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

As promised, the follow-up to yesterday’s post

As to the language describing the core Doctrine concepts, has it changed over time? If so: Compare and Contrast

Once again a Reader has offered, (consciously or not), the suggestion of a perspective that, while not directly bearing on today’s stated theme, is one that offers perhaps an even more interesting look-see at this here Doctrine, here.*

Mimi’s Comment to yesterday’s Post:

All things being equal, perhaps they are about equal.

Yes, in the everyday sense. All (three) have strengths, weaknesses and ‘omg-you-can’t-be-serious?!?!! or ‘that’s what you think/how you’d act/the way you feel!??!’

(lol) We all have our own experiences with the more outlying behaviors of ‘the other two’ personality types in our lives. And, even if we can’t see it in our ownselfs, if lucky we afford ourselves of the opportunity to witness another person who shares our predominant worldview doing something that is total ‘wtf’?**

That said, we’ll take Mimi’s ‘the three are equal’ and raise her the admittedly less obvious, but definitely worth the stretch, view that the three predominant worldviews are one fractured whole person.

The (unstated) goal of the application of the perspective made available by applying the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine (out-of-breath-emoji here) is take advantage of the strengths of ‘the other two’ predominant worldviews. And, before you say it, as a personality theory, we recognize that it is not practical to think one can simply decided to ‘be a roger‘ or ‘go at them like a scott‘¹.

Well, not quite.

From the very beginning of this theory of clarks, scotts and rogers there is the belief that while we may not have grown up relating to the world around us a(n) Outsider (clark), Predator (scott) or Herd Member (roger) we did, and still do, have the potential. The innate ability. Whatever the cool wordification for the capacity to act in a given circumstance.

Ok… too clarklike in our writing. (There! See?!?! Just Demonstrated the rogerian ‘honest, self-crit’ of my public behavior here. And… Hey! This is kinda fun! Lets go steal a car!!)

* New Readers? There’s a reason we recommend reading as many old posts as possible. It is beyond our ability (and focus) to present a totally comprehensive list of characteristic behavior/responses of all three predominant worldviews. (Bonus note: we just said ‘behavior/responses. That choice of verbs over nouns would allow a determined enough person to, dare I say it, reconstruct the entire Wakefield Doctrine. Being focused on relationships (to the world around us and the people who make it up) we did not say: traits and tropisms. But that’s not important now.) What we were about to say regarding the choice of words in the introduction above is that our choice of words were indicative of a clark, finding themselves lacking the succinct and eloquent words to complete the sentence, choosing to indulge in what we probably (and, mind you, a certain pride), pidgin intelligence.

** and surely this experience is the most difficult. to get ourselves to the point of being able to observe, appreciate and identify with another person of our own predominant worldview. Which is, of course, the ‘point’ of this post.

1. extra credit to whoever shouted, “What about secondary and tertiary aspects, huh? What about. them! ‘nother post yo. But, seeing how you brought it up, what say you Comment the thesis and we’ll see what we can do.