Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- “Yes, you, you in back there. You have a question”? | the Wakefield Doctrine Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- “Yes, you, you in back there. You have a question”? | the Wakefield Doctrine

Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- “Yes, you, you in back there. You have a question”?

March 23, 2022 By

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

From Friend of the Doctrine, Nick, this question

The Reprints do provide an insightful synopsis of TWD. Especially valuable in terms of managing commodities as time and attention.
One reoccurring question in my mind during my time here is the term Herd Member for rogers.
The connotations of it are not as “welcoming”. Therefore, in your experience,
how many of the potential rogers have accepted the title easily (compared to the degree of ease of the clarks/scotts)?
If the answer supports the argument of the term hindering the ability to find one’s place in the Doctrine, what’s is your rational behind maintaining the term?
Finally, if there is an underlying magnetic effect of TWD to clarks, how do you navigate the risk of self fulfilling prophecy?

Where to start?

  1. “…how many of the potential rogers have accepted the term easily (compared to the degree of ease of the clarks/scotts)?”
  2. “…what’s your rational behind maintaining the term?
  3. “if there is an underlying magnetic effect of TWD to clarks*, how do you navigate the risk of self fulfilling prophecy?

Answer to #1: Everyone one of them. At least those who have expressed and interest in… wait, let’s say, ‘Every roger who enjoys the idea of a world of three personality types.’ Of course, not every roger (or, for that matter, every scott or clark) enjoy the alternate perspective of the Doctrine.

Answer to #2: because that’s the label for the behavioral metaphor that ‘appeared’ when the Wakefield Doctrine took formal shape, i.e. when we wrote it down. Don’t tell anyone but the idea of the Doctrine, once I started this blog, was a total, ‘road to Damascus’ experience for me. The first years of posts were like frickin automatic writing. Seriously. Once I had the three types, that is. If it helps and and you’re in front of a Harvard Dean, or someone who wants to have a serious discussion regarding the efficacy of the paradigm and our weighting of the resultant chi squares, it’s ok to refer to the three personality types of the Wakefield Doctrine as behavioral metaphors. (While coughing behind your hand, clarks! scotts… rogers! lol). The thing of it is, that’s kinda of what makes the most sense of the thing.

Answer to #3: Imo1, all clarks are looking for a way to make sense of the world around them and the people who make it up. And, being the predominant worldview that thinks, lives in the world of the Outsider, of course we’re working on a system. As to being a self-fulfilling prophecy, sure… sounds about right. Why not? But the thing of it is, the Wakefield Doctrine is not an Answer. Hell, it’s not really even a question. It’s a curious set of descriptions of the way the behavior of people manifests when you assume the a certain relationship exists between that person and the world that you experience.  (Wait for it… yep! you’re correct, that last phrase, that I did not italicise is both a clue and a trick… that you experience.)

Anyway… I’ll bet you’ve gotten comfortable with the concept of secondary and tertiary aspects. I’m an Outsider cause thats the personal reality I grew up in and live in, but because I have a signficant secondary scottian aspect, I enjoy some of the qualities of the Predator… so, sure, you want me to get up on stage in front of group of strangers and talk? My stomach will fly out of my mouth, circle the room over everyone’s head (yeah, ewww) and come right back and I’ll hold everyone’s attention for as long as I discuss the Wakefield Doctrine.

Everyone except: scotts and rogers who have no (or insignificant) secondary clarklike aspects.

this thing? Only a clark would come up with it and only a clark or a scott or a roger with sufficient secondary clarklike aspect would enjoy

alright! a qucik link to the Origin Story and, as a matter of fact, even though this is my second run-through, I’m gonna go ahead and leave all my ophan footnotes and stray asteroids where they are…depending on your predominant worldview that’ll either be the straw that broke the camel’s back or a reason to laugh and shout, “Wait! You come to my house with a buncha model car kits and leave all the un-used, under-assmbled parts laying around?!!?

What the hell?!!

(Pro Tip: it’s all about how we relate ourselfs to the world around us and the people that make it up. Not how we relate to the world, it’s how we relate ourselfs)

1) the coolest thing about this Doctrine is that it’s there to have fun with, and, as an additional perspective, to get some new insights and stuff. btw one of the first and maybe only ‘rule’ is: no one has the authority, standing, insight or diplomas on the wall to tell another person which of the three they are. (a course, we do for fun and educational* purposes, but it doesn’t change the other person).

* ok, one example. Jimi Hendrix? a total clark (imo)… and figuring why thats most likely true is the fun and the practice in using the Doctrine

** ‘the Wakefield Doctrine is for you, not them’ is not a weapon, it is an assurance and is totally dependent on the core concept of all reality (to a tiny but very real degree) being personal.

*** have we already mentioned that, from the very beginning it’s been a rule that no one has the authority to make another person accept a predominant worldview… we are the only ones who have that power (though, for teaching and entertainment, we can point to others as illustration

music? but of course!

 

Related Posts:

Share
Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , ,

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. messymimi's meanderings says:
    March 23, 2022 at 7:00 pm

    In the end, it’s just a fun way to look at life, the universe, and everything.

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:
      March 24, 2022 at 7:34 am

      I concur… for me, personally, it’s been a gift… arriving of nearly-whole cloth, years after my Eureka moment (referenced in block-quotes at the bottom of the About page)

  2. Spira says:
    March 24, 2022 at 3:19 am

    (With no particular order)
    that was more of an answer than my question(s) deserved! Appreciated for the clarity and honesty.
    Point of focus? 1) and ***

    Orestes and Erinyes + pulp fiction: perfect cocktail!

    I guess that for me it boils down that humans for the last 10,000 years have evolved psychologically…almost not at all.
    And as we are marching on from homme fossile to homme du futur we do so with the same burdens.

    “What the hell?!” allow me to respond* in the SSC&B way:
    I’m here on the ground with my nose in it since the whole thing began. I’ve nurtured every sensation man’s been inspired to have. I cared about what he wanted and I never judged him. Why? Because I never rejected him. In spite of all his imperfections, I’m a fan of man. I’m a humanist. Maybe the last humanist.

    *where the associated title reveals the role I sometimes assume to further the discussion

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:
      March 24, 2022 at 7:45 am

      then the tool/toy, perspective/conceit, neutral-view of human interaction/club-shaped mirror is available… the only real ambition (some of us hold) is to, through the additional insight into the world and the people who make it up is to become increasingly adept at seeing the world as the other person is experiencing it.

      (well, that and knowing stuff about the other person that we should not be in a position to otherwise know….lol*)

      *but that hints at the genius** of the Doctrine, it is to focus on the relationship one maintains between themselves and the world they exist in

      ** from the earliest posts, it has been our embracing the role of caretaker, or if we’re feeling of a more classical mind, the curator of our little ‘personality theory’, it came, as I mentioned in my Reply to Mimi, almost of whole cloth, a lifetime after my ‘eureka moment’.

      what? I thought you’d never ask! since we’re now safely on the back-pages, allow me to cite the incident in it’s entirety

      In the early 1980’s, Scott (the progenitor scott) worked at a music store in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. He was the only full-time salesman and (also) ran the store’s repair department. In addition to musical instruments, the store provided repair services for a wide range of electronic equipment, including tape recorders and other audio equipment.

      One day I happened to stop by the store to visit. While there, a young man walked into the store, went directly to the ‘repair department’ where Scott and I were talking and without preamble placed a ‘dual cassette recorder’ on the counter. A dual cassette recorder was designed to allow one cassette to be copied directly to another, what today we would call, making a back up. The controls on this ‘dubbing recorder’ consisted of two sets of tape recorder controls: Volume, Treble and Bass. Where it differed from a single recorder was that it also had a Master Volume control. As the name implies it controlled the volume level, for both recording and playback. The tape recorder the customer placed on the counter appeared to be new and showed no signs of damage or abuse. I stepped back, Scott looked up and said, ‘What can we do for you’? The customer said, “This thing is brand new, it worked for a couple of days, then it stopped working entirely. I can’t figure out what’s wrong”.

      Scott looked at the device for a second, then, without a word, reached under the counter, brought out a roll of black electrical tape, and, tearing off a 2 inch piece, taped over the Master Volume control (after returning the dial to it’s highest setting). He then slid the device back over the counter and said, “There, it’s all right now.”

      The customer asked to plug in the recorder. Taking a cassette from his pocket he put in the machine and ran it through it’s paces. Satisfied that his ‘broken tape recorder’ now worked like new, he thanked Scott and walked out of the store, a totally satisfied customer.

      My reality shifted. For reasons not clear to this day, although I observed what scott saw as to the nature of the problem with the dual cassette recorder, I realized that the character of Scotts solution implied a reality, a ‘context’ that was clearly different from mine. At that moment I accepted that the personal reality that I experienced was not necessarily the one that of anyone else. That the manner in which Scott perceived the ‘problem’ was fundamentally different from the way I witnessed it.

      From that moment, standing in a small music store in Pawtucket, I’ve been observing the behavior of others knowing that what they are experiencing is not necessarily that which I am, I try to understand, “What kind of reality does this person exist in?”