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

I started to write, ‘What shall we talk about…’ then I surfed the archived posts.*

Reprinted, for your reading pleasure and my day-off-restation, is a post which has a ‘lead image’ that pretty much says it all! Yeah, this post was from when, everywhere we turned, there were examples of the Wakefield Doctrine. Example: the film clips from ‘Mad Dog and Glory’ and ‘Wolf’ and, of course, the famous ‘pen scene’ from ‘Casino’. In this last, the clark character(De Niro) does, in a voice-over narration, a pretty good job of describing both a clark and a scott. (“While I was trying to figure why the guy was saying what he was saying, Nicky just hit him…”)

Hey! That was fun. The ‘real’ world illustrations of the the three personality types as provided by movie scenes. Let’s look at two more. A scott and a roger in a scene from the movie ‘Wolf’ and a clark and a scott and a roger from the movie ‘Mad Dog and Glory’

Seeing how I went to all the trouble to copy and past a post from 2015, lets leave it in place, all block-quoted. Below that are the two movie clips. Language Advisory on the Mad Dog scene.

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

(Yeah, the subtitle?  I tried this once before, i.e. the ‘clock-is-ticking’ approach to Post writing, but given that I originally intended to write about the very early ‘Basics’ of the Doctrine, nothing wrong with trying it again, today.)

the Wakefield Doctrine is gender-neutral/the Wakefield Doctrine is culture-neutral

And…and! even though I found a perfectly good paragraph from 2009 that discusses this gender/culture neutrality, I’m gonna walk the straight and narrow and not copy-paste. One of the more interesting effects of writing on the same topic over successive years is how, in many circumstances, I will pick exactly the same words to describe a concept and, at other times, the concept I’m trying to explain has, itself, changed over time. This is, to no small degree, attributable to my own perception of the readership of this post (and blog). The early days were, well, early days. I spent most of my time thinking about how to get across the characteristics of the three worldviews. Hell, I spent a great deal of time trying to find the words to say, ‘We all exist in a reality that is, to a small but very real degree, personal and the very moment we are in can be quite different for:

• the person across the counter
• the classroom of students we are charged with teaching about history and calisthenics, hygiene and geometry
• those others at the Registry of Motor Vehicles, where the lines are long and the patience seems to get sucked out of us the moment we see the people who are all writing and filling in their forms as fast as possible, the better to get into line ahead of the old person who seems happy to be standing anywhere and is surely going to take.too.long
• us at the 2nd interview as we watch the Interviewer, hoping for some clues to the right answer, like we were trying to pick up a girl at the sorority mixer…only the fear of failure is not as great
• the person on the other side of the bed
• being at the gym, seeing the person that you didn’t think you had become like and definitely do not want to stay like, in the wall of mirrors in the exercise room

as in, ‘what do you mean, I shouldn’t put myself down all the time?’… ‘but everyone does care about how my day went‘ … ‘nahh! she thought it was funny! you’re always making things too serious!!’

I will now demonstrate my own development, (as a blog writer), and not apologies for not knowing all the above explanations and examples were not really necessary.

damn! look at the time!! (no, really!  look at the time… wherever you are at this very moment, this is what we mean by ‘your worldview’.)
The Wakefield Doctrine is all about our efforts to accept that ‘the other person’ lives in one of three characteristic personal realities and that, if we are successful in inferring which one that is, we will be in a position to know much more about ‘the other person’ than we have any right to know. (the Wakefield Doctrine) charges us with understanding how the other person is relating themselves to the world around them…as (does) an Outsider(clark) or a Predator(scott) or a Herd Member(roger). When we understand this, we become capable of seeing the world as the other person experiences it.

Out of time! shit!  (you know how I promised to not reprint an old explanation of gender and cultural neutrality? well, did I mention that I was a clark?  and, how, sometimes for us, things change? hell, a lot of times, for us, things change. So… I’m gonna leave the reprint section in block quotes.  If it doesn’t make a lot of sense, let me know and I’ll clarify.

…we would make a point of stating that the Wakefield Doctrine is both gender and culture neutral. What we meant is that it does not matter what part of the world you are from, it’s the nature and character of your own worldview that matters (personality type-wise). We contend that the worldviews that are the basis of the three personality types are inseparable from the human condition. Further, while standards of behavior may vary from one culture to another, a person who grows up, develops and otherwise matures living in a reality best characterized as the world of Predator and Prey, will be: aggressive, inquisitive, quick to react, action-oriented with a minimum of self-reflection. That reality exists in Zimbabwe and New Auckland as well as Mansfield Ohio. Not only that, but the Doctrine maintains that gender prescribes the capacity/ability (of a person to act a certain way), not their reasons for acting. A female growing up, developing and otherwise maturing in a world where she is the Outsider, will still develop: an insatiable desire to learn new information and facts, be drawn to the fringes of whatever culture she happens to be in and have an abundance of what is referred to as intuition, all that she is permitted (by physiology as well local culture) in order to live her life.

btw. the leap from Outsider to Predator is, somehow shorter than the leap from Outsider to Herd Member. This observation appears, at first blush, insightful and therefore, promising of some value, but that’s the just a clark talking.

From ‘Wolf’ Jack Nicholson is the scott.  Watch him. (Perfect example of one of, if not the primary identifier of them, ‘the gaze of a scott‘). James Spader is the roger. Listen to him. (His choice of words, remember, as a Herd Member everything is about emotion and belonging.)

Next up, from the movie ‘Mad Dog and Glory’. Robert DiNiro as the clark.  David Caruso as the scott. Tom Towles as the roger (the cop next to the girl with the black eye.)

*why yes, there are that many…thank you for saying so…..

…was there anything else you wanted to say?

…well, since you insist, 2256. sorry, two thousand fifty…six

…yeah, a lot…well, no…a core group but not anything one would need help keeping track of…. well, why don’cha read the reprint