Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
So the second coolest thing* happened the other day at the office. Initiating a conversation, an associate texted: what a roger!
I smiled and my pride in being the curator of our little personality theory increased just a bit.
(Full Disclosure: being a clark, I immediately chastised myself for the indulging in pride. Not as in the somewhat more famous religion’s admonition against such self-assessment, more in the ‘keep your feelings to yourself, nothing good could otherwise result’.)
Holy smoke! Being a holiday and all, let’s get all zen koan and say: the preceding post is sufficient for a talented Reader (and student of the human condition) to reconstruct the Wakefield Doctrine.
* first coolest thing? While it has not, to the best of our knowledge, yet happened, would be a person, with whom we have not had any contact, to say the above in our presence.
…ok, we admit it, feeling some guilt about hitting publish on a 180 word post.
… no! now wait just a darn minute!
I (re)-read the following, while scanning old posts for reprint:
The Wakefield Doctrine is for you, not them.
damn! those words, they are correct!
When I engage the world through the lens of the Doctrine, it does not change me. And…. and! it does not change you.
What it does is make available to us an additional perspective on what is going on at this particular moment. Therefore, if our desire is to best relate ourself to the world around us, appreciating how you are experiencing the world is helpful. Doesn’t change you. But our relationship to you, at least in this particular interaction, will surely be different for accepting this understanding of you.
so, maybe it does change us.
but!! The use of the perspective afforded by the Wakefield Doctrine will do nothing, at least directly, to affect the other person. However, not only will we have added to our world by better understanding you, we will be altered. Since the Wakefield Doctrine maintains that while living in one, and only one predominant worldview (aka personality type), we are still possessed of the capacity to experience the world as do the other two, this acceptance moves us a tiny step forward to being the most we can be as people.
cool
About clarkscottroger
Way cool, when you stop and really get it.
So far, I understand this is a personality theory. Beyond that, little. I guess that makes me a clyde
No one is authorized to tell another person which of the three types they are.
That said, as a suggestion, perhaps start with reading up on rogers?
I know the others are better at this (helping sort through the … chaos that is the Doctrine) than I.
Neil, I have to confess that Clark is a friend, but also a coconut.
Trying to understand anything he writes is an exercise in futility.
But sometimes fun.
lol
Hey Neil, follow-up to my first reply.
Seems I am exhibiting some of my own predominant worldview’s characteristics. Sorry about the incorrect post over at ceayr’s new bloghop.
As to the Doctrine, it’s fun and interesting and demonstrably not for everyone.
I’d send a link to a single post with direct, concise explanation of the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine, but… errr I can’t think of one off the top of my head*
*lol and I wrote them all
Hi Clark, I’m not sure why you linked this to the Min Min challenge.
Can you enlighten me?
actually did not intend to…my days of proselytizing are way back in tie
never a tech guy I wrote my M post here, but it should not have forced a link (if that’s a thing)
Damn! As I suspected I can’t delete the post to try sending in a non-Doctrine post
Do me a solid, c delete my post over there at M&M-ville and I’ll try again