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

Perfect illustration of the three predominant worldviews. (Photo by Jude Domski/WireImage)

Friday! Surely the most anticlimactic day of the workweek. (Yeah, the weekend is in a class by itself, lol)

And how we reference ‘the Everything Rule’ so often in discussions of workdays and the three predominant worldviews?

What?!! We haven’t been citing this very essential aspect of the Wakefield Doctrine? Why that’s preposterous! ‘the Everything Rule’ is as esstential to advanced application of the Doctrine in day-to-day living as…as rubber bands were to setting the neighborhood bicycle speed record! (Or whatever it was that preadolescent girls did with their time, while waiting for the Third Biggest change in Life, prior to taking over their chrono-appropriate worlds).

damn! We’d best set things back on a more reasonable basis.

(oh, yeah. Before we start, the reference to boys and girls above? The Wakefield Doctrine is gender-neutral. ….whole ‘nother post. Want to hear about it? Mention it in the comments below. However, if you’re a self-identified* predominant clark, you need to proffer your thoughts on the topic as part of the comment.)

On to the topic of ‘the Everything Rule’, which states: ‘Everyone does everything, at one time or another’.

Class dismissed.

ha ha

In a ‘nutshell’: we’re all born with the capacity to experience the world around us, (and the people who make it up), from the perspective of one of the three predominant worldviews. At a very early age, we settle into one, (and only one personal reality), and grow up and develop our strategies and styles of interacting with this world, aka our personality type. However, we never lose the inherent capacity of ‘the other two. In fact, many of us have fairly significant secondary and tertiary aspects. Often to the extent that it is observable in certain circumstances. Example: I’m a clark with a significant secondary scottian aspect. Otherwise I doubt I’d be writing post number 2370 or whatever. (This is not about indications of secondary or tertiary aspects. Suffice to say, they appear mostly at times of duress).

This is about ‘the Everything Rule’. Which, in the simplest of terms, reminds us: clarks, scotts and rogers do not live in isolated realities with unique properties to our respective worlds. The Doctrine isn’t that weird.

But what the Doctrine is, is a perspective on how people relate themelves to the world around them. But it’s a common world. (This insight usually shows up with New Readers when, after getting the description of the Outsider(clarks), the Predator(scotts) and the Herd Member(rogers) down, come up and say, ‘I like this (activity/profession/deviant act) is that a scott thing to do?’

Damn! Running out of time.

Short(er) answer: scotts make great cops, rogers are the ultimate engineers and clarks, well, where would we be without elementary school teachers. That said, ‘the Everything Rule’ reminds us that there are clarks on police forces (probably end up dispatchers) and scotts can study and become engineers (and gravitate to sales or, maybe start ups) and rogers can be found among the ranks of Grades 1-8 (there to inspire future authors and writers and such).

The point is, how each of the three manifest the qualities/skills/personal attributes of professions, (or activities/deviant acts), is a function of the reality in which they exist.

Have a ‘great’ Friday.

(Yeah, we did kinda get off topic. oh, well. Don’t forget, document your questions and Comments)

* well, what other way can an effective system of personality types ever hope to be useful, practical and beneficial than to be the result of the individual’s choice and decision-of-application?! This rule (small ‘r’) is one of the first to appear in these pages: ‘No one can, with any claim-to-authority, tell another which of the three, clarks, scotts or rogers’, they are.

That doesn’t mean we can’t talk about other people’s apparent worldview for educational or recreational purposes. Totally can do that! Best way to illustrate the clues to how, (another), person appears to be relating to the world around them. Just can’t claim that one’s opinion has any power over another’s, lest we forget, ‘the Doctrine is for us, not them’.