Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
Readers are familiar with my own theory of writer block* will immediately recognize what I’m up to, but the fact remains, I haven’t posted here since Monday and if it takes a gimmick to jumpstart a Post, I’m all for it.
the Wakefield Doctrine is:
- a perspective on human behavior, an additional way of understanding the people in our lives
- based on the idea that all of live, to a certain, but very real extent, in a reality that is personal
- comprised of three personality types that represent the world, as experienced by all of us as we grow up
- clarks who grow up in a world in which, not only are they outside and apart from what they believe is the society of normal, happy and satisfied people, but are driven by the false belief that it is a problem for their mind to overcome, as opposed to their hearts
- scotts running and chasing, celebrating the life of the predator, emotions un-tethered by long-term relationships, fight or flight being the simple way of the world, living for the day and holding nothing back, against a future that they simply do not have the time to waste worrying about
- rogers who know that the world holds the Answer and they carry the responsibility to find and demonstrate the Right Way, at least demonstrate it to the Herd that has always been around them, since they can remember, they belong and their only fear is that they will be judged, by the Herd as being …un-worthy
the Wakefield Doctrine is not:
- ‘the Answer’… it does not claim the end all and be all of explanations for Life, aggravating people, the search for Peace in the World or an answer to the question: who is it that makes up the audience for most cable tv shows??! including but not limited to Honey Boo Boo or the one about over-weight guys with bad teeth or those people on the real estate shows where the guys act like girls and the women act like…. girls
- the only way to better understand personality types, there would appear to be as many personality theories as there are people with the ego and access to undergraduate psych students, who can be cajoled into doing, pretty much anything, at least enough to generate the statistics to support their personality schema
- all serious and solemn and such
The Wakefield Doctrine is a unique, useful and fun way to look at the people in our lives. Skillful use of the Doctrine will allow you to know more about the other person, than they know about themselves. You need never hear yourself say, “how could they go and do such a thing!! I really thought I knew them better than that!”
*simply that when (most of us) experience ‘writer’s block’, it’s because we are out of ideas and things to write about and such… it’s like our internal critic has just gotten back from the gym and is all pumped up on the pheromones of personal competition (your writer is of the Y Chromosome persuasion and will stand by this statement, for my people, however, I cannot speak for the other side. Maybe you people don’t have a competition machine, cranking itself at the slightest hint of the presence of a bigger more powerful er….machine. In fact, I’m tempted to suggest that the X Gender-ettes do not have that same sense of the value of winning, of pounding your opponent into the ground, thoroughly defeated, a whole-hearted embracing of sportsmanship.
I submit for evidence: A number of years ago, while channel-surfing, I happened upon a College Women’s Basketball game. It was the last game of a national championship series or something. Anyway, one of the players, on one of the teams, (pretty sure it was the University of Connecticut Go!! Huskies), was 2 points away from setting a national record. Her team got the rebound, all 10 young women race down the court, she gets the ball and… everyone stopped moving. no, really, they (yes, I mean the opposing team…all five of them) stop playing and stood around as the-about-to-set-a-womens-individual-all-time-scoring-record player, continues on to the basket and layer up for the 2 pointer. She didn’t seem to notice that, like one of those episodes of Twilight Zone, the world and everyone in it froze in time, 10 basketball player statues on a real like basketball court and her. She broke the record. I think everyone hugged everyone else.
I didn’t get it. I still don’t.
Oh man! I’ve totally forgotten about the Post up there! See?!?! that’s what I mean about writer’s block! Any other time, or any other writer with a modicum of pride, would have said to themselves, “no! you’re not going to write about the lack of competitiveness in the womanly race. you’re not that clever a writer, your Readers will all get mad…worse they’ll just ignore you. lets find a topic that’s subtle and reflective of the human need to reach out to the universe and become one… or, that personality theory of yours. that’s always a safe bet.”)
About clarkscottroger
frist?
Frist!
Y and X and the basketball game. The thing about Y’s is they pound someone competitively, win and shake hands and it’s over. X’s might be more cooperative and supportive of one another mostly, but the competition will never end. (From an x’s perspective).
but what’s with the standing still (not part of the game they were playing, nor a part the process (of) which the record was to be broken)… it seems to me, speaking for the Y Chrome-race (the dearth of fellow….er members here in the blogosphere is kinda weird*) the stopping of the game would take away some of the good feeling of the accomplishment. you know, it’s a record of over-coming the competitors so what does that last point say, ‘we all share in this…victory?
now, here’s an odd thing… of your comment, the part that jumped out (at me) was “…but the competition will never end. (From an x’s perspective).” There is something about that, that makes me think, ‘now just what is that supposed to mean? lol
when I think about competition (here in Y Chromia, there is no sense of wistfulness to ‘it will never end’ it’s more so integral apart of the world as not to be separably noticed… like, ‘this breathing will never end’
ya know?
*or maybe it’s just me… being weird, that is
I’m talking about that passive-aggressive kind of competition that lurks under the surface of most Xs. Perhaps it is most prevalent in the Scottian view, however, also appears in the other worldviews. (She said, as if she seemed to know what she was talking about, herself).
ok… and no, you are correct if you are making a distinction among female women, relative to worldview, scotts (men and women) have that aggressive thing going and it’s only society’s insistence on a social standard for competition that keeps them in check, but games and sports… and exercise and such scottian women tend to shed the sheep’s shirts lol
interesting
In sports yes I can see both your points about the Scottian world view but in terms of everyday passive-aggressive behavior… there is nothing like an aggressive roger.
good point… Everything Rule imposed, aggressive rogers are not the most enjoyable competitors, mostly by virtue of how personally they take the competition. scotts tend to be more tolerable (seeing how it is intrinsic to the life in the pack to compete constantly for ranking)… if you’ve ever observed 2 scottian males (in high school) get into a fight… classic! they fight and then they are ‘buddies’ having established ranking (between each other only).
An alpha peeing on of the territory as it were.
is there any doubt (for the male scotts) question is, do scottian females exhibit the same territoriality? We know that they simply have to be there in the room for the rogers to gather like barnacles… or is that shells of a clam? lol
no, I think Scotians females can exhibit. But I think probably with less consistency than males do. and when I say consistency I don’t mean per individual I mean as a group that some will some won’t.
staying with the, what we started out referring to as the ‘initial behavioral paradigm’, i.e. predator, it’s easy to see that, when it comes to simple aggressiveness, scottian females manifest it in the social-sexual arena, but perhaps competitiveness is not simply an aspect of aggressiveness… (all I need is a background in sociology…and psychology to go along with my Doctorate in… Doctrinology and I might be able to get out of this Comment without totally looking like I’m floundering…
lol
ya know?
Well done SIgmund.
I think it might be a “Yes, we are competitors, but deep down we want to see everyone excel” thing. Kind of the opposite of the Jeffrey R. Holland quote: “Obviously we suffer a little when some misfortune befalls us, but envy requires us to suffer all good fortune that befalls everyone we know! What a bright prospect that is—downing another quart of pickle juice every time anyone around you has a happy moment!” Share in the happiness, that sort of thing.
… interesting I suspect that underneath it is a (gender) difference in how a person projects their (self) interest onto the world. Women maybe be (more) capable of projecting the altruistic on to individuals, while men are more inclined (when doing it at all!) to project on to the group, i.e. the pack or the group. what a cool topic not certain, since this is the first quote from Jeffrey, but I get a sense of the rogerian from his statement.