Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
Know how cool the Wakefield Doctrine is?
…besides knowing more about the other person than you have any right to, given that you saw them for the first time as they joined the raffle ticket spaced line at the supermarket.
It, the Doctrine, not the line at the supermarket, also allows you to better know your-own-self.
How? (You ask, rather rhetorically, seeing how you’re ‘out there’ while I’m still here typing. Hell, I haven’t even hit Publish yet. Damn! This is metaphysical gold!)
New Readers: If you’re here for the first time, we’re serious with the single word question. While it normally requires more than one data point* to figure out a person’s predominant worldview, aka personality type: clark(Outsider); scott(Predator) or roger(Herd Member), the process is simple.
Learn the nature of the (three personality types) relationship to the world around them along with their overt characteristics. Then, when you’re standing in the line, eliminate the one that, ‘There’s no fricken way they’re a ….” That leave two worldviews. Now observe as much as you can, without getting creepy or arrested, and one will make more sense than the other. Another analogy:
The three worldviews are distinct ways a person sees, (actually, the right word is ‘experience’), the world around them. Think of them, (the worldviews), as lenses at the optometrist and see which one produces the clearest, truest image. You know, “Look at the image. Is this one [click] clearer than [click] this one? Now, how about [click] this one?” Thats how we determine the worldview of the people around us and get a secret box-seat to their lifes and times and such.
Back to our special quality.
The cool thing is how the Doctrine, even as it allows us to better understand the world and the people who make it up, is a tool for self-improving ourselfs. And the key to this lies in the stated ambition/goal of learning and applying the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine, ‘How do I relate myself to the world around me.’
As always, this: I said ‘How do I relate myself…’ I did not say, ‘How do I relate to the world around me.’
Know the difference and the pilot light flashes green and you in business.
(Useful, btw, in any situation, not just figuring out another’s predominant worldview. If you find yourself in a conflict with someone, something, some event in the ‘real’ world, ask the question: How am I relating myself to the world around me.**)
* ‘ceptin, maybe a scott, specifically ‘the eyes of a scott‘ One of the more fun and amazing things about this here Doctrine here.
** don’t forget to use the correct wording! a short cut will only reinforce the problem.
About clarkscottroger
Right now i am trying to relate myself out of a discussion between two Rogers, one of whom appears to be thinking he’s a member of a gnu herd, the other of a zebra herd, and each is trying to convince the other of the validity of his herd over the other. All it makes me want to do is go crawl in a hole with a good book and leave them to the argument!
lol
and that’s why we clarks get the most out of the Doctrine.
what they are doing, that appears to be trying to convince the other of something, is alien to the world of the Outsider. Which is not say we don’t hear what they’re saying and such. Its just that they are relating to each other as rogers. If you’re a clark* you’re witnessing something very far from our reality** and, we (clarks) tend not to enjoy confrontations and adversarial interactions… that, combined with a clarks natural instinct to ameliorate, we have a less pleasant time than others… its safe to walk away…but they (the rogers) might need an audience, so its not so easy to do.
* one early rule: no one can claim the right to state which of the three another person is… only that person can (and, of course, we can discuss people we know to better understand the Doctrine, what no can do is claim the right to label another using the Doctrine
** when we, to use your example, two rogers interacting (or two scotts) its important to remind ourselves of the fact that what they are doing isn’t necessarily ‘translating well’ into our language. We refer to this as ‘manifesting’… you experienced the manifestation of two rogers arguing, it was translated from the context of the rogerian worldview into something that ‘made sense’ to your own worldview
…damn, you do write the best of Comments… may have to continue this in the am as a post.
I agree Mimi’s comment was most excellent. And I do hope you continue in a Tuesday post.
” Manifestation, translation, and the vocabulary used to express what we witness”.
How’s that for a post title! :D