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

(saw this in a couple of sites, but I think the source is: www.tn4me.org)

Had an odd* thought yesterday.** I was driving through a rural part of the state in late morning and the weather was not very nice. There was a slight drizzle and the temperature was in the low to mid 40s. I happened to glance into the woods that lined the road, and the thought came to me, “oh man! if I lived here in the 1400’s I would not be enjoying today. There’d be no place to go inside to get out of the weather….”

Given that all I had to do for the next 20 minutes was to guide several thousand pounds of metal, over twisting and turning country roads, at velocities not achieved by the human race until the early 20th Century, it was only natural I should think,  “Imagine being an aboriginal clark living in this part of New England during the Early Woodland Era! damn!” (sure, go ahead and do some wavy images things in your head for a visual… )

We can easily imagine the lives of scotts at such a point in history. Hell, this era would have been paradise for our Predatory friends!  (“Hey Still-waters-run-Deep  I want you to meet a cousin of mine, she’s a little …. no! she didn’t have to leave her village, come on! don’t be scared!“)  Yeah, scotts would have done well.
Even rogers would have had a place in society in the pre-historic New England,  (“psst,  did you hear what they are saying about that girl from the other village… well, if I even thought to do that, I would hide my head… you don’t think she’s prettier than me, do you?“)

But clarks.  We know there were clarks in the neo-post-archaic-woodland New England. But  how did their days go? I mean, an Outsider is an Outsider no matter what the year is, but at some points of history there was a fairly lethal side to not being a part of… (“he’s your son too! tell him to come back out of the forest and stand up straight and not mumble, your uncles’s cousin is a nice girl who would be perfect for little ‘runs Deep’)

* odd adjective, \ˈäd\  :

1. unusual or peculiar in appearance, character, etc
2. occasional, incidental, or random: odd jobs.
3. leftover or additional: odd bits of wool.
4. being part of a matched pair or set when the other or others are missing: an odd sock; odd volumes.
5. out-of-the-way or secluded: odd corners.
7. odd man out a person or thing excluded from others forming a group, unit, etc

a quality of thought or, even, an act or action which varies (according to the ‘Everything rule’¹) as perceived by each of the three personality types:

• rogers: ” …probably bad, no, wait you said odd, as in different and not like anything else? well, that’s certainly not good, that’s for certain…but maybe, did it say anything about me?”
• scotts: ” …hey! hold up a second…. is it a threat?  is it a threat that can be chased away?  neither… maybe it will run away when the others don’t? that might be fun”
• clarks: ” …hmmm, interesting, similar to what, precisely? maybe there’s something, well, not exactly like the others but still…oh yeah, I see! wouldn’t that be nice”

** yeah, I know!

1) ‘the Everything rule, (short for: ‘everyone does everything at one time or another‘) holds that an experience or an occupation, a blind date or a surgical procedure, giving birth and riding a bike are all parts of life and are experienced by everyone (well, mostly everyone…I haven’t ridden a bike in I can’t tell you how long)… the value in this rule is that it can simplify the use of the Wakefield Doctrine, as a tool for better understanding the people in our lives.
Very often a person will say,  ‘hey my son wants to be a professional skier, but he can’t get his head out of the books, isn’t professional skier a scottian job?‘ or perhaps you might have a friend come up to you in the dressing room at the Y and confide in you that they have to see a specialist, but can’t make up their mind which of  2 physicians to choose. They proceed to describe one as: precise, well- informed, concise, well, just a little rigid but the wall of their office was covered with diplomas and everything  while  the second specialist, well, they made (your friend) laugh and seems very confident, but kept being interrupted and seemed a touch impulsive…. which should they choose? (You are being asked, because your friend knows you have this ‘Doctrine thing’ that makes you able to read minds or something, fun at social occasions, helpful in emergencies but, sometimes, a little ….creepy.)

the Everything rule simply reminds us to put ourselves in the worldview of the other person. This is not easy, it takes much study and learning of the characteristics of each of the worldviews, but when we do, we see that sometimes a cigar is not just a cigar