Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
I was talking to someone over the weekend about Friday’s post and, at some point in the conversation, I think it was when they mentioned, ‘Oh, I’ve already read it’, I said, ‘There was a time, back on the early days, when posts were all in the 300 to 500 word range’.
And it now dawns on me. ‘You want to know the real difference between old and young (sophisticated in contrast to raw energy/ practiced versus enthusiastic/and polished)?
The earliest Doctrine posts were brief and short* because the energy they contained/were manifestations of; the overt indications of a successful birthday party for a nine-year-old are in the volume of communications and extent of the disarray of the decorations, not the perfect coordination of the color of the table cloths to the icing that spells out a message of well-wishing and congratulations, taken as intended by no one in attendance other than the memory-echo of the guest-of-honor in the far distant future.
There! That’s why contemporary posts are in the twelve hundred to fifteen hundred word range.**
Surely that is as it should be; ‘youthful’ enthusiasm in expression trumping sophisticated crafting of ideas (for maximum appeal). Of course, it is the underlying energy of the idea of the Wakefield Doctrine that causes some people to read and enjoy. It.
lol
The backstory has always been presented, (and nothing in this essential regard has changed), that we3 discovered the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) and the goal of this blog has always been to expose the maximum number of Readers to the fun and the benefits of the unique perspective inherent in the Doctrine. Yet, like discovering an old ‘letter sweater’ or cardboard box of trophies from high school4 there is a temptation to find a place for their display, despite the passage of time; as enticing as the idea may be, maturity usually carries the day.
So, since I’m approaching the five 100 word mark, lets leave it at this:
the Wakefield Doctrine is not an answer, it is a series of questions with as much a claim on practical value as: a Magic 8 Ball, a box of fortune cookies, the Oscar-Meyers-Briggs personality schedule or the NKJV… in other words, a hammer doesn’t need to be a nail to be useful in fastening things.
(quick explanation to one of more of the feetnotes: if you’re still reading and think you might stop back sometime, you are a clark(predominant worldview of the Outsider) or a scott(Predator) or a roger(Herd Member) with a significant secondary clarklike aspect.)
*the first of the deliberate style choices in adjectives, which, at their heart, were manifestations of my secondary scottian aspect… hey!
** the CMS clearly states: numbers are to be spelled out, numerals are never to be used except in cases of ….
3) the ‘editorial we’ is natural to clarks and is, in practice, a useful tool when trying to determine if a person is a clark or a scott or a roger. Whole ‘nother post, though.
4) yeah, like that’s gonna happen to the typical Reader of the this blog
#wakefielddoctrine
#theoryofclarks,scottsandrogers
#personalitytheories
About clarkscottroger
very nice, I especially liked:
…the overt indications of a successful birthday party for a nine-year-old are in the volume of communications and extent of the disarray of the decorations, not the perfect coordination of the color of the table cloths to the icing that spells out a message of well-wishing and congratulations.
In the house that I grew up in, even the 1st birthday party had coordinating everything.
As said in Ecclesiastes 3 NKJV
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven
I confess I tend to get confused in these posts (as well as comments received on my posts)…I’m guessing I’m somewhere between a Clark and a Roger, definitely not a Scott/predator. Not sure about the numbers being spelled out–sometimes I do, sometimes not. That’s all I know for now–blessings to you!
Thank you for the comment. It is good to hear from people who are new to the Wakefield Doctrine. Do not despair, one of my core goals remains in place, ‘to write a perfect Wakefield Doctrine post*’
If you don’t mind, I will use (your) comment as a launching point for the next post.
* the perfect Wakefield Doctrine post would be one that would permit a person who had no contact with the Doctrine previously, to understand the principles and be in a position to apply the principles to the world around them and derive the benefits, after one reading.
Footnote #4 doth make a clark smile, ‘cuz…as if 😆
Were it not for your generosity toward Bedelia & friends, I would probably not have known about Wakefield Doctrine…or made the effort to read your posts. As far as “applying the principles to the world around them”, etc.–I must be forthright in saying that if they fly in the face of my Biblical principles, I will be unable to pursue them. I hope you’ll understand there are some things on which one cannot compromise. Further clarification will likely be beneficial to me. Regardless, I send you what blessings are mine to bestow with all sincerity. See you Thursday :)
sorry for the delay in response, the internets were hiding comments (yours and Friend of the Doctrine, Cynthia).
I have not seen anything in the Wakefield Doctrine in conflict or otherwise flying in the face of Biblical principles (or any other set of beliefs, guidelines, insights and/or interpretations.)
I will restate my thanks for your input, if for no other reason than it has inspired me to return to writing about the Wakefield Doctrine.
… the Wakefield Doctrine is a perspective on life, reality and the people who make it up. It is our belief that any perspective that adds to our understanding and appreciation of the world is a good thing. The Wakefield Doctrine does not, (as we often said in the earliest of posts) provide answers, it is simply a perspective.
The goal, if there is one, of applying the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine to our daily lives, to ‘look through the lens’, is to aid in seeing the world as the other person is experiencing it.
We have a saying*: the Doctrine can help better appreciate how we relate ourselves to the world around us. (And we always say: ‘notice I said ‘how we relate ourselves to the world’…. not ‘how we relate to the world’. The difference is between those two statements is critical. ‘How we relate ourselves to the world around us’ in comparison to ‘how we relate to the world around us’ charges us to work to accept and understand ourselves along with our actions…
ok, better save this for another post.
thanks again Jael
*well, truth be told, we have a lot of sayings here
Again, I appreciate you taking time to elucidate more of The Doctrine for me…I feared you were writing/talking far above my intellectual level, which isn’t entirely minimal :) And I guess I’m old enough now that I wasn’t going to miss out on a good blog just because I might briefly embarrass myself due to being dull-witted, fuzzy-brained. I’m also satisfied that The Doctrine is not some cult-like pseudo-religion…so we should be good :) Stay safe and well, Clark.
The beauty part of the Wakefield Doctrine (as an old friend used to say) is that it is not a technical/intellectual exercise, if anything, it is an observational thing. It (the Wakefield Doctrine) offers a lens through which to observe your world*
The wonderful/slightly-scary thing about the Doctrine is how true it can be (probably should say, ‘consistent’ or accurate) but as you read descriptions of clarks, scotts and rogers you will find yourself extrapolating additional characteristics and qualities… and sure enough, the person you are observing will proceed to demonstrate them lol (you be, all, ‘wait a minute! did those people at that personality blog put you up to this?!)
anyway, welcome to our little gathering (btw, anyone coming back here more than twice is either a clark or a scott or roger with significant secondary clarklike aspects…. Pop Quiz!! Why do you think we can say that?****
*and, unlike many other systems of personality, the Doctrine makes no claim to having ‘the truth’ or the ‘real insight’…. (such rogers those people are! lol) the Wakefield Doctrine says, if you have more than one perspective on the world** then the richer and more depth there is to your experience
** the difficulty in accepting ‘more than one’ perspective is often underestimated, for many there is only one ‘world’ one way for things to be and, unfortunately for these people, they are stuck feeling that if they were to entertain seeing the world a different way, they risk having the certainty of their one way, undermined. Of course, we know otherwise. In the earliest days of this blog I used to write, ‘the only requirement to participate is intellectual flexibility and an enjoyment of trying out ideas for the fun of it
**** ok, times up… because clarks have that innate and confident curiosity that says, ‘hey, look, this is interesting, lets see what it can do’ a sense of adventure when it comes to ideas and such…
Well i do have a box of medals — honor societies, medals for being the best student in history, etc. Trophies of my sort!