Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
Was talking to Denise on the phone last night, and the topic of change and self-improvement become the focus of our discussion. What has stuck with me (through the night, into this morning) is: in order to successfully change, requires that we ‘fall in love’ with (the proposed) new way to: view earning a living/approach helping the children/trying to get along at work/give our spouse more room for their own interests/stop worrying about things that cannot be controlled.
We’ve all had the experience of wanting to change something about ourselves, our lives, how we do things.* We know for a fact that change would be beneficial, we even know how we should act and sometimes… hell, if you’re reading this, often we start acting differently/stop ourselves from indulging in (the bad habit, self-defeating strategy), only to find ourselves reverting back, to the old way. And…and! to make matters worse, this reverting to the old way happens even after we’ve experienced success. We actually lose the weight, stop mumbling, resist the urge to hide and yet… before we notice it, we’re acting like always. Back to the same old pattern. What the hell??!
To know that we should improve ourselves is rarely ever enough to produce permanent change. We need not only find and know and understand the ‘better way to….’ but we need to ‘fall in love’ with this new thing. The ‘new way’ of acting, of living, must produce its own benefit, its own reward, it can’t be simply ‘a relief from a negative’. Our way of acting must be a source of energy in our day.
‘to fall in love‘ with the your ‘self-improvement’ implies that you’ve found a way to have a relationship with this new way (this alternate way of living). It cannot simply be acting a certain way because you hate the old way. Like ‘being in love’, you give without requiring a return, and, as a result (let’s just leave the explanation of why this is the way it is, as one of Life’s mysteries), you get back more than you give.
Permit me to provide a certain personal element. Writing this blog is an example of what I mean. sort of. I did not set out to ‘write a blog’… I set out to write about/present/explain the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers (aka the Wakefield Doctrine)… as a result, there has never been a day when I have not wanted to write a blog Post. And, (very odd, if you knew me personally), it did not/does not matter if I have 3 visits or 7,390 visits to this blog. The ‘change/self-improved’ activity/habit/way-of-dealing-with-life is it’s own reward.
ya know?
(running out of time…will return later in the day).
* New Readers? not to be a buzz kill, (well, actually we do not feel bad about being a buzz kill, at least in this regard), but though the Wakefield Doctrine is awfully powerful when we are trying to change something about ourselves, if you’re thinking ‘finally something that will work on him/her/the kids/the boss/the-girl-of-my-dreams/the-man-who-would-make-life-worthwhile/ the family dog’s annoying habit of barking at 3:30 am’ sorry. ‘the Wakefield Doctrine is for you, not them’ Just don’t work that way.
About clarkscottroger
Poor new readers ;) bless their boots.
shhh! don’t tell ’em! they’ll never stay around long enough for the fun parts!
lol
I like your comparison here, Clark. Self-improvement is a lot like that – IF it’s going to work, that is. Falling in love is the state of being where we just throw ourselves completely at the whole situation and that’s exactly how we have to be in order to truly better ourselves. We have to throw everything we have at it, even if it seems completely crazy (which falling in love often does) and just go for it. If you get that kind of immersion, so to speak, it’s a lot like the early days of a new relationship where all you can think about is that other person, what they’re doing, what they’re thinking, when you’ll see or talk to them next…superimpose that on the self-improvement process and that’s the kind of gusto with which we should attack those attempts.
Lisa
Totally! and (like the ‘falling in love’ metaphor…allegory (can never keep those straight)…) when our immersion results in a ‘new’ relationship we no longer have to ‘work at it’
Glad to hear you aren’t concerned with how many visitors you have each day. That means you probably didn’t miss me while I’ve been gone, and I don’t need to feel bad for not stopping in more often these last few weeks.
You couldn’t speak truer words. We really do have to love what we’re doing and not do it because you don’t like the old way. Spot on! Good reminder for what is going on with our teen at the moment. Thanks!
Christine
au contraire! I totally did (it’s just that clarks have superhuman emotion-control*)
I will still compliment you on the way cool… mom-roadtrip thing that you do!
* remind me sometime to tell you about one of the stranger things I did as a young clark…. having to do with being ticklish
It’s uncomfortable for me to think about this..and self change..which means I really need to think about it.
Michelle
I left out one of the big advantages inherent in the Doctrine, when it comes to self-improving ourselfs and that is, we don’t have to learn any new ways to act, we simply have to look to our secondary and tertiary aspects (our innate capability to deal with any of the three worldviews I am adept at dealing with the reality of the Outsider… but I have the potential to acquire the skills of the Predator and/or the Herd Member…)
I find that this simple realization takes so much of the pressure off… because, you see, as far as the Wakefield Doctrine is concerned, I do not have to learn to be a better/different/funnier/sexier/more aggressive/less aggressive/friendlier/more social/…person! All I need to do is ‘relate myself to the world around me on a basis different from the one I am currently!…er relating to…on…by
you get the idea*
*betting you do… it is a medical fact that anyone who comes to this blog and reads it more than 1.5 times, have the whatever to understand and use and most importantly… enjoy our little personality theory