Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
Well! for someone who hasn’t exactly been burning up the ‘inter-wires’* I am displaying a rather clarklike over-ambition in my subtitle today, no? Perhaps it would be for the best that I bullet-point the few things/ideas/concepts that I would like to cover this morning, then, …as any good clark knows. ‘if I fail, I’ll only have myself to blame‘ (or is that, ‘if I fail, I’ll have only myself to blame.’?) hmmm. whatever, never mind, on to the bullet points:
- identification
- using the Wakefield Doctrine to improve one’s life today
- the basics of the Wakefield Doctrine
There! That makes me feel a little better.
Quick Quizz!! That last statement is a reflection of which of my three worldview/aspects?
- predominant worldview: clark aka the world of the Outsider (“ I’m here and the world’s out there…“)
- secondary aspect: scott the Predator (“If it moves, chase it… if it ignores you… what?? what kind of non-sensical statement is that?!!)
- tertiary aspect: roger the Member of the Herd ( the world is potentially perfect, therefore I have the potential to be perfect, as long as everyone plays their part correctly things will be just….perfect!”)
…. I’ll come back later and discuss the answer.
Identification is the term we use to describe what happens when clarks recognize other clarks. (yes, rogers and scotts can, and, in fact, do recognize each other in the world. Their response is a function of their worldviews, but we started out talking about clarks and identification… alright, alright fine! real quick review:
- scotts recognize other scotts and will challenge (the other), establish ranking, divide the hunting grounds and go their separate ways… you’re at a party? and you have reason to believe that there is more than one scott in attendance… once you spot one, (of the scotts), look to the area, (where this is all taking place), farthest away. that’s where you’ll find ‘the other scott‘
- rogers recognize other rogers by identifying the clarks or the scotts… no, seriously! (you have ‘done the reading’ haven’t you?! everyone is a part of the Herd and therefore are rogers…except those who are not. the Herd is celebrated by identifying the non-Herd members)… at that same party? rogers are the people who form the groups, and, of these groups, the rogers are the ones nearest the center without being either the center or the outer edges, (those two positions are for the scott and the clarks, respectively)
…back on topic. clarks stand to benefit the most from a) the Wakefield Doctrine and 2) the identificationing with other clarks.
…now I have to stop for today. I’ve a Post over at ‘the 2 Mile Run’ to post and need to get to work.
… oh shit!! the third bullet-point… the Basics of the Wakefield Doctrine (for the new Readers) ok, look, assume that what you experience is (potentially) different than what your, wife/boyfriend/co-worker/pupils/surly repairman that you interact with today, is experiencing. Nothing weird…no talking mailboxes or flying wrenches…. just different. Now imagine that the way (the world is different for each of us) can be described from three perspectives:
- the world as experienced by the Outsider (clarks) these people are not ‘a part of’ the world or of a particular group of people or anything…. not deep down inside, where it counts… these people see the world as an external place that they are visiting (nice enough people, a bit skittish and a tendency to mumble, but really funny when you get to know them)
- the life of the Predator (scotts) this worldview, (thats the term we use for the personal reality that we all experience life in)…. is easy to describe: excitable, friendly mercurial, aggressive, attractive, (did we mention, aggressive?)… they’re the friend you had in school who was always in trouble and, somehow getting you in trouble too, yet, now that you think of it, you’re not mad at them
- the reality of the Herd Members (rogers)… the world is a quantifiable place. 2 plus 2 always…always!! equals 4 (I mean, it never once has a chance to equal anything but 4!! sheesh!) they’re the engineers, the accountants, the head of the Year Book committee, the pledge committee, the Ways and Means Committee (you’re getting the sense of the group thing here, right?) good friends, reliable advice… emotional and tend to get upset with things that don’t go according to Plan
OK… so everyone you meet today will be relating to the world from one of these three perspectives. Figure out which (the other person is) and you will know more about them than they know about themselves.
…write us some comments and questions and such!
* source: I believe our friend Lizzi gets credit for this little gem of a meme
About clarkscottroger
I’d have a lot better chance of being Frist if I didn’t have to type my name and email every time. Just saying.
FRIST!
And I’m gonna answer roger. Maybe?
cha ching!
(I am impressed… that is exactly correct)
FRIST
is that a new phone or location? the blog is set on: ‘no moderation for anyone what already has written a comment, ya know’*
no quite how wordpress describes it, but it only holds up ‘strange addresses or IPs or whatever the hell it looks for in the comment’
Roger, yes. The concise perfectness of the bulleted list. The party scenarios are great. I’m always the quiet, outside observer – Clarkish.
lol… you are both correct parties (or any social gathering) is always fun with the Doctrine. It’s by practice that you are able to recognize predominant worldviews rapidly enough to be useful (in applying the insights made available by our little personality theory).
I got nuthin.
given my rate of writing these, I would not feel too bad… although… since I have you on the line, I’m trying to get back to the basics for the putative New Readers.
Being closer to a New Reader than I am, what 2 questions would you feel would help get the most out of this thing…provided it (the question, not the Doctrine) was answered simply and directly?
I gotta think … I will come back…. but first why dont you ask a new reader?
good God I hope I didnt sound like a total snot with that…no inflection online to help you sound curious! I was just thinking that most of your readers even the new ones have enough anchor to formulate a question about this here doctrine here. And I recall you asking this when I was a new reader as well… maybe I will go back in the archives!?
well, I would be the last person to think that far be from me…..
lol (hey you know the trick for italics: oh really? ) Hey! it imposed the effect of the code (italics) thereby making my point… invisible. anyway lets try this, ’cause italics are so important…. < em > and bracket anything with the < > with em inside and then < > /em and there you have it!
because I know that you surely did not deliberately intend to sound like…. lol sorry, I love the fun of sarcasm (even if it’s only in my head)
this would be cool if it wasn’t starting to get annoying… you use < as brackets and in side of the you put 'em' and at the end of the thing you want in italics you put '/em' without the quotes…. lets see if that works
\em
Uh…well….ahem….
DAMMIT! What am I doing wrong?
Haha hahaha snork. …that last one was empty….like my freaking head!
yeah…. this is the digital version of invisi-fricken-ink write the html code correctly and it cannot show up! lol
the way I learned: when you’re in edit mode on a post you have the regular view and a text view which shows the html code involved… so get a new post type a word and then italicize it the normal way and then switch the view to the Text/html and you will see, bracketing the italicized word the code. note that there is something in brackets and on the ‘far end’ the same thing will be repeated but with a / in it
so even if I cant italicize I did about your question. In the beginning I always had issue with understanding that it was ones perception of the world and most frequent behaviors within it as a reaction that determined which of the three they may be…. I also sometimes still have issues with its for you not them or however that goes… see what I mean?
woohoo! IT WORKED!
damn! that’s a great question that’s a great question that’s a great question
(single most useful trick in Commenting-ville!)
but yeah, that’s a question (and I’ll try to incorporate it in the post tomorrow)… in it’s simplest form, it’s a reassertion of personal responsibility and (a reminder) that we can’t change the other person… (except, if we really work hard on changing/improving ourselves, they will change) (Eric Berne is surely rolling over in his grave or bed, depending on if he’s still alive or not)