Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
If you are of a certain age, you will recognize this person… a high jumper named Dick Fosbury who changed his sport in as fundamental a manner as possible. (Look him up)
Why, yes, yes we do.
So, here’s what you do today. When you interact with a person, take a second, in that vast gulf of time, between sentences* and consider the person before you:
- do they seem to be too full of energy (wild, spinning-top energy, not deep-in-the-heart-of-the-hyrdo-electric-plant energy), are they impulsively friendly, carelessly helpful and just a touch…. scary? Try: scott
- are you at ease, are they comfortable to talk to, do they ask questions, (related to the topic at hand), that not only are pertinent, but logical (anyone can ask, ‘did you cook for yourself last night’…. but some, upon gaining an assent, will request the list of ingredients, types of spices, brand of cookware, mood-level-while-working-to-prepare and ultimately, whether you would be happy to do it all again)…. go ahead and just put a ‘roger‘ next to that person’s face (metaphorically, of course… unless you’re a scott lol)
- you’re sure they’re there, they were just a minute ago, they seem sincere, well-meaning and quite well-informed… what you can understand…. there’s a distant look to their eyes and hunch to their posture and a thing that makes them seem always just getting back from somewhere else… clark
OK, now you’re ready to apply the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine.
The main thing to keep in mind, is that the Wakefield Doctrine is based on the idea that we all experience the world on a personal level. And, in this realm of personal reality, there are three characteristic ‘worlds’; the world of the Outsider(clarks), the planet of the Predators(scotts) and the life of the Herd Member(rogers). Lets use a common situation to illustrate this very central point,
You and I are sitting in a nice restaurant, it’s mid-afternoon, so the Lunch Hour Rush is over and the Evening has a couple of hours before putting in an appearance, our waiter/waitress** come(s) to our table and says, “Are you two ready to order?”
If you are a scott or a roger, what you will be experiencing will be different from what I experience. Same restaurant, same waiter/waitress way, very different personal reality…. so ask yourself, how would a reasonable person living in a world characterized as that of Predator and Prey, or a normal person react to a waitress/waiter when the world is, by nature, an orderly and understandable place? Because remember, this is not your typical personality theory, where they, like, say or imply, “you are prone to… you have a tendency… your preferences are such and such”. Those are all too common attempts to attribute ‘behavior to the type’, as if they were issued along with your personality (“Hey! clark personality types!!! line up here, here’s ya traits and tendencies, I gots your mumbling and putting your hands to your mouth, and here’s your pre-set choices in fashions all ready: girls? mix and match, gender obfuscation is the name of your game, guys? black is good….”)
The Wakefield Doctrine is different. You have the personality traits that you have, because they are the strategies that you’ve found most successful as you grow from tiny child, fully engaged in the effort to cope with and try(ing) to succeed in a world in which you are the Outsider or you are a Predator or, a Herd Member.
Simple. Right?
HEY! Chapter 15 is on the newsstands everwhere! So go read it and tell me if you’re enjoying it. (I’m always curious about who a person’s favorite characters are… don’t be shy tell who you like the most and who you would like to trip as they walk by!)
* clarks will understand this, if you are not a clark and you understand this, thank your secondary clarklike aspect. If you insist, a fuller explanation…roger one evening, many years ago, I was in a discussion with a fair-sized group of people, (meaning not on a date or with a friend or two), in any event, we’re all sitting around and the topic centers on the challenges inherent in verbal communication, whether intimate or public, so I figure I should try and contribute to the pool of ideas that was forming (yeah, a lot of rogers there), so, in the next pause, (somewhere between ‘intentional lies and being misunderstood’), I said, “You know, my problem in conversations usually is about what to do with all that time between sentences” pins hit the floor like anvils off a factory roof. fun times!
**the Wakefield Doctrine is gender neutral, which is to say, a female scott and a male scott (and rogers and clarks, of course) are relating themselves to the world around them the same way…. their manner of behavior(s) may differ but the similarities totally out-weigh any differences observed. The Doctrine is about how human beings relate themselves to the world around them, not how men or women…. for that matter, lets just remember, this Doctrine is also culture and age neutral.
About clarkscottroger
Frist.
In that restaurant scenario, I know for sure I’d be ordering a glass of red wine.
lol…. good, but ‘what is’ a waitress asking if you’re ready to order?
hint: is it a challenge (to your right to be there), is it an opportunity to hunt/an occasion to flee, or is it a confirmation of your fulfilling the role (of diner)?
this is what we refer to as ‘manifesting’ which is to say, for example, how does having dinner in a restaurant manifest in the reality of the clark or scott or roger
excellent comment! brings out what I (should) have written in the post!
I am very interested in this but I feel as though I picked up in the middle. I don’t want tons of background (roger if I remember) just enough to understand a bit better. I am all over that waitress by the way. I’ll order for the rest of you too if you give me the nod.
welllll! (so, lets deal with the waitress first! is she the help or is she on the menu?)
believe it or not, your questions are the basis for your answers! (yes, the Doctrine is that powerful and that cool)
You’re not so much stuck in the middle of the process, as seeing alternate approaches to the insights offered by the Doctrine, two basic approaches:
a) the traditional approach: learn the characteristics of the three worldviews, look at the world through each of these (as if they were glasses) the one of the three that provides the ‘clearest’ imagine is your predominate worldview (and this approach can be applied to the behavior of others)
2) pose the question to yourself (or on behalf of the other person) “how do I relate myself to the world around me” as a clark or a scott or a roger…. btw the wording of this approach is quite deliberate…. ‘how a person relates themselves to the world around them’ not how a person relates to the world… big difference
hey thank you for the questions I totally appreciate it and if you have any other questions (well, yeah, I do kinda know what other questions you might ask…. but, then, that’s the Doctrine for ya)
I’ll tell anyone who is new to the Doctrine, it’s well worth the investment in time, in learning. It’s an incredible life tool. Truly. For me, as a clark, to better understand what makes a roger “tick” is huge. And! I’ve plain old grown to enjoy the fun of knowing the Doctrine :D
I don’t have only 1 favorite character in Blogdomion. I’m rather fond of Margaret and Maribeth. Stephen Eddington might make the list soon though :)
Apparently I have a significant scottian aspect because people tell me I ooze enthusiasm and energy. Interesting…never thought about that before.
I’m reading this book called “Type Talk” at work that talks about the different personalities on the job. Granted, the Doctrine isn’t about personality type, but I couldn’t help but wonder: I have an employee who, I think, actually has the same personality type as mine. BUT, instead of being a clark, I actually think she’s a roger in the way she interacts with people. So very interesting this worldview/personality stuff. I’m a lifelong student. ;)
definitely with the secondary scottian aspect (I remember your first meditation video you did, it totally jumped out at me (your scottian aspect, not the video))
your employee (who might be a clark)…. the extent of rogerian aspect can be measured in the ‘yes, but’ density….lol
Oh AND…people with my personality type are supposed to be great “listeners” – I find that I’m more of a talker, I think. I don’t always listen when I should. So when I look up there…that fits. Easy to talk to? Maybe but…I don’t get the vibe that people always see me as their counselor. SOMETIMES I’m their emotional dumping ground, but I think that’s different than being the rogerian “easy to talk to.” I think people see clarks as, “you’re a wallflower. You won’t care if I tell you this or that.”
it’s funny how we talk (when listening)… we most often will reflect back what the person is saying… sort of what I seem to be doing now! lol
definitely people feel they can tell us anything, because, I suspect that they sense that it (whatever they tell us) will go no further… it’s weird, but most clarks have a default setting for protecting the privacy of/keeping the confidences of the person who would confide in us
It is inherent in clarks to hold “private” that which is told in confidence or in the guise of confidence. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the person doing the talking cares whether we keep it private or not. A scott most likely wouldn’t care and rogers (come to find out) will, more often than not, request confidentiality if they believe it’s warrented.
I once confided some things to a roger. I mistakenly assumed, due to the nature of what was discussed, that it would go no further. I was wrong. When I asked the other roger why they told person X what I thought I was revealing in confidence, the roger replied, “you didn’t tell me to keep it confidential. If you didn’t want me to tell anyone, you should have asked me to keep it confidential.”
My first reaction was “WTF”. You couldn’t tell by the nature of the conversation it wasn’t something I wanted shared with the general population?!”
rogers like to blame people for shit
…(elaboration: depending on how upset you were in the situation above… if you were genuinely upset, then the roger would have assumed the role of the victim and accuse you of ‘crimes against the roger’)
lol
I should probably get to work now…lol