at people and the way they behave, from this perspective, you will: a) get a little more insight into their lives and 2) have fun and laugh (on occasion) and ruefully smile (on other occasions)”. But I started this Post talking about how we are, of late, seeing a very definite use and value from the Doctrine. What? you mean I did not say that?…well, I was thinking it! lol Given that I’m on a Post-a-Day schedule, it might be best to save some for tomorrow.
1) the wording here is important, we say ‘how they relate themselves to the world around them’ not ‘how they relate to the world around them’ big difference, ya know?
About clarkscottroger
Awful shared pic *hides in undergrowth*
hey! this is not only a photo (of you) but it is an example of your accomplishment in the land of dreams… maybe others won’t look and see that there are other people in the photo, but we know.
You know, I don’t know why I have to keep coming back to decide where I fall. Can I be a clark with a side of roger? That seems to be where I find myself every time I look.
Sandy
(might I suggest)? predominate rogerian worldview with a strong secondary clarklike aspect?
my reasoning* rogers have a sense of belonging (and her wicked stepsister, exclusion) that when confronted with a range of possibility will usually see a connection to all. Phyllis (my rogerian wife) tells us that ‘rogers create a box (for the world) put everything in it and decide to forget that it is a box’. This is meant to imply that, the reality of a roger is that the world is quantifiable and that there are rules, that with diligent effort the proper path can be discerned…. sorry for getting all clarklike on you.
Want the real test for whether your predominate worldview is that of a roger? Quick! Whats 4 + 4 ? (write down your answer…lol now go to someone like…. Cyndi or Lizzi and ask them that question exactly the same way and listen to how they phrase their answer…
rogers are the one (of the three) who is not only able to follow directions to a process, but they will learn the directions, to the extent of being able to do it again… without alteration. There is a point in time, however where the roger will take these ‘directions’ and (without making too big a deal of it) will improve the process and therefore improve the product.
make sense?
* this, btw, is part of the fun of the Doctrine! “…you say I’m what? tell us why!”
Yes, I can see that. I think the description of the word roger with the use of the word ‘herd’ throws me off because I don’t like the concept. But if I look past the word as a stand alone and focus on your definition above, it makes perfect sense.
Thanks!
Sandy
you’re welcome
damn those words with their …vario-meaningability! while the term Herd is part of the fun side (of the Doctrine) like referring to scotts as Predators and clarks…. er weirdos lol
But the key to the rogerian worldview is that (for them) the world is a quantifiable and solid place and 2 + 2 always equals 4 and the Rules and Traditions are not always a pain-in-the-ass albatrosseses…. they are often the one thing that makes life…. livable.
I’m the same way, Sandy. “Herd” implies to me a mob mentality, blind-following, etc., which I don’t really want to identify with. But I definitely view the world as having rules, making sense, etc. I’ve also got a strong secondary clark, though. (If I had been 100% roger, I probably would have found high school pep rallies enjoyable. :-) )
Sandy, the words do that for me, too – what Kristi said about the word “herd” is true for me as well. And the idea that Clarks seek to find out what everybody else knows kind of makes it sound like poor Clarks are so sad and forlorn and left out and don’t have a clue – if I get stuck on that interpretation, then the idea of being Clark-like really bugs me. It’s a lot of semantics, I think.
I understood little, but now I’ll go read more… well played.
thank you… let us know if you have any questions or concerns
And just this morning I was reading poetry by Rumi and explanations of what he was alluding to in the 13th century.
OMG…if your brain gets a new wrinkle every time you learn something, mine might look like something worse than a sheet bunched up on a closet for 20 years. LOL
ummmmmm…..yup……nuthin’….I got nuthin’. (sigh)
hey…you’re a clark…don’t need nuthin! (did I forget to mention that rule?)
…now tomorrow, you will need to got sumthin’ as I will be writing on the topic of rogers…see the comment thread today
Somehow managed to read through post and comments and not be totally confused…that’s a step!
And I’m pretty sure my answer to my math problem the other day indicates that I am not primarily a Roger. Didn’t think I was anyway, but that kind of adds to the opinion.