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

In the spirit of secondhand pentecostalism, here’s a post that, while lacking the sophistication and subtle humor of our contemporary  ‘this is the Wakefield Doctrine’ posts, is imbued with the ‘don’t know what we don’t know’ enthusiasm of our earliest writing style. Besides, this is about an alternate perspective on the world, and, is not, in point of fact, ‘The’ or The best’ or any other variation on ‘The Answer’

The Wakefield Doctrine is… not the antithesis of ‘the True Answer’ but it is (the) ‘take-the-‘Member’ embroidery off and all ya gots is a windbreaker. ok, if you’re in a advantaged demographic, a ‘London Fog’.

The most telling deficiency of our presentation of the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers is, of course, our totally-weak, anemic, tertiary rogerian aspect. Like a deaf mute music fan hearing by vibrations only…. hey! that reminds me of a science fiction story from the before time… hold on

JG Ballard. ‘The Sound Sweep‘. (sorry no rights claimed. the guy was a monster, back in the Golden Age)

where were we?

oh yeah… the Wakefield Doctrine and the fun to be had. without the crowds.

Fun and productive is the way we describe our little personality theory from the very first year. ‘productive’ now that’s a word begging to be used as an example of ‘the Everything Rule’!

productive:

produce. (transitive) To yield, make or manufacture; to generate. (transitive) To make (a thing) available to a person, an authority, etc.; to provide for inspection.

ok! now the three predominant worldviews:

1. the Outsider (clarks) clearly the 2nd definition. ’cause if the true curse of a certain Apple is the ambition to provide for others additional knowledge (you thought it was limited to ‘Good and Evil’?!!)  as a basis for justifying membership then… come on down! Parker Brothers! (longest tenure as publishers of ‘Trivial Pursuit’). Now can we join your little club?
2. the Predator (scotts) sure, you can look but don’t try to hold us to any rules… the fun of games is the same fun the cat has with the unfortunate mouse, stuck in the kitchen with no way out other than over the vast Plain of Lynoleum… running won’t help. Well, it does help with the comedic value
3. the Herd Member (rogers) you did see the word: ‘manufacture’ right? Not create. Not sell. Manufacture. Assemble parts in a uniform and consistent manner. Ladies and Gentlemen We have a Center! (of the Herd)

*

this should be getting clearer to you people by now

July 1, 2010

(Trying a ‘night-before’ Post.  Has not worked in the past, but I am nothing if not insistent on ignoring the lessons of the past.  Just because this approach has not yet worked, doesn’t mean that this is one not the charm.)

So let’s just get all Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) on yer asses to start things off…seeing how we will no doubt hear from DownSpring glenn in the Comments section.  By now he is starting to feel that this “restraint” that he believes is being imposed on him in terms of the Comments that are published are really, kinda, now-that-I-think-of-it really not fair and stupid and who do they think they are telling me that what I write is not in the interest of the Wakefield Doctrine.  Huh?

I am writing this in the morning, not last night.  Which means that this is sort of a continuation of the above, which was written last night, therefore I have started a blog the night before and that makes this a pre-written blog.  Success.  Can see from the the “Comment Scales” that we have quite a heavy load of words added to yesterday’s Post.  And we do appreciate DownSpring glenn’s contribution to the Post and to the Doctrine.  His position on the nature of change vis a’ vis scotts and clarks (and by inference rogers) is well taken and like everything else found on these pages contributes to the advancement of the Wakefield Doctrine.  Rather than continue the debate on the merits of change/self-improvement in the individual, let’s try to find another aspect of the Doctrine and see if the issue comes up, that way we might find other points of contention.  Or better yet let’s simply ask the Question:

What is the value of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)?

“the Wakefield Doctrine is a unique, fun and productive tool for understanding the behavior of others.  Using the (viewpoint) of the Wakefield Doctrine we can look at the people in our lives, at home, at work, at school and at play and know why they do the things that they do“.

Ok that is a good description of what the Doctrine is intended to be.  So what is there to discuss?  Should anyone want to understand others?  Is the state of our understanding of others to be considered complete as it is, with any further learning deemed a complete waste of time?  Is there room for one more theory of personality, albeit a fairly homemade/anecdotal/inferential/non-empirical collection of observations as is the Doctrine?

I bet it is all about how each of the three look at this thing, if a clark sees a different use in all these words from a scott who has a totally different opinion of (it’s) utility than does the roger, is that not proof the Wakefield Doctrine is to some degree a unique, productive and fun way to look at the behavior of others?
And since none of us reading and/or writing in these pages is a “real” clark, scott or roger, it falls to us to offer our perspective on what good this thing is and how would it be improved so that more and more people could benefit from it.

That is, unless everyone is already all they should be so that if anyone does not already read the Wakefield Doctrine, they should not start and conversly anyone currently reading cannot ever stop reading it.  Or something like that.

But hey we ain’t no fuddy duddy life forms looking to enhance our curicula vitae by writing Posts and/or Comments, is we?  So let’s have some fun here folks!

*