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

In yesterday’s post, we were starting to discuss how the three predominant worldviews, (‘personality types’), were component aspects of a real, but imaginary person. One who we all would do well to be more like. Why do we say that?

Because it’s true. Because we are a clark. (We will leave the support and/or proof of this assertion to the Reader. You have twenty-six hunnert posts, some written with a modicum of readability. In and among those posts you will find what you’re looking for. If, of course, you feel a need to: a) find and 2) look. Not trying to get too Lewis C. on y’all. But the Wakefield Doctrine is nothing if it’s not a Swiss Army model car, i.e. what you need it to be and whatever kind of project you would like it to be.

We’re fond of saying, ‘If you’re back here, reading, still not satisfied that it’s safe to ignore the intimation of value (or the hint of fun), being offered, relax. Read. Try it out’.

With the Wakefield Doctrine, as with: life preservers in a stormy-night sea, a flashlight in a branch-clutching forest or, a date who smiles and turns off the car’s overhead light, ya can’t really do this thing all that wrong. Follow your own impulses. The insights afforded by the applications of the principles of the Doctrine are gonna be there. You can’t break anything. All you need do is imagine how the world appears to a person who is working from the bias of:

• the Outsider (clarks) curious to a fault, careful not to be discovered prematurely
• the Predator (scotts) wanting nothing but, (if forced to state it objectively), to be free to follow their own impulses and live the moment
• the Herd Member (rogers) knowing there’s a Right Way (to live) and a bunch of ways to mess-up, while resisting the urge to get others to realize it

So, that’s about enough of the ‘Lessons from/of the Wakefield Doctrine’.

(We’re serious about it always working. If it doesn’t (for you) then none of this will be enjoyable and beneficial and satisfying. That’s ok. We’ll be fine. No! Not to worry… our ride is a little late, we’ll just stay here. Thanks for joining us. Anytime your curiosity starts to: twitch, itch, rise… come on back.)

We were thinking about a reprint. But, nah, let’s save that for tomorrow.

What say, instead of words from the past, you think about what you’ve read and ask the question that’s been:

1. nagging at you since you got to the part about, ‘One and only one predominant worldview’
2. there from the start but, reluctantly accepting that everyone else seems to be comfortable, at least in terms of the comments down through the years, you thought would be…impolite to bring up
3. waiting for a post that is direct and unambiguous and, for god’s sake, simple.

*