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

Surely today must be a rambling and or otherwise pointless Post, non? (as opposed to a Pointillist Post?) Maybe. Maybe not.

(Semi-not)

I made reference this Sunday past (I love that ‘construction’…. ‘this (whatever time reference) past’  anyone out there know what it’s called? (no, roger…. I don’t believe it’s called ‘cutsey archaic writing style’ I’m pretty sure there’s no such a thing. But thanks for suggesting it.) Hey! speaking of rogers…. a person alone in an empty house: rogers are most likely to have the TV on, not because they are watching it…they might be doing the dishes, paying bills (and yes, rogers ‘love’ paying bills, it’s so orderly and responsible), even vacuuming  the house…the TV will be on (if no TV then the radio….preferably talk radio). clarks? they’ll leave the TV off, but they will talk to themselves… out loud.  scotts…. are you kidding? stay home in an empty house? hell…there’s stuff to do!  people to meet! cars to chase!
(this, btw, is a good illustration of the variety of uses to the Wakefield Doctrine. ok, so rogers like to have the TV on when alone… it’s not just to keep themselves company, it is to ‘be in the Herd’, be a part of the world(Herd). They may not be consciously  listening directly to the TV (or the radio…even the talk radio shows), but they are aware of it and it is describing the world, on some level/to some extent and that’s what rogers are about, being in the world of the known, the tradition, the….continuity of people.)

Issue 2. (I might not complete this, I seem to be a on a bit of a roll, what with describing how to infer the worldview of a person and, more importantly, how to expand the metaphor (of the Wakefield Doctrine) in order to enhance your insight into the lives of the people around you. Yeah… sorry, Lizzi!  postponing the ‘Boy in the Orange Sweater’ story. Thanks for the suggestion, I did find the story among. What I would like to do, time permitting, is tell the story again and then reprint the story as I wrote it the first time. I’d be interested if there are any difference in the re-telling that may serve as indicators of any effect of the Doctrine on me.

Instead of that, for today’s 23rd Post, hows about some quick tips on determining the predominate worldview of a person?

• look at them (be careful now… some are very alert, might be best to observe from some ‘cover’)
• scotts: easiest of the three! two words: ‘alert’  scotts you can see on first glance, they’re paying attention, look at the face first, specifically the eyes. there is a look to scotts that are unmistakable. posture is good, very physical, tendency  to move quickly and decisively (even with crutches)
• clarks: look for bad posture and a distant gaze, listen for low volume-difficult-to-understand-but-distinct-enough-to-think-you-should-listen speech, dress is on the….eclectic side  (guy clarks pretty much will wear what amounts, in a fashion-sense as a tent, unless they decide to go totally contrarian (a clark contrarian?? no way!), in which case they’ll be the high school student in the 3 piece suit and wingtip shoes… the female clarks  look to the face and head, followed by everything else… take a note pad (where the scottian person reveals their relationship to the world around them in the alertness in their gaze, clarks will be trying to hide, amidst so much fashion-dissonnace that they should able to make a quick getaway (if they feel they are being overly scrutinized.) clarklike female…prefers the couture of the House of Androgyny
• rogers:  they are of the Herd, they are the excel-by-conformity crowd… dress well, not distinctively. If it’s popular, they will wear it. (hey! want to hear a ‘true’ example of the rogerian worldview? woman I knew, whenever there was reason to have a formal sort of dinner, she would find the latest ‘Home Lovel’y magazine, go to the dinner and recipes section and totally reproduce the dinner that is illustrated…right down to the centerpiece… but that’s not the rogerian part! beautiful table, full of what appears to be delicious (if not somewhat exotic) food …and no salt and no pepper and no butter on the table…. (‘why on earth would you need those? if properly prepared, it’s guaranteed to be good… they said’)
  with each of the ‘other two’ worldviews we suggested you could identify on the basis of appearance?  …ever see the TV commercial for Angie’s List? ….lol  yeah
• Observe the person in real life, preferably in a situation where they are interacting with other people
• ok? now, Step 1: throw out the ‘no-fricken-way-they’re-a’ and that leaves you with two worldviews. Step 2: decide between the two. (With some of the difficult calls to make, such as between a ‘strong roger‘ and a ‘tired scott‘ you may need to continue observing them interacting with the world. don’t be afraid to go up and talk to them…well, sometimes, be afraid.)
• the point of this? Simple. You are trying to infer how that person ‘relates themselves to the world around them’. Know this and you will not only be able to predict their actions and reactions, you will know more about them than they know about themselves