Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
Friend of the Doctrine, Kristi Brierley, in a comment yesterday, posed a question that caused me to think, ‘I really need to write a post about it’. It’s a measure of how my writing has shifted and changed in the last couple of years. Now most of my keyboard time is spent with ‘Almira‘, zoe’s Six Sentence Story and, of course, the TToT, as a result, the frequency of Doctrine posts is way down. Funny to think about how things change, I distinctly remember the early years of this blog when I couldn’t write the posts fast (or frequently) enough. There was a time when I would write a Post about the label on a pickle jar. No, seriously, here: ‘Always Chilled….Never Heated‘
However, today’s post is keying off Kristi’s question/comment:
I think you’ve addressed this a bit before, but this post got me wondering about your ideas about clarks, scotts, and rogers and aging. (Not that I’m calling anyone old.) Are clarks more comfortable being uncomfortable? Do rogers care less about pack mentality? Do scotts think, “Oh, well. It’s not worth the pursuit.”?
How do we age? Or rather, what unique, (and hopefully useful) insight does the Doctrine offer those of us with friends and family entering the category of ‘the aged’, as opposed to simply being ‘older.’
Rather than attributing characteristic behaviors and interests to a given personality type, the Wakefield Doctrine looks to how (the individual) experiences the world around them. In terms of Kristi’s comment, the question becomes, ‘would an interest (or predilection or characteristic behavior) be subject to wearing out, running down, becoming decrepit or otherwise aging?’ It is certainly (and unfortunately) safe to say that with age, our facilities (‘our facilities’ to make the obvious rogerian expression joke) suffer from the effects of time. Our eyes lose their prowess and blurry replaces sharp, ears surrender their ability to discriminate and words go from aperitif to goulash, our stomach and lungs and other body-part-related functioning slows and becomes unreliable. The reverse of the infant, in their determined efforts to work and talk like the tall people that surround them, we become less able.
The Wakefield Doctrine does not, however, focus on interests and predilections, characteristic behaviors. The Wakefield Doctrine proposes that we live in a personal reality that conforms to one of three characteristic worldviews: the of the Outsider(clarks), the Predator(scotts) and the Herd Member(rogers). And so, the better question to ask is, ‘how does an old Outsider, the Senior Predator, the mature Herd Member relate themselves to the world around them(selves)? The same, just slower. more deliberately and, if possible more peevishly.
Now that we’re all picturing: lions with missing teeth, cattle sleeping (while still moving with the herd, more being carried by the Herd) and weird people hiding in the background, while forgetting that there’s no one staring, lets consider the element in Kristi’s observation that is very perceptive. Secondary aspects.
The Doctrine holds that we all are born with the potential to experience the world as one of three characteristic personal realities. It also maintains that we never lose the potential of the ‘other two’. And, in fact, some of us, have what is referred to as a ‘significant secondary aspect’. In direct response to her founding question: “(do clarks, with age) become more comfortable with being uncomfortable?” No. But I am inclined to say that, with the slowing of (my) response to my predominant worldview, it is very possible that my secondary aspect becomes more prominent. And my secondary aspect is scottian.
I do, in fact, know people in whom their secondary aspect is becoming more and more pronounced. And, while it’s always been (a) goal of mine to develop both my secondary and tertiary aspects, in people who are not deliberately and consciously trying to do this, it can be confusing (and) disturbing.
….more to follow!
Thanks for the great question, Kristi!
About clarkscottroger
Are you suggesting that a mid-life crisis is the result of an undeliberate/unconscious attempt to develop a secondary or tertiary aspect? That’s what the end of your post made me think.
I’m thinking that mid-life (in certain people) might have them put more energy into their secondary aspect than they might otherwise have. The matter of secondary aspects is under-studied (on my part). I know they’re there… I have a secondary scott, you have a secondary clark… a friend of mine is a scott with a secondary roger!
The difficulty in understanding secondary aspects is judging whether they are a matter of experiencing a different predominant worldview or are they simply a matter of acquiring traits and behaviors appropriate to the secondary and those (traits and behaviors) are incorporated into the person’s day to day life. The Doctrine says, our personality types (and characteristics) are the best approach to interacting with the world as we experience it.
More to follow….
Yes, thank you Kristi for your comment. This is a fascinating topic.
It would seem to me (as a clark) that how we relate ourselves to the world (as clark, scott or roger) would simply intensify as we age. Yet, it also makes sense that for those of us who have or are in the process of developing our secondary aspects (and tertiary, there would be more of a “balancing” act.
But then, the lightbulb turned on – how does aging manifest for a roger, for a scott? What does aging represent to a roger or a scott? or to a clark?
I’ll stay tuned for the “more to follow”. Too tired right now and my brain is hanging upside down:D
I suspect that aging is, like gravity, birthdays and love, a force that affects the world irregardless of the worldview. The Everything Rule should then be used to consider such questions as: of the three who would be most likely to dye their hair (and why), what happens when the world at large tries to impose limits in reflection of age and, speaking of secondary aspects, do they come forward or does the predominant recede.
(please prepare a 1200 word response, with particular attention to gender and social niceties (except, of course, in the context of the scotts)
Interesting. This changes my perspective a bit. I didn’t start reading the doctrine until I might be considered aging by some (even though inside I’m 21 or 34). So maybe the Clark/Scott I thought I was is really a Roger/Clark or a Roger/Scott. Is there such thing as a Clark/Clark? I’m sure I could answer that question.
Golden Rule (of determining predominant worldview: throw out the ‘no way!’ first and then try the remaining two in a side-by-side comparison, like those eye tests… does this response seem more natural or less natural….how about this…. and this?)
Curious. Interesting topic! I…wouldn’t say I’m more comfortable with my own social awkwardness, I just have found many ways to limit situations in which I’d find myself “awkward,” if that makes sense.
But I don’t know…if I were a student in middle school today, knowing what I know now, I’d do even more things to avoid all the noise and chaos and find those people that would validate my feelings, to help me understand that, in fact, I’m normal. :P
That said, I wouldn’t return to middle school if someone PAID me. That was the height of awkwardness going into 9th grade. At least now I have a tribe of awkwards so I don’t feel so awkward. Haha.
Hope your week’s going well. Second week with the kids and new tutors. It’s like organized chaos. But just barely. We’ll get there. :P
Good Point (as usual). The very definition of the clarklike worldview is (in part and kinda self-paraphrased*) one who feels uncomfortable in the world of real people. Pretty much everyone ‘cept for other clarks who, for the most part are also busy blending into the background…lol It’s not that rogers and scotts in middle school don’t field awkward at times** but it is all about the ‘why’ they feel that way (which, naturally, causes an instant and spontaneous Feynman Diagram… for each worldview, the definition of the particles are different as are the resultant trajectory…. consider the scott: new environment, need to establish ranking, pick a fight! (not a mean fight, a for-fun-and-a natural-life, fight) same for them rogers.
Alas! (in theory) even if we could go back in time, we would remain Outsiders (better equipped, more confident, but still Outsiders)
Second week with the kids and new tutors. It’s like organized chaos. But just barely.
there is where you excel… chaos is the enemy of rogers and the scary ghost for scotts… clarks fricken thrive in chaos (cause, ‘how can they be sure we don’t belong when everything is always changing?’ ;p)
*yeah, that is a bit rogerian an expression
** that ole Everything Rule, again