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

(Photo by Jude Domski/WireImage)

We interrupt the previously drafted post for this, Part Two, carried over from yesterday.

The post that we’re pre-empting was to have been about clarks and relationship. That is deliberately the singular, ‘relationship’. You’ll have to come back tomorrow to find out why.

On to Columbus, rogers, the Everything Rule and … Alton Brown.

I stumbled upon a rerun of ‘Good Eats’ last night. ‘Good Eats’ is the show that got me into watching cooking shows. That’s all the more impressive, given that I’m not particularly into eating, much less cooking. But I will watch Good Eats because of Alton Brown. He is a clark. He teaches us way more stuff than Martha Stewart and Emeril whatshisname. Way more.

(New Readers: there are three personality types in the Wakefield Doctrine. These three, clarks, scotts and rogers are what they are because of the character of the world they grew up and developed in. clarks learned to negotiate life by growing up in the world of the Outsider, scotts honed their skills by surviving in the world of the Predator and rogers were at home in the world of the Herd Member. We’re not trying to fit people into categories (like some personality theories I could mention, …rhymes with Oscar Meyer….;p) rather we gain valuable insight into the people around us by identifying the world as they are experiencing it. This requires putting ourselves in their shoes. Not easy, but the payoff is, when you correctly infer a person’s predominant worldview (aka personality type), you will know more about them than they know about themselves. And it’s fun.
The thing I would mention today is that, of the three, it is said, ‘clarks think, scotts act and rogers feel‘. Of the intellect, the body and the heart. But, boy howdy, do clarks loves information and fun facts. The more non-practical the better. A clark’s curiosity is as inexhaustible as a scott’s libido and a roger’s certainty. They just plain never met a fact they didn’t like. Sorta. There is an explanation for this endless search for new and interesting information. That’s for a more advanced post, after you’ve had enough time to get familiar with the basics.)

(…OK, you’ve had enough time.  lol. Did we mention that anyone who reads more than one Doctrine post on purpose is either a clark or they’re a scott or roger with a significant secondary clarklike aspect? It’s true. If that ‘secondary aspect’ is giving you pause, not to worry. That is for another post. Nothing weird, just need to keep the asides to a certain minimum. Check back later, or ask the question in a Comment).

Speaking of Alton Brown, I was reading some interviews he gave and one quote totally said, ‘Cut and Paste!’ He said:  “I’d rather be original than good.”  damn! Such a clarklike statement.

But today is Part 2 of the post about Chris Columbus.

With historical figures, it is, of course, impossible to interview the person. Were that possible, identification of their predominant worldview would be as …as easy as getting a roger mad or a scott angry.* (lol) Were we interviewing Christopher, we’d be listening for the use of personal pronouns, paying attention to his body language and, most productively, paying attention to how he is reacting to the environment around us. The people, the place, the things that happen during the interview. This last, if we’ve done our homework, would be sufficient to make a determination of his worldview.

(Someone out there ask me ‘Why?’)

…Thank you, Mimi!

You will see the phrase, ‘how a person relates themselves to the world around them‘ all over this here blog here. You will always see it with a qualifying admonition, to the effect that ‘we said, ‘...how a person relates themselves to the world‘ we did not say ‘...how a person relates to the world‘. The distinction is important and goes to the heart of the Wakefield Doctrine. We strive to see the world as the other person is experiencing it. The implication of the, ‘relates themselves’ is key to the whole shebang.

A clark doesn’t mumble because there’s something wrong with their voice. A scott doesn’t shout in order to overcome their own deafness. A roger does not gossip because the other person asked a direct question.

Consider what the world is like to an Outsider who is required to speak to others, however, is uncertain to their status among the listeners.

Think about the reaction of those around a Predator who howls, as a warning, as a signal, for the pure joy of the sound.

What does a Herd Member think is going to happen when they pass along a tidbit of incidental information about a person in their (social/work/school) environment; are they concerned with repercussions to their revelations, despite the fact that they are merely sharing what others probably already know?

This is what the Wakefield Doctrine is all about.

Don’t stop with perceiving what the other person mumbles, shouts, whispers. Put yourself in their position and look around and imagine the world they are experiencing.

What they do will make a new/additional sense to you.

Chris would start by letting us know that he had the total backing of the throne (in no small part due to the virtue of his project and the persuasiveness of his argument) and, to be on the safe side, the support of the Church. When asked about the voyage, he would tell us how difficult it was, and despite your assurances that you knew, he would cite the difficulties he experienced. How he felt and, with a touch of modesty, would remind us that even though his crew did not share his vision and, through no fault of his own, they considered mutiny. Fortunately he was a good leader and talked them out of it. The land that he found was vindication of his life and he felt a certain pride at knowing that the savages would be saved.

Everyone in Christopher’s world (and therefore in his tale) were a part of his Herd. The Herd that spread out around him. Even the natives, they were Members….provided they proved themselves to be good Christian slaves.

Tomorrow! clarks and them

* is there a difference? Are you even doing your reading?! scotts get angry, rogers get mad and clarks…mostly not in any recognizable form. This, actually, is a good opportunity to talk about ‘manifesting’. In the context of ‘the Everything Rule’ we say, ‘while everyone does everything, at one time or another, how that thing (emotion or reaction, occupation, hobby or odd obsession), manifests, varies in a manner that directly reflects the individual’s predominant worldview.