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

This Monday morning’s RePrint post is interesting. It is a point on the continuum of development that is the difference between, ‘Good-That-Explains-It*’ ‘Yeah, that’s the word we really wanted.’

In the first couple of years we, (using the 1st person), explained the perspective of each of the three predominant worldviews in terms of (our) seeing/experiencing the world. Everyone would see the world either as would the Outsider (clarks), the Predator (scotts) or the Herd Member (rogers) and act/react/develop accordingly.

This verb was replaced by various forms of the concept of relationship. Rather than our predominant worldviews being defined as the product of our perception, it became a manifestation of the relationship (more precisely, ‘how we related ourselves to the world’). This is ultimately much more useful. It’s the character of our relationship that determined our experience of reality. You might say, ‘how we saw was what we are’.

whhoah!! dudes, maximal gravitation!

Lets take a beat, post the RePrint and let the day unfold**

Pretty simple, isn’t it?

RePrint!

Friday -the Wakefield Doctrine- of pop quizzes and bulletpoints

March 13, 2015

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

Don’t Forget! This Evening… Vidchat at Seven! (‘An Evening at George and Jane’s‘)  stop by!  it’s hosted by clarks, so that means what it lacks in social status, (“I can’t believe you missed it last Friday!! oh man! everyonewas there!!!!”), is compensated by  odd conversations, funny in an interesting way and (sometimes) totally outrageous!

I trust you all know that we’ve found the Wakefield Doctrine to be useful to (any) effort to self-improve oneself.  I (further) assume that everyone recognizes that the Doctrine is ‘three things to three people’. (And) that, it’s not even necessary that you determine which of the three you are, prior to trying to using our little personality theory to help you in your efforts. Start wherever you are right now.   After all, ‘you can’t break it and, you can’t get it wrong‘.  Yep, we still maintain that assertion about the use of the Wakefield Doctrine.

You do know, don’t you, that we can tell which of the three you are, purely on the basis of which of the three you initially say you are…. lol  (Hey!  New Readers! We have a Rule about identifying one’s predominant worldview. It’s your worldview, so no one can say, ‘By Power of the (fill in something relating to your own worldview) I declare that you are a ….!’  Well, they can say it, and you can even ask them to say it, but no one has any authority to impose their opinion of your worldview (dominant, secondary or tertiary aspects).  Doesn’t mean we’re not all willing to share our understanding of the characteristics of the three worldview that are critical to understanding and identifying a person.

• For example: one of the more difficult ‘calls’ to make: attractive male person who appears very confident, even to the point of aggressiveness,  is he a scott or a roger? You might think, ‘Very aggressive  that must mean scott!’   ok… but you want to go deeper than that*
  they’re being aggressive, fine!  …with/at/towards who?  Are they ‘playing to the room’ or are they focused on one person.
  Now… (here’s a critical question), is it about them or the person they are focused on? What happens when they are rebuffed and/or told to go jump in a lake? Do they laugh or do they seem to be taking it personally?
• another very common situation (more often when a person seeks to determine their own predominant worldview):   you see a clark, i.e. the poor posture, the mumbling, the odd, (but interesting), fashion choices, but then this very same person, for a moment, holds the attention of the entire room…. you’re thinking, ‘maybe this is a combination type part clark and part scott‘!  You’d be right…but with the wrong conclusion.  We all have one predominant worldview, but also the potential to see the world from the perspective of ‘the other two’. For some of us, this ‘secondary aspect’ is so significant that we develop some of the behaviors and strategies and coping mechanisms of this ‘other worldview’…. and these behaviors come to the surface at times usually at times of stress or duress, ( ‘hey! I want ‘cha ta meet someone!!  these are my two cousins, Stress and Duress…. aint’ they hot?!  you ever wanna to have a wild night  lemme know!).
• so… bottom line on identifying a person’s dominant worldview:  we’re merely trying to infer how that other person is ‘relating themselves to the world around them’.  know this and you know them

OK!  end of Post.  Don’t forget to join us tonight.

….sure!  there’s got to be something I can say that will change your life (or have an effect for even just a single moment in your weekend)….

• clarks:  keep in mind this little fact that is shared by clarks alone…. more often than we allow, ‘it’s them, not us!  If you walk away from a surprise conflict (is there any other kind for us?) feeling bad with a tinge of  guilt that it was your fault? it’s them not you
• scotts: yeah… your gut on this one is right and even though you almost can’t imagine how that family member can believe something so wrong about themselves…. it’s true  and….and, chances are they’re used to it, so you don’t need to do anything immediately  but, definitely know that they will appreciate whatever you try to do, even if it is ineffective
• rogers: give yourself a break…. no, really. while finding and living ‘the Right Way’ confers to others nearly as much benefit as it does to you… they’ll survive if you take the weekend off, hell, they’ll enjoy it and you’ll have a re-energized feeling afterwards

7:00 pm

EDT

* the process of identifying a person’s dominant worldview is a lot like an optometrist eye test.  you start looking at the person through the lens of two worldviews (you always throw out the obvious ‘no way’…. in our example above where we said, ‘attractive….confident…aggressive’?  the ‘no way’ is a clark  which leaves you with scottand roger. From here, you go for more and more intrinsic characteristics and you’ll find that one of the views becomes less clear as the other becomes more and more focused.**

** this same process is used when you identify your own worldview

* to clarks, at any rate¹

1) it remains true that anyone returning to this blog more than twice is a clark or (a) scott/roger with a significant secondary clarklike aspect

** sure, extra credit any Reader who just now got a visual of:

1. the muy creepy box thing in the HellRaiser franchise
2. an automated mechanical-rabbit thing at dogtracks
3. the intro-scroll from the start of the first Star Wars movie