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

So we were talking on the Saturday Night Call-in this past weekend. ‘We’ being Denise and Cynthia and myself. And we got on the topic of writing blog posts and the ‘early days’. Cynthia was already ‘here’, I met her at ‘the Facebook’ (and the FTSF bloghop, I believe), and Denise showed up in the ‘sphere shortly thereafter.

The level of creative output, ‘then versus now’, is invariably a topic when bloggers reminisce about ‘the early days in the ‘sphere’. There’s never a dispute that we wrote more (or, at very least, posted more frequently), the interesting question, of course, is ‘Why (the slower/lesser)?’

The short answer: we were young. Which, in the true, underlying intent of this post and topic, raises the question: What does the Wakefield Doctrine say about youth, being young, acting your age and be careful what you wish for?*¹ 

(Quick reminder: we’re born with the potential to live in any of the three worldviews. Even though we settle into one at a very early age (like, 2 or 3 years old), we spend the childhood years learning the ropes. And this…this is at the heart of the difference between the Doctrine and all the other perfect-insight-into-a-total-stranger’s-inner-self, personality systems. The aggressiveness, impulsiveness, and tendency to act before thinking that are hallmarks of the scottian personality is exactly the correct way to act…provided you grew up in the reality of the Predator. The world of eat-or-be-eaten, run-or-get-caught, requires an entirely different set of skills than does the world of the Herd Member or the life of the Outsider. We don’t get all hung up about sufficient/insufficient, appropriate or maladaptive behavior here, it’s about ‘what did you have to learn, what was the style of coping with the world was required to get through childhood?‘ A scott lives in the reality of the Predator. Their strategies of interaction (with the world around them) is perfect. In the world of Predators. As it is with clarks and rogers. I’ve said too much already.)

the Wakefield Doctrine’s position on youth and childhood?:

1. clarks are born old (and know it and try, unsuccessfully at first, to hide it)
2. scotts are born late into adolescence  (and enjoy every minute of it and barely notice the difference between adults and children)
3. rogers are born young and carefree (they are secure and not in a hurry as the world is clearly a reasonable and orderly place… all they have to do is learn the Rules)

So, what did we conclude from our shared insights discovered as we drove through the streets and avenues of Wakefield? While improving one’s skill, (in this context, writing) is certainly desirable, maintaining the enthusiasm, (see!?! what I just wrote?  that is the thought of an ‘old(er)’ person. ‘Why, yes. It’s certainly an admirable goal to make an effort to continue doing what you enjoy doing, provided it doesn’t get out of control.’  lol

No, we all need to nurture our inner scottian natures. Except for the scotts… they have to nurture their inner clarklike aspect. And rogers? oops outa time…. ask us in a comment! I promise to answer.

1) (I suspect that only Denise and Cynthia will get this abbreviated footnote, at least in the context of our discussion this weekend. Ed.) Oh man! I can’t end a sentence with ‘for’…. thats, like, against one of the Seven Cardinal Rules of Grammar! Or it’s the difference between a B- and C+*

* this may seem a minor and totally inconsequential difference in grades, unless you’re a clark…. or a roger (‘cept for totally different reasons)  for a clark, it’s the difference between a kiss and a handshake on the porch… both are in the realm of surprisingly successful, but the promise of the former creates an immeasurable gap between the two in terms of value. for a roger? Letters are elements of the Herd. Need I say more?