Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

(Refresher: the Wakefield Doctrine maintains that we, all of us, are born with the potential to experience reality, (and the world). in one of three characteristic manners: as does (an) Outsider (clarks) or a Predator (scotts) or the Herd Member (rogers). At a certain early age, (the Doctrine tells us), we settle into one of these three ‘worldviews’; we become clarks or scotts or rogers. We do not lose the potential to relate to the world as do ‘the other two’, they are available if we but find ways to access them.

The Wakefield Doctrine wears the label of ‘personality theory’, but it really isn’t. What it really is, is a perspective on the world, the people in our lives and our ownselfs. The Doctrine is a tool for adding to, enhancing our understanding (of the world and the people and ourselves), but has little interest in any whys or wherefores. The goal is to add to our understanding and appreciation of ‘how we relate ourselves to the world around us‘. (Not, ‘how we relate to the world around us’, rather ‘how we relate ourselves to the world around us’. Big difference.)

And so, since it, (the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) is nothing more than an additional perspective, what good is it?*

The cool thing about self-improvement and the Wakefield Doctrine is that we don’t have to acquire anything that we don’t already possess. Thinking that you need to learn to be more demonstrative, more accessible on an emotional level? No problem, your rogerian aspect will totally help. Need to temper your temper, pre-empt your impulsiveness? You have a clarklike aspect. Feel like you want to task risks, leave behind the caution and conservativeness? Just check in with your scottian aspect.

So it’s all there, provided you can let it out. And that will be the topic of our next post.

*  The extent to which a new idea is accepted and embraced by others is very much influenced by the claims made by the originator (of such ideas). It is not about providing the answer to the ‘what’, as it is about making the answer to the challenging question of ‘what’s in it for me?’ immediately clear. Even more so, it depends upon providing this information cloaked in the appearance of being widely accepted and incontrovertibly true and certain. (Which, for one of the three worldviews, is a totally redundant description).  If this is a valid observation¹, my own predominant worldview is very much a factor. Not in a good way. Let me explain².

It will help to consider this: there are three jobs/occupations/avocations/hobbies/styles-of-effort-to-influence-those-around-us. (Yes, just three).

The three jobs are: scientist, salesman and machine operator.

The scientist is concerned with a world of ideas, reveling in explanations and laboring to refine proofs of principles that underlie the workings of the world and (especially) the people in it. The salesman lives for the people they encounter each day, it is not simply about getting them to buy his/her product (or service or convictions or willingly-submit-to-whatever-it-is-the-salesman-wants…at that particular moment), it is about the interaction/negotiation/the ‘Close’. The machine operator lives for the precise execution of rules and laws, relationships and ideals, they find joy (and frustration) in learning the correct way to do job/cook a meal/build a society/live life.

As you’ve probably guessed, each of our three ‘personality types’ is more appropriate to one of these jobs than the others³.

1. clarks (Outsiders): scientists. if you think hard and observe the world around you, the rules that people follow to feel a part of the group will become knowable. (Career recommendations: school teacher (elementary or college), nurse (pediatric or geriatric) sheepherder, librarian, counselor (effective but not successful), one-term politician)
2. scotts (Predators): salesmen… I don’t really need to give examples here, do I? The guy on TV, the politician, the early developer in school doesn’t care if you buy or not (well, sorta) that they get to try to get you to (buy what they have/believe what they want you to/do what they feel like doing is what life is all about. (Career suggestions and ideas: cop (or robber), surgeon (but not physician and totally not an oncologist), nurse (charge nurse) teacher (High School industrial Arts, Gym or French…)
3. rogers (Members of the Herd): machine operator.. precision is the result of following the rules and precise application of the rules is how you get to that point, there is a right way to do everything (add and subtract/machine aircraft parts/play in a symphony/treat cancer/live life… being the best among many is its own reward. (Careers: Accountant, attorney (prosecuting) physician (oncologist), chemist, scientist, philatelist, chef (but not cook), firefighter politician (successful, multi-term)

That’s about all we have time for today. Thanks for coming by.

….the point? My misgivings about how I present the Wakefield Doctrine? Wellll I guess to learn the answer, you’ll just have to keep reading the posts.

1)  see!?!?! damn!

2) enough with the explanation!! tell ’em what it’ll do for them!

3) the Wakefield Doctrine has something called ‘the Everything Rule’. It states, somewhat obviously, that ‘everyone does everything, at one time or another’. What that means is even though the most effective police (in the present culture) are scotts, that does not mean that there are no clarklike or rogerian police men and women. And, chemists are more likely to be rogers, yet you can find scotts and clarks in that profession. (look for the exploding laboratories). The point is, how well one does in a profession or job is very much related to how (that) job or profession manifests to them. One of the reasons that rogers make excellent accountants is that, for them, the world is quantifiable and knowable. So working with numbers is a joy, in and of itself.