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

Someone, this weekend, on the Saturday Night Drive call-in, mentioned the style of the writing in the earliest of days of this blog. We all laughed, as many people do, when recalling the beginning of skill development. Baby pictures, with or without an actual baby. (lol)

We laughed and celebrated the Wakefield Doctrine at that, as it is one of the more universal, easily-identifiable-with effects of applying the principles of the Doctrine.

New Reader: full disclosure, the person behind the editorial ‘we’ is a clark. (With a significant secondary scottian aspect. But that’s for another Post.) And as a clark, they (or we… this sometimes gets a little cluttered, pronounistically-speaking) would be seriously loathe to go back and look at what came before. To be more precise, to be held up for scrutiny, in even the indirect context of considering early skill in the writing thing.

ah!

ha!

As it the true intent of a Reprint Monday, we’ve stumbled across an interesting topic.

What is the kryptonite of all three predominant worldviews?

(Quick clarification, qualification of our thesis: We’re not talking antithetical, in the fundamental reality sense. Today, using the kryptonite metaphor we’re referring to ‘biggest fear’, ‘that which the person fears the most’. You know, like public speaking, heights, and nude spiders on airplanes. The antithetical list is actually way more interesting. Spoiler Alert: they each reflect the other, in a three-way sequence sorta way.)

So, for the predominant worldviews of the Wakefield Doctrine, the three most fear-inspiring things:

• clarks (Outsider) scrutiny While there is enough to surely fill pages and paragraphs, analyzin’ and dramatizin’ the way clarks feel about scrutiny, let’s try and put it in terms a New Reader will identify with (providing they are clarks). In keeping with the slightly archaic feel of the word itself, scrutiny is the feeling that is engendered by un-invited intimacy. (We’ll be happy to respond with elaboration on this, provided you use the Comment function.) (lol)
• scotts (Predator) routine Surely the unhappiest of scotts are those who are constrained in choice of activity, while compelled to exert their energy in a manner that is point and meaning -less.
• rogers (Herd Member) shunning Hey! Here’s an example from the same conversation this last Saturn’s day. And, oddly enough, the best illustration of the original point: our reaction to the idea that our writing was very… different that it is today. There was a turning point, back in the early days, when, in response to the typical free-wheeling experimentation that is common to acquiring one’s voice, in writing, someone said, ‘Be careful. You get too far out there and all your friends will be offended and reject you.’ (Our response) was, ‘Well, if that happens, I guess I’ll just have to get a whole new set of ‘everyone’.’ There was, (in our conversation, of this Saturday past) an invisible intake of breath followed by silence. On the part of the roger in the conversation. It was, not shock, as that is an active state of response. It was more, an existential awe. Beyond the pale, beyond any part of even the most fundamental of assumptions and premiseses…

Interesting, no?

Gots to go for now. You should join us one of these Saturday nights. It’s fun.