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

Had a epiphany(ette) yesterday morning as I drove up the highway:

If I can acquire even the smallest appreciation of a secondary aspect it should be possible to leverage the resultant combination to gain a much deeper understanding of the tertiary aspect; an effective linkage to the tertiary (aspect) will yield an insight into the secondary. All of which will increase one’s fluency (in the individual language of the three predominant worldviews.

Cool, right?

lol

New Readers? A brief Doctrine Primer.

We are, all of us, born with the potential to experience Life from the perspective of an Outsider (clark), the Predator (scott) or the Herd Member (roger). In current Doctrine terminology: we establish one of three relationships with the world around us and the people who make it up; that of a clark (Outsider), scott (Predator) or roger (Herd Member) at a very early age. And it is this personal reality that is the context in which we mature and learn to deal with the world and develop social strategies to aid us in getting through Life.

cool?

Everyone develops in one of these three, what we call predominant worldviews. They are our ‘personality types’. However, we retain the potential of ‘the other two’, i.e. non-predominant worldviews. We refer to them as secondary and tertiary aspects. This potential can be ‘inert’ and unaffecting on our lives or they can, to varying degrees, be significant, exerting an influence on us. Mostly in our behavior, but usually to a limited scope and degree. This is often** the reason for a person new to the Doctrine to ask, “I know I’m a clark. But there are times when I’m a roger or a scott. What’s up with. that?”

For most of us with significant secondary and tertiary aspects, their character usually remains dormant, to appear only when under duress or in the throes of excitement. Of course, it is possible for a person to simply be a scott or a roger with no significant clarklike aspect. But you’re not likely to ever be having a positive, productive or, for that matter, enjoyable discussion with them about our little personality theory. We’ll leave the ‘Why’ of this for anyone wanting to write their own Doctrine post.

But sometimes, it takes less duress to cause a secondary (and less frequently, tertiary) aspect to the surface.

Friend of the Doctrine Cynthia is a perfect example.

New Reader? Doctrine Etiquette maintains that one does not state the predominant worldview of another to the world at large, without prior consent or agreement. [Doctrine Rule, from the early days states, in no uncertain terms: no one has the authority to designate another’s personality type or otherwise represent with any authority another’s predominant worldview. At least, not with the magisterium* of the Wakefield Doctrine.]

Where were we?

Ah! Cynthia. So the thing was we met Cynthia on the Facebook way back in the 2010-2011 (or thereabouts, clarks can be chronolexic so don’t hold us to those dates). She had a site, Pictimilitude. And she did a lot of things on that there site there, painting and writing and well all kinds of stuff. But at some point she decided to branch out into ‘live’ video posts. (quite the avant-garde impulse at the time). In her first vid, on walking meditation, we got ten seconds into it and said, ‘Yow! She is owning the camera. What is she, some kind of scott?!’

lol.

no. but there was clearly a significant secondary scottian aspect in evidence.

Damn… so much for a brief review.

Ask us, after the bloghop section of the week, (that is the Six Sentence Story ‘hop with Denise tomorrow and the Unicorn Challenge hosted by ceayr and jenne on Friday) to return to the topic: Translation among the Three Predominant Worldview and Challenge to Become Fluent.

* hey, cool wordage, no? magisterium. Was gonna go with ‘color’ as in the color of the law. But, and this might be a reach, but we might be able to pull off a mitre, as a fashion statement.

Hey, speaking of virtuoso/virtuosae, how ’bout some Guthrie Govan? (the Aristocrats)