Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
Well, yeah, with a subtitle like today’s, you’d have every right in the world to think, ‘heck! that’s good enough for me… thanks! Wakefield Doctrine!’
…but wait! there’s more! (if there is any Reader out there who did not see that coming, please write a Comment, I’d love to hear your opinion of the rest of this here Post here).
Blogdominion’ Chapter 5 is on the shelf…. or, being a serialized novel, would that be more properly, ‘is available’. I did, as a young clark, watch Saturday morning serials such as ‘Flash Gordon’. Each episode would end with what is referred to as ‘a cliff-hanger’. So if you would be so kind as to go and read the story (Prologue and Chapters 1-5) and let me know what you think of the series. Not just that you like it, though, if that’s all, then, as we say at ‘the Gravity Challenge’, ‘I’ll take it!’ I would welcome any reaction or impressions of the characters and the (developing plot).
Hey! How cool is that? I’m actually writing a Post asking Readers to go read something I wrote. That, Ladies and Gentleman, is the Wakefield Doctrine at it’s finest.
The Wakefield Doctrine is not only coolest, most fun way to understand the behavior of the people in our lives, it is also a very good tool for self-improving yourself. The reason this is true, (the part about being good for self-development), is that when most of us identify a need to change something about ourselves, (could be anything: elimination of bad habits, change in appearance, acquiring some longed for strengths), what almost inevitably happens is that we think that we have to learn something new, change our behavior in new and novel ways, and generally act differently. No! not necessary! (here’s why)
the Wakefield Doctrine is predicated on the idea that we all live in, what is best described as, a personal reality (aka worldview), and the Wakefield Doctrine holds that there are three characteristic worldviews that everyone finds themselves waking up to each morning, (i.e. predominant worldview, aka personality type):
- the reality of the Outsider (clarks) where from the day we became aware of ourselfs we have been trying to: a)hide our difference and 2)learn to be the way it seems everyone have learned to be, real and normal and self-accepting
- the life of the Predator (scotts) simple, dynamic, un-fettered by introspection, living to live…. loudly!
- the world of the Herd Member (rogers): certain and related, (related to the Herd which, in turn, conveys a sense of belonging that transcends locale and situational differences), for a roger, the Herd is always there, it just not not necessarily show itself
…ok, still with me? Now one of the under-lying principles of the Doctrine is that we are all born with the potential to find ourselves in any of these three realities and we always find one to grow up in, but we never lose the potential to experience the world as do ‘the other two’.
In other words, I have access to the world of the Predator and the world of the Herd Member. (In fact, the Doctrine allows that sometimes we have a more highly developed ‘secondary aspect’ and that shows in our behavior from time to time, but that’s a whole ‘nother Post.)
The thing of it is, when I decide I need to change or self-improve, it’s not like I have to learn something that is totally new, un-natural or inconsistent with who I am! All I have to do is find, in my case, the target behavior as it’s manifested in my scottian or my rogerian aspect.
OK! I’ve officially lost myself in this Post. lol so I’ll leave it right here. The truth of the matter is, most of the Readers of the Wakefield Doctrine know the Doctrine nearly as well as I do! So, any questions as to why the Wakefield Doctrine is so helpful for self-improvement?
About clarkscottroger
Ah, yes well. Self improvement. Given that we improve ourself, are Clarks ever satisfied with the improvement? Or is there always more striving involved?
Val
very good questions (not surprisingly)… it depends on your definition of self-improvement… we can improve our functioning (in society) we can improve our health (physically) the point your question is causing us to look at is
assuming that a clark sees self-improvement as a means to a happier, more satisfying and better life what (would) a clark see as the aspect of themselves to achieve this, fairly normally among rogers and scotts ambition
(being such a good question>lesson re our little Doctrine) let me throw it out to anyone reading this comment…. Lizzi? ( I know that you know the answer* even if you immediately tell yourself to shut up and come up with a better expressed answer) or Denise (as a clark surely her challenge is to make the answer simple and direct) speaking of simple and direct, is Christine or Dyanne in the house??! lol or Kristi, to hear from the rogerian worldview (no, zoe’s no fair, she has a way of cutting through things… ok, somebody go call zoe in from the yard)
lol no, I don’t think I have too much time on my hands! it’s your fault for the provocative comment
*not that there is a single answer, but the answer that would have most listeners say, ‘yeah, that’s it, I’ll bet!
ok as promised,
the business of clarks and self-improvement? If you’re thinking that clarks are, like totally into the self-improvement thing, you would be correct. clarks are and will say truthfully* will do anything for a shot at self-improving themselves. the problem** arises when we look at what a clark really means when he/she engages in the effort to improve themselves…
in fairness, before we go any further, I should remind everyone that we have the ‘Everything Rule’ for a reason and, it is by application of this wonderful Rule that we understand about clarks and self-improvement. The Everything Rule says that no matter what it applies to all three worldviews… wearing clothes, eating food, marrying raising children, keeping pets and building a deck on the back of the house those things (and everything else) ‘manifest’ differently in each of the three worldviews same thing different, though
so back to the self-improvement:
scotts self-improvement is a chance to be a better predator, maybe even find some new kind of fun in the hunt but it, self-improvement is not necessary… it’s a new catcher’s mitt, it’s a different Fashion Designers take on the Little Black Dress, it’s French mustard! fun, interesting, worth paying more for but it has nothing to do with who and what they are
rogers well, you hardly need me to tell you that self-improvement is an opportunity for a roger to lead by example not by results…. that fact of them engaging in self-improvement is the payoff… changing behavior is not
and clarks… (if you don’t see where this is going by now, I have failed in my Post writing)…. clarks see self-improvement as that better quality suit, the brand name that everyone it talking about, the new, improved and better cleaning detergent… because they know (or suspect (or might admit to if you cornered them in a kindly fashion) that) if they do the external things as well as the people they see around, they (the clarks) might be mistaken as being one of the people they see around them and, for a moment (or forever (but probably not)) become a real person.
and that is why clarks will be totally willing to try as many self-improvement programs as they can find but will not accept the results of their efforts, real or imagined
I hope this clears things up
Thank you Val, for a very good question!
*meaning that ‘they believe that they believe
So. We clarks should dispense with the notion that we can ever be “real”. The best we can do/hope for is to apply the “self-improvements” to enhance, embellish and otherwise promote a happy, rewarding life?.
almost…. we can (and should to seek to improve ourselfs) but we need to make every effort to degrade the notion of being unique and different in whatever manner works best, consistent with not fallen gin to the equal but opposite conceit of being the least of all (on some sort of secret merits) of people