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

Fun Post today. Will try to keep it simple, while, (for) one half (of the themes) that’s pretty likely, the second half… no way.  Unless… To my constant, yet grateful chagrin, I find myself underestimating my Readers.

Following are two short clips from TV shows. One stars a clark and the other a scott. (Sometimes New Readers say, ‘but clark, they’re playing a character, why would you think that you’re seeing their personality type?’ to which I respond,  the Wakefield Doctrine maintains that what you might observe of an actor or actress, politician or clergy, teacher or self-help guru in any context will be an accurate reflection of their personality type because, one of the few tasks that the Doctrine charges us with is, to ‘observe the other person and infer how they are relating themselves to the world around them‘*.

So watch our two ‘reality’ TV show stars. (and… yes, I will make a predict the reaction of some of our readers, but I’ll put it down at the bottom of the Post ^** , so as not to spoil the fun)

damn! I need to limit my word count for mid-week Posts, we’re at 507 words,  and I really don’t think I can properly address the second half of the today’s  Post theme.  Hey, what the hell! it’s Wednesday and, rumour has it, the average Reader understands the Wakefield Doctrine way better than I appreciate so lets try this:

clarks, are Outsiders…we all know that. But what we might not appreciate is that (most) clarks don’t realize that everyone around them know that they’re Outsiders. The biggest problem with clarks begins with the notion that we have to keep people from ‘knowing too much about us’. As a result, many clarks will spend way too, too much time, ‘trying to pass’  …as a real person.  And the reason underlying that… that’s the core issue. Most clarks, on one level or another, suspect that we are Outsiders because there is something bad/wrong/off/not-acceptable-to-real-people about us. And the real, this-time-I-mean-it-real problem underlying that is that we leave it …un-determined. Maybe we are ‘wrong’, not qualified as people to be included in the pack or in the Herd… but we’d rather keep hiding, (in very plain sight), rather than deal with this core issue. Unfortunately or not, for many of us clarks, the decision is made (way, way early in the game) that it’s better to not know for certain, because, for a clark, un-certainty allows for possibility. Certainty locks the door.

That’s all the time we have today!

* we have fun with words and language around here, but this phrase is one of the few examples of where the exact wording is essential to what we are trying to convey. We are not saying ‘…how a person is relating to the world around’… that has an entirely different connotation.  The ‘extra’ word ‘themselves’    ‘how they relate themselves‘ tells us that, if we are open-minded and imaginative, we can ‘see’ the context from which the behavior is springing… i.e. the person’s worldview

** scotts, like Christine and Dyanne will laugh, look around (either literally or figuratively) try to find someone to punch on the shoulder while saying, “am not!”… and yet, if we were an invisible 3rd party watching this reaction interaction, we would be paying very close attention to the eyes of the scott… they would reflect a very close paying of attention… the better to see if the other person is taking the fun in the right way…. ya know?   clarks, on the other hand, (people like Lizzi or Cynthia, Denise or zoe,) their first response will be to smile…. and immediately pay even more attention to the person in the vid… ‘holding their breath’ until they assure themselves that the character is aware of the possible reactions of the viewers and does not care (about the reaction), in other words…’are people in ‘the audience’ laughing with her or at her   rogers… not so sure about how they might respond…. Kristi?  Michelle?  any help?