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

Today we begin a three-part series. We will be looking at each of the three predominant worldviews, (aka personality types), of the Wakefield Doctrine.

(New Readers: the Wakefield Doctrine is a perspective on life, reality, the people around us and, if we have an interest, how we can best self-improve ourselfs. The Doctrine proposes that the three personality types are more a reflection of the reality of the individual than drives, interests and DNA. Everyone lives in one of three characteristic personal realities: the reality of the Outsider(clarks), the Predator(scotts) and the Herd Member(rogers). The thing is, since we’re born with the potential of all three, although everyone settles into one (of the three) at a very early age, we never lose the potential of ‘the other two’. In practical terms this explains why new readers often comment: “I can see that I’m a (clark, scott or roger) but sometimes, I’m certain I’m a (clark, scott or roger). Maybe I’m a hybrid, combination.” To which we always smile and say, “Thats just your secondary aspect showing up in times of duress. roger.” lol
Don’t worry about flashes of ‘the other two’. One person. One predominant worldview. Anything else would be, well, weird.)

clarks think.

While descriptions of behavior and styles of responses to common life situations is certainly a good place to start when learning the Wakefield Doctrine, the key is to appreciate the character and nature of the reality the person is experiencing. To that end,the Wakefield Doctrine is a toy chest full of metaphors, all useful, most fun and, like the Doctrine itself, valuable in any situation. In fact, in the interest of speedy learning and a coherent taxonomy, we will insert block-quoted Metaphor Tips, throughout the post.

The subtitle to the clarklike worldview is ‘Outsider’. That is the reality this person grew up in. And when we say, ‘grew up in’, we mean, like, before they even knew that they were growing up. Way young. Maybe three, even two years old. clarks quickly realize they are different. From everyone. While everyone else appear to know things and, of critical importance, this knowledge is shared among the other people in the clark’s world. This difference is what gives rise to most of the characteristics that identify a clark. In the wild. Not that you will ever, actually spot a clark…in the wild. That is a place where rogerian herds move the landscape like a distant iron bell and the scotts move with grace and selective invisibility.

Metaphor¹ In the primordial landscape, the rogerian brontasauri sauntered amiably through the forest to gather around the watering hole, comfortable in the immortality of numbers, caring little about the scottian predators; each to their own perch, waiting for their appetite, a life-long lover to join them and their meal-to-be. Barely visible, sharing the colors of earth and low-brush, the clarklike lemur wait, taming their appetites into submission and staring with envy at the confident nonchalance of the huge (and numerous) creatures who drank without a care in the world.

clarks(Outsider): physically tend towards the ectomorphic², of poor posture, shoulders tend to slump, as much in defense as disregard for conventional wisdom (‘if you’d stand up straight, you’d be so much more attractive‘). clarks tend to mumble when speaking outside of the relatively rare environments in which they are not ‘on defense’. The mumbling is often likened to smuggling diamonds from a miles-deep-pit-in-some-sub-tropical-jungle, by swallowing them. Even if a suspicious guard tells the clark to empty their pockets and satchel and…well, empty everything, they probably will not discover the gems. (yes, I concur… eww)

Not-really-a-Metaphor. clarks dress in a manner that tells you way more than even they are aware of. See that girl in the beautiful designer blouse and the mini skirt and the perfectly laced, shiny black Corcoran boots? And, yes there is something about her face that, while you’re not sure if it’s the eyes, you can’t tear your eyes away? clarklike female. The young man with the long hair, tee-shirt over an Oxford shirt, underneath a 50-year-old-once-high-quality-wool-overcoat wearing a pair of two hundred dollar wingtips (with mis-matched socks)? …clarks.

clarks tend to the over-intelligent people who have a ‘practicality deficit’. They are the truly creative people. Of course, when creativity is applied in the arts, clarks will be the starving artist by virtue of the fact that, in the arts, commercial success is not so much about creativity as it is re-assembly of time-worn parts, styles, memes, tropes and memory-engraved characterization.

You have a clark for a friend. He/she is someone who your ‘regular’ friends often say, ‘Really, you want to invite them to the party? they are so…. but sure, why not, we can’t all be normal.’ You, however, know that they, (your clarklike friend³), are nice people and if only they would stop being so: self-sabotaging, self-destructive, self-effacing and weird, they could be so much happier in their life/job/future.

Lets close this with returning to the beginning of the post. Remember the thing about the (very) young clark realizing that everyone around them seemed to know something that they, the clark, did not? That is the origin of a clark(Outsider)’s two most distinctive drives: a) Insatiable curiosity, because they need to learn what it is that everyone else knows, the information that, when acquired, will allow them to become real people and 2) To avoid scrutiny; there is no telling why a clark didn’t learn what everyone else seems to know. And it can’t be for the lack of the intelligence to understand (can it?) so… if it wasn’t because they just didn’t get it, then the only other conclusion was that they, the clark, was deliberately not taught it because…

Tomorrow: scotts (be sure to have bail money ready)

1) or maybe simians**, allegory, analogy or even anaphora

** hold that laugh, that malapropism is appropriate to Wednesday when we discuss rogers, and more specifically, rogerian expression.

2) William Sheldon’s Body Type theory of personality, totally captured my attention in grad school

3) if you think in terms of ‘having friends’ then, by definition, you will only count one clark among your list of friends