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

Ever notice that I seem to be unable to do a reprint post as they are intended to be used, in a manner for maximum benefit?

Sure, a proper reprint is supposed to be minimally re-packaged and/or labeled, you know, “And now, an Encore performance of…” and then hit send. Done and done.

But nooo, every time I try to do a reprint (“Dude, you used to teach the principles and provide examples of the Wakefield Doctrine every….day! Whats up with that? Call Frank or text the word, “Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers”.)

Apparently we have, before I even get to the ‘cut ‘n paste’ portion of our post, two topics floating around in my head: 1) the comment (and implications of same) left by Friend of the Doctrine, Cynthia and B) the secret insight blanketed in the words, all sleep-wrinkled and night-soft, in the leading two sentences.

To our friend, first!

In a comment to Sunday’s TToT, Cynthia wrote:

…haha. Clarks and their written statements…

ha ha, (or, as FOTD Clairepeek might say, ‘ja ja‘) indeed! There is, imo, something in these five, (or six, counting the onomatopoeia), that hints at so much more. You know, like, “Hey, you got a minute.” from a work superior, or “About those test results.” from an educational (or worse) medical superior or “We need to talk.” from an emotional superior.

Who out there, putting themselves in the scene, hear the thought, ‘Uh oh”

Now Point B is even more elusive but simpler. Only thing required to get the inference is to be a clark or to trust your secondary aspect. The most correct* but not overly constructive answer is “Because of fear!”

There you have it. An intro without coherence. But there is a point and there is a useful insight. Because, in the final analysis, the Wakefield Doctrine does not provide answers, it offers an (additional) perspective on our worlds and the people who make it up.

(Our reprint)

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

There is a post (or two) somewhere in the archives that look at the ‘Days of the Week’ from the perspective of the Wakefield Doctrine and seek to identify the days that are ‘good days’ for people of each of the three personality types. Some are megaphone-obvious, like Saturday and scotts or Mondays and rogers or Tuesday and …everyone! But, especially clarks.

Why is that? Why does the sub-title use the slightly arrhythmic phrase ‘truly user-friendly’? Unfortunately the word ‘mild’, is nearly harmless, there’s absolutely nothing in what it implies that anyone could take issue with, “…and temperatures will be mild today.”  “Don’t worry, your child is exhibiting the normal signs of the flu which includes running a mild fever.” It does, at least on the surface, seem to be a complimentary assertion (of the character or quality of a person or a worldview).

So what’s wrong with ‘mild’? What would cause a blog writer to begin a post with an apologia?

I don’t know. Nothing I guess. Don’t give it a second thought. Sorry I brought it up.

(Interruption for a Wakefield Doctrine insight. You know how we have descriptions (metaphoric and otherwise) of the world as it is experienced by those of the three personality types?

• scotts ranging across the savannah hungry and impatient, take a moment to play with young pack members or sleep in the shade with one eye half-open;
• clarks standing in the shadows, moving carefully, watching and, like self-animated marionettes, encircle their arms, hugging empty space in practice embraces, seeing more detail in the actions and plans of the others, the shadow-light allowing a closer insight and
• rogers moving through the day, across the world, in unison of spirit, competing with the other Members of the Herd, not for supremacy, rather for positioning and increased centrality to the others in their local part of life.

To further our insight into ‘the other two’ worldviews we strive to infer from the actions, reactions, distractions and attractions exhibited by the person we are trying to better understand. It would seem that I’m implying that there is something about the quality of ‘mildness’, as it exists in the reality of a clark, that they (the clarks) feel is nothing to be overly proud of. But I’m getting off track. Back to the post.)

So Tuesday is the Mildest Day of the Week. Sure. I get that. Monday is over, Friday is a lifetime away and Wednesday, (‘hump day’ to rogers, they love to have almost-clever labels in their world. Know someone who insists their car has a name? roger…. unless she’s a girl…and it’s her first car…. and even then, she won’t really mean it.  rogers will.  lol (Go ahead, put your ‘You don’t know what you’re talking about and besides…and this whole Doctrine things isn’t anything but…’ in a comment, please.)

Anyway.

I did want to get in one other concept that carries weight, especially in the worldview of clarks:  expectations and pre-expectations.

As we know from ‘the Everything Rule’, these two conditions exist for all three personality types. However, when considered in the context of clarks, they provide excellent illustrations of the unifying principle of the Doctrine, which is: ‘we use the perspectives of the Wakefield Doctrine to allow us to better understand how we relate ourselves to the world around us.’

That’s all we have time for this morning. Be sure to write in your un-answered questions!

* most correct!?! rogers and scotts don’t be appreciating the value of dividing absolutes into smaller and more malleable chunks.

finally the music