Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
…we did mention that the Doctrine is anecdotal, right? above? …anecdotal football, if ever I saw one
(Today’s Post’s subtitle is, of course, (the) paraphrased tagline of a famous speech by football coach, Vince Lombardi. Given that we’re at the height of football season (Height of Football Season motto: “Open enrollment for the Herd!! you’re all rogers…. provided you’re willing to paint your face and tolerate near-criminal activity in the name of cheering for the home team!!!!” ).
Over the course of the weekend there were enough Reader remarks, comments, asides and vague innuendae about the understandability of the Wakefield Doctrine, that I thought, ‘What the hell, lets see if I can’t give a ‘This is the Wakefield Doctrine speech’.
Rather than go back and mine one of the 1268 Posts that, when all is said and done, are each an attempt to explain the Wakefield Doctrine in a manner that allows a New Reader to read, understand, apply and enjoy this here personality theory here, I thought… hey! it’s Sunday evening. Lets write a ‘new’ explanation of the Wakefield Doctrine!
the Wakefield Doctrine is a way of looking at the people in our lives, that can, when properly applied, lead to understanding them in ‘additional ways’. By ‘additional ways’, we mean… ‘what am I doing that is an integral aspect in how they are acting?
(…. “Ladies and Gentleman this is ‘an inflated leather spindle torus'” sorry, lol… I was trying to write ‘the speech’, but thought about the ‘setup’…post game speech… locker room… various states of dress…demographics of the current readership…. me standing on a bench (in that locker room)….lol) wait! wait! let me try again.
The Comments that got me on this theme (the basics of the Wakefield Doctrine, not the locker room) were:
- “I’m still learning this clark roger secret rule thing… yes one day I will…” (Kimberly at ‘…something something’ )
- ” And remember, I am embracing my Clark-like self this week.” (Val of ‘Virtual Vineyard’)
- “…thankful for your WD info and thankful to be understanding it more and better” (Lisa over at Meaning of Me’)
Let me try to be more reality tv show about this explanation. Kimberly (who, of the three, is the one I would bet would ‘call shotgun!’ first, is in the front seat and Val and Lisa are in the back and we’re driving through Wakefield on a Saturday night.**)
After driving past the Guild and heading into Wakefield proper, I look in the rear view mirror and begin:
the Wakefield Doctrine is a perspective. It’s a way to see the world, it’s a way to understand the behavior of the people in our lives. It’s not an Answer, it’s a Question. And…. (hey!! Val!! please!!! no leaning out the window and shouting at the people in the CVS parking lot!!! come on! they’re on serious, old person/sick person business!! thank you. ) the Question is: ‘how does my spouse/the girl at the 7/11, / the Teacher who is shaping my 7 year old’s life/ the people I read about in the news… how do they appear to be ‘relating themselves to the world around them’?’ The Wakefield Doctrine proposes that we all live in a personal reality (aka worldview) that is characterized as (one) of the following:
- live as ‘the Outsider’ (clarks) always apart from, different, trying to understand what it is they don’t understand, trapped by the belief that it is about knowledge
- the world of the Predator (scotts) seemingly confident (always looking for threats and opportunity), active and impulsive running into doors as often as gallantly opening them, protective and paranoid
- the life of the Herd Member (rogers) self-assured, as the world of the roger is one that is quantifiable/(and limited), knowable/(and ignorable) ordered and simple… searching only for ‘the Right Way’/ missing the enjoyment of the un-expected and strange
What the Wakefield Doctrine refers to as ‘personality types’ is simply the skill set we develop in order to successfully cope with the reality that we find ourselves growing up in and living our lives in … (‘no Kimberly… we can’t stop for donuts…. we have to drive to Galilee next…. yes, Lisa I will try to walk on the water… very funny’). So what we are saying with the Doctrine is this: understand the three worldviews, infer how the other person is relating themselves to the world around them and they will do the rest. No, I’m serious! Ask anyone! Once you start to see the clarks, scotts and rogers in your life, they will ‘act the part’ to a degree that is sometimes a little scary. But fun.. The goal of all of this is: to try to see the world as the other person is experiencing it.
It takes imagination. It takes the kind of curious mind that not only is capable of, but enjoys imagining that a person is a Predator (figuratively) or creative perfectionist or… or even the person who is ever the Outsider, but always manages to be a part of…secretly, of course!
…ok everyone out! we’re back.
** which, by the way, is not a symbol, metaphor, allusion or made up place… there is a Wakefield, Rhode Island and I do drive through it on virtually every Saturday Night***
*** doing the Wakefield Doctrine Saturday Night Drive Call-in….
About clarkscottroger
I noticed that this weekend … a lot of new understanding of this little theory of yours! tre cool!
yeah
(“…why yes, I did know clark back in the early days… no, I wouldn’t say a clear and concise fount of insight and wisdom….exactly, it was more along the lines of … ‘what the hell did you do to me?!?! and how did you get my friends to act like one of those personality types!! I know for a fact that you were never given my home address!)
lol
YOU. DON’T. have. my. address…… right??? lol!
no I don’t and you should check that kettle, it’s been boiling for the last 10 minutes
Ewwwwww! Don’t do that! Hahaha!
Hilarious. And informative. All at the same time.
That would definitely be me in the back. Definitely. No shotgun for me – the front passenger is the death seat. I’ll be fine back here. :D
well what kind of personality theory would the Doctrine be, if it didn’t have the capacity for informing and hilaritizing?
And coining new words, to boot?
I’d totally be calling “shotgun.”
We knew that… (well, this is the Wakefield Doctrine!)
So here’s a little Wakefield test for you. Tell me if I’ve got it now. Three twenty-something young ladies walk into a bar for an evening of excitement and conversation, good music, maybe some dancing. Your job is to match the outfit with the personality. Clark, Rogers or Scott.
1. Low cut black shirt showing all the curves and leaving little to the imagination.
2. Bo-ho chic (updated hippie – long, flowy)
3. Preppy, conservative, blends in.
Go.
ah yes Ms. Val
…(taking off glasses, polishing for a bit…clearly stalling)
Actually, I do want to compliment you on this scenario. It is spot on. I will let anyone out there tackle it first… in fact, allow me to indulge in a second compliment, you have given me a basis to explain one of the practical aspects of learning and practicing the Wakefield Doctrine.
When someone asserts, ‘that person is such a (fill in predominant worldview)’ it is not only not rude to say, ‘oh yeah? why are you calling that worldview?? it is totally in the spirit of what the Wakefield Doctrine is all about to engage in a discussion (i.e. ‘damn! you’re right! I didn’t notice the beret he was wearing‘ or ‘she told everyone there that it was not the smallest bikini she could fit into…so clearly that implies a certain …scottian aspect, but I’m not quite sure’ lol
I like your scenario. Lets add to it! Which one is most likely to pay for her drinks? Which of the three is wingman?*
* do you people have ‘wingmen’ too? not totally sure… (oh, yeah! almost forgot the obligatory disclaimer: the Wakefield Doctrine is gender and culture neutral) ok..back to wingmen
Clicked back here from Wednesday’s…a quiz? I can never resist. But I have to pour more coffee to think through this one. Let’s see…
Blends in, preppy conservative…Miss Roger. Part of the herd.
But maybe the bo-ho chic is Miss Clark. Different, kicky, not like the others.
I think the low-cut all out there outfit is definitely Miss Scott.
Amiright??
Most likely to pay for her own drinks? I do feel like it is often Miss Clark because she would be hovering on the edge of “in the loop” and wouldn’t put herself “out there” enough to have anyone offer. This would leave her both relieved and disappointed. Maybe?
Most likely to be wingman…based on the basic definition of being positioned behind and outside the lead plane,…Miss Clark. But. Since the wingman makes sure the lead plane is OK, perhaps it could be Miss Roger, who would want to make sure everyone got home safely and without issue.
Know what, though? The wingman could be Miss Scott. By urban dictionary and pop reference definition, the wingman (or in this case wingwoman) would be Miss Scott because the wingman is the person you bring along to a singles outing to help you out with the women (or in this case men). The Scott would be the one in the thick of the social thing helping the others along.
Lisa
Totally correct on the ‘given that my worldview is…. ‘what should I wear tonight?”!! very cool
the wingperson question is proving very interesting, if for no other reason than the definition may be a problem… from a ‘gender point of view’*
* not that that is ever a factor in understanding between people
What men and women interpreting the world differently? No, never.
And woo hoo! I might actually be getting the hang of this. :)
…sorry, no.
the Doctrine is gender (and culture) neutral
It’s just that how the characteristics and qualities of the three personality types are expressed, is affected by gender. Take a scott like Christine or Dyanne please! (barum bump!) as scotts they are (for the most part) more aggressive than clarks or rogers, unlike their male counter-parts, they will not punch you on the shoulder or put you in a headlock (just for a laugh)… as scotts (of the female persuasion) they are permitted other ways to exert themselves…
ya know?
Wait..what? Sorry no as in I’m not getting the hang of this?
I really thought I was…
… the personality types are a reflection of the (predominant) worldview… a scott is a scott is a scott gender (and age and culture and virtually everything else) is not relevant to (a) person’s worldview, what the Doctrine is concerned with is, ‘how does this person relate themselves to the world around them?’ and the answer is one of three: as an Outsider (clark) or as a Predator (scott) or as a Herd Member (rogers)… the differences between male scotts and female scotts (for example) are simply what makes life interesting here as much as out there in the real world.
(btw… I’ll bet you do, in fact, have ‘the hang of this’… I can tell)