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

(from this weekend’s ‘hop… a comment from Lizzi regarding a statement that was made about (a) clarks capability to engage in social interaction. the block quotes being the thread)

Lizzi:

“…the thing we don’t have, is that natural inclination to participate in the commerce of social interaction ” ORLY? (L.)

“But…I LOVE making connections and talking to people. Perhaps I’m more scottian than I think.” (L.)

I did not say ‘make connections’ I used the words: ‘…participate in the commerce of social interaction’ (c)

we clarks loves to make connections… we are better at it, (making, discovering, illustrating and generally, pointing out to anyone near, the connections that exist between all things), than scotts and rogers are, if for no other reason than the fact that we are on the outside looking in/over/at the world. Who better to see connections, than the Outsider? (And, yes, I do note that you used the word ‘make’  we’ll come back to that.)
‘commerce‘ in the above statement is meant to imply an exchange that occurs between people when interacting within a social context.  It’s said that, ‘clarks think, scotts act and rogers feel’ and, from this, we can view this (social) exchange as a bartering among people. a scott will (offer) to do things: play games, yell at people, chase down those who would flee, make people do things… a roger is aware of the things that people feel attachment to, fear the effects of, or covet a place that another may occupy… and a clark, well, a clark knows stuff, creates (that which did not previously exist) and, above all, clarks see the inter-relatedness (the connections) among the parts and things and people of the world (all three worlds, if we’re to be accurate).

Trouble is…. clarks give their thing of value away for free. a clark is said to be the most generous and (willing to) share of the three personality types, ( “...hey did you know? …hey, I learned the coolest thing the other day, …by the way, you want to hear something really neat?“) which one might conclude is a good thing. Unfortunately, not counting gift-giving, most people do not place a large value on things that are offered without a price.  In this ‘commerce’ of social interaction there is (a) bartering going on and clarks suffer from 2 very significant weaknesses:

1. we learn and know and discover things, (mostly the connections among things), and recognize the limitlessness of this ‘commodity’ and are not concerned with getting an equal value in exchange (because we can always find more)
2. we do not (normally) demand the highest price in exchange of what we offer (in this commerce), because the one thing a clark fears the most, avoids at all costs is ‘scrutiny’  (and, yes, I will stop at this point and let the questions create themselves)

…so, that is a little additional Reply to our friend Lizzi’s Comment

******************************************

Denise:

“this morning my question concerns rogers…..what happens when a roger loses his/her “rogerian expression” (not through choice)?” (D.)

good question! in part because (the) ‘answer’ is an illustration of how the Wakefield Doctrine offers multiple uses, (i.e. fun and insight), for all of us. It, (the Wakefield Doctrine), is a metaphor and it’s an analog that allows us to see the world from another perspective. And, because we have these additional perspectives, we can frame our understanding different ways (fun)… ‘she is such a scott! you could see her nose twitching as soon as she stepped into the meeting hall full of engineers!‘… ‘I saw two clarks engaged in a conversation the other night… I’m pretty sure I did, but, of course nothing, including the logic of their exchange, can escape the gravitational pull of the black hole of two clarks in conversation‘  you know, like that!

so Denise’s question can be interpreted as: can a person lose the realness of their personal reality?  This can also be framed as: does the set of strategies and coping mechanisms that are the product of our growing up and developing in one of the three worldviews (that of the Outsider/clark, the world of the Predator/scott or the reality of the Herd Member/roger) eventually wear thin, become less and less the personal expression of how a person relates themselves to the world around them… can age (or circumstances) diminish the clarity of expression of (a) person’s personality type?

the best answer must start with a question: what is the ‘rogerian expression’?  (The short, but nevertheless useful answer is: ‘the rogerian expression is that which makes a roger feel as an individual while remaining a part of the Herd (which, by definition, does not recognize individual individuality…. ‘) lol   yes, more to follow.

****************************************

from the blogger formerly known as zoe (tbfkaz):

When I started reading Denise’s question and your answer I thought you were gonna answer the question ive been asking since I met you! Did you answer it? I think you may have avoided it and reworked the question! E for evolution. …can life circumstances cause a personal evolution into another predominant personality type? Not just we all do stuff sometimes. ..???????? Whaddya think? 

No, no I did not. Where I am heading, (with Denise’s question), is a consideration of what ‘the rogerian expression’* is and what happens when it diminishes (as has been observed in aging rogers), all in the service of a better understanding of a) the nature of the three worldviews and, 2) by inference, what is the potential value to self-improving ourselves?  are we to gain by better understanding of (the) characteristic of (one of) the three worldviews .

But, addressing what I hear is your question…. can we move, evolve or otherwise go from worldview-to-worldview, personality type-to-personality type?  the current answer is, ‘no’  the current answer will have to wait for later in the day, as it is quite involved (i.e. I don’t have the rhetorical skills to concisely express the idea that these worldviews are real, the world is as described, it is not my ‘choice’ to act as would an Outsider…. my acts (as an Outsider) are appropriate to the world, the reality that I am experiencing today, (in fact, the reality I was faced with as a small, young life form)…. having said that, there is an argument to be made for ‘catastrophic’ changes in one’s life and, therefore, (possibly), a change in the character of a person’s predominant worldview. You might be thinking, “yeah, sure,  but what about your much-vaunted secondary aspects, what about those? huh? well… answer me, dammit!!!” (lol)  the key element to our ‘behavior’,  is the energy that is involved…. (no, the following probably will not make any, ‘standalone’, sense….), if our behavior is not related to the world around us in a way that produces/conducts/returns energy, then it is a fad, an affectation and has nothing to do with a worldview…. (more to follow)

you know, I was just re-reading this Post and next month’s ‘Apples-to-Zuchinni Blog Challenge’, will be very productive provided the right words are found. Clearly there exists a need for a comprehensive yet simple outline of our little personality theory, especially now with newer Readers such as Val and Lisa and them joining us in our pursuit of better understanding the world around us. ya know?

* not to be confused with ‘a rogerian expression’!