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

Never let it be said that the Readers of the Wakefield Doctrine are not involved! From yesterday’s post, Friend of the Doctrine, Mimi informs us, “Awaiting tomorrow with bated breath.”

…to recap.

What are the three worst things for the three personalty types? Their personalized kryptonite, if you will.

clarks: scrutiny    scotts: unreliability     rogers: individual accountability

yow! thats a pretty insightful list. Gimme me a minute. (Serially, while I knew the first, about clarks and was certain of the core idea, if not the comprehensive explanation of what it is scotts fear the most, I hadn’t looked at the existential fear of rogers all that much.)

So is the question: a) what makes each one specific to the type? or 2) does there have to be an individual (and distinct) worst things?

To the second, the answer is ‘Yes’. The reason is simple: each of the three predominant worldviews maintain a different relationship, (to the world around their respective selfs). There is, as implied by the Everything Rule*, an complementary quality in each to the other. (More on this in a later post).

What a great (first) question! Tough to answer in twenty-five minutes or less. But, this is the Wakefield Doctrine, (motto: ‘Careful, reflective thought, expressed with deep emotional grounding and precise choice of language? nah…”) so let’s run at the wall and see who blinks first!

clarks are Outsiders. They know, from the moment they realize they are not alone in the world, that they are alone in the world. Not physically isolated, but as apart as waves are to the ocean. clarks move through life quietly, looking for clues because, deep-within there is the thought, ‘It must have been something about me that puts me in the shadows.”

scotts are Predators. Their paradigm is to live in the moment. The context of the moment has standards: the sun rises, the prey submits, the body has urges, and to affect their environment is proof of life. If the sun rose a cheery, blue polka-dot one morning and then went back to normal the next, a scott would not be happy. She would be off her game, because the savannah/the jungle/the ocean/the sky are the context in which they celebrate their lives… it’d be no fun if someone changed that. The ground beneath their feet, the fluid resistance of the ocean, the invigorating power of the air can’t change, otherwise one would have to check first, to think about the next move …to hesitate.

rogers are Herd Members. They belong. First and foremost, they are ‘a part of’ something/everything. The distinguishing characteristics of the individual members of a Herd pales against the fact of being a part of a group. The power of a group is grounded in the fact that when it moves everyone moves. The freedom to participate requires surrendering the Power to separate oneself from the others. The converse of that is, ‘the group provides the power, the price is individual accountability’. If that is lost then how could a roger, a single roger move an entire Herd?

* the Everything Rule: ‘Everyone does everything, at one time or another‘. It reminds us there is a common reality and the differences between the three worldviews is in how (a thing) manifests, in reflection of that reality