Friday -the Wakefield Doctrine- | the Wakefield Doctrine Friday -the Wakefield Doctrine- | the Wakefield Doctrine

Friday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

Hey! Do you ever, like, stop yourself after a situation/interaction/encounter where you come away thinking, “Why did I let that happen? I saw that coming a mile away, what the hell is the matter with me?”

And, you get by yourself and make a decision that you would change, improve how you interact with others in the world. You feel good about it and, sure enough, the next time a similar situation occurs (which might be in a month or a year, but more likely it will be in the next thirty or ninety minutes or whenever you come out of your office/bedroom/the restroom at work-school), you act as if you had not had that very positive, and constructive conversation with yourself. You say this, they say that. You do it this way and they respond the other way. It’s all so terribly familiar. Worse… (your positive attitude and confident demeanor eroding like a sandcastle built below mean high tide), it seems like you’ll never learn.

Don’t worry. We got your back.

(Note: New Readers? You have caught on to the clarklike appeal to so much of this Wakefield Doctrine thing, right? If this is your first time, first post, go ahead and skip down to the music vid. If this is your second complete read, welcome. We were about to say, ‘Anyone who comes back here more than once alone or (more than) twice with your friends (“You gotta see this site. It’s really a fascinating blog. What do you mean, ‘What the hell is a ‘blog’?”) then you are either a clark (predominant worldview of the Outsider) or a scott or a roger with a significant secondary clarklike aspect.)

Welcome.

 

yeah… thats about it for today. It’s Friday. The one day of the week that lays off the bet (of a worthwhile life) on to the next two days. So for today, the buffet is unattended and you’re free to sit in the box seats and watch the show.

‘though we can never resist a lesson/moral/punchline, the thing that makes the Wakefield Doctrine a way-effective tool for self-improving yourself is that, because you have within the potential to experience the world as do ‘the other two’** you’re already halfway to the you you always believed you could be.

Intimidated by your boss? Spend some time reading up on scotts and rogers. Wanna ask someone for a date? Check out the section on scotts and rogers. Need to get a firm grip on why you’re still reading? check out the clark chapter (lol)

 

the thing of it is, in order to change or improve, you do not need to go and find something new/alien-to-you/possessed by people-who-never-were-like-you,-despite-what their-infomercials-say. You have within, the potential to relate yourself to the world around you as they do. Keep in mind, when you think about your scottian friend how singularly confident they are, they’ve been practicing, literally their entire lives. But…. but!! the potential is with you.

 

…oh’kay!

** ‘the other two’. You have a predominant worldview and it is to this reality that you have developed whatever style of social, functional and/or geographical interaction, aka your personality type. However, you retain the potential to experience the world as ‘the other two’. You’re a clark? ‘the other two’ are scott and roger…etc  In our opinion, the advantage of knowing that the qualities you seek are within and not something to be imported/imitated from others.

 

Share

clarkscottroger About clarkscottroger
Well, what exactly do you want to know? Whether I am a clark or a scott or roger? If you have to ask, then you need to keep reading the Posts for two reasons: a)to get a clear enough understanding to be able to make the determination of which type I am and 2) to realize that by definition I am all three.* *which is true for you as well, all three...but mostly one

Comments

  1. Ah, yes, potential. And so much untapped.

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      I concur but remain encouraged by the addition of one more tool, in the form of ‘the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers’