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

Where to begin?

When you think about it, using RePrints to jumpstart a post is, kinda, just like time travel, ya know?

After all, we are, (on some level), what we write. And who can deny that what we write, (fiction, non-fiction, theories of personality types), are us, made loud.

New Readers! There is a thing in the Doctrine referred to as ‘the Everything Rule’. If you’re just getting the hang of this here Doctrine thing here, don’t be concerned if the part of you that felt, for a moment, like this applied to you is now saying, ‘This is all bullshit. I want to speak to the manager. It’s not right that they go on and on like this…” (lol)

While this post began, as many do, speaking generically, i.e. to all three personality types, clearly we are addressing the clarks in the Readiance. The Everything Rule, (which states, ‘everyone does everything at one time or another’) is there to remind us that, while the three personality types exist in characteristically-distinct personal realities, none has exclusive domain over any part or element of everyday life. How a thing, (a job, a love interest, an avocation, an idea, a nightmare or the best way to express an idea), exists for clarks, scotts and rogers without limitation. How it manifests is determined by the nature and character of that person’s worldview. Being a carpenter (manifests) differently to an Outsider compared to a Predator. Being a fan of a popular musician looks like one thing when we’re observing a roger versus a scott. A cop who is a scott will exhibit traits that are arguably more aligned with successful exceution of their professional duties than say, that of a clark who has become a police officer.

It’s all about how one relates themselves to the world around them and the people who make it up. The world is ‘the same’ for everyone. How we experience it can be viewed through three difference lenses, i,e, that of the Outsider(clarks), the Predator(scotts) or the Herd Member(rogers).

We haven’t used ‘the Wakefield Doctrine Promise’ in a long time! (Here ya go): Learn the character (and characteristics) of these three relationships/predominant worldviews and you will know more about the other person than they know about themselves.

Tuesday too the Wakefield Doctrine (nope! we were not joking about the destiny of the content*)

May 6, 2014

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

(So …we all good with the realness of your personal reality? …the reality of the other person’s worldview?) We’re spending a lot of time on this because, when we get to the part about using the Doctrine in influencing/helping/understanding/impressing/scoring-big-time with another person, it will be your acceptance of the very real difference (between) what the world is for you and what it is for the other person, that will carry the day.

Speaking of trying to change/improve/enhance/fuckin-stop-making-the-same-mistake-over-and-over-again!, lets take a look at a new concept we’re trying out:

Personal Limiting Condition (PLC), a term for the mechanism inherent in all of our lives, that contrives to limit change. (By change we mean anything that we feel we could or should do differently, anything that we believe will, a) improve our lives or 2) decrease our unhappiness (with our lot in life).  Lets say you, (a clark for the purposes of keeping this discussion somewhat credible) decide, ‘I need to get into shape’ (or) ‘I need to apply myself more and do better at my job’.  Fine. (Being a clark), we will think a lot about how we should attempt to do this thing, whatkind of schedule, necessary equipment and will devote a significant amount of time imagining how great it will be to finally…. whatever you anticipate the ‘new you’ look(ing)/act(ing)/feel(ing) like.

The first day of the jogging program/be serious and ‘on the ball’ at work, goes great! It didn’t hurt too much/it wasn’t too embarrassing. The second day of the jogging/’someone on the move’ at place of employment: hey a little sore, but better shape than you thought (hope it doesn’t take too long)/people seem to be looking at you funny, but the boss seems impressed… Day Three: this is boring/I’m so far behind everyone else…I’ll show them, I’ve got to give 143%/ fine!! I got my regular day’s work done (not that many errors) and the boss seems to be busy with other things…I am so far behind in life, big rewards require big risks!! … until: you run as fast as you know you should be able to run (and something gets fucked up) or  you suddenly have the best idea ever for a book (or starting a band) or maybe sending out resumes, cause your cousins sister-in-law is in the HR Department of a big corporation and everyone knows you should be in…

These last, they are the Personal Limiting Conditions.

The power of PLCs is that they are quite real. You don’t have to give up jogging to not be able to get into shape, you can get hurt. You don’t have to quit your job because you know that you’re in a dead-end mode, you have so many other potential possibilities (yeah, zoe, I know lol).
These are real events. We all encounter them. Doesn’t mean that we are not capable of avoiding them. What it does mean is that, as clarks, we should recognize that this kind of thing happens to scotts and rogers (and other clarks), therefore it does not constitute proof of the unchange-ability of your life.

That’s it for now. for the new(er) Readers… and Jak, here:

(from May of last year, a portion of a Post (in part) Titled, ‘want to know the most dangerous, corrosive word used by a clark?)

It’s an innocent enough word. More than innocent, this word is often considered to be one of positive meaning and intent, a hopeful word, an optimistic word. But as a loan shark is to your local bank, the price of the loan is always higher than the value secured.

The word is ‘maybe’.
In the hands (or on the tongues) of clarks, the word is meant well. “It is a good job, maybe I’ll get it“. Perhaps because, when clarks look at the world we see people and institutions, groups and family members who, while certainly not intending us harm, (they all) clearly know something that we don’t know. “Maybe I don’t want to be a doctor, maybe I really want to find my own way”. The words we use when describing the world we find ourselves in, are  picked with the hope of blending in, looking to be a member or, one of the guys/one of the girls. “I think I should ask her out, maybe I’ll wait until a better time” “How many times do we have to discuss this, maybe next time you’ll listen to me”

Not really sure what it was that struck me about the use of the word ‘maybe’, it just seems that it has a certain resonance when employed by clarks. It is a word that lets us ‘commit without committing’, a word designed to insulate us from disappointment. clarks fear disappointment almost as much as we fear fear. More in a way. Fear can be run from. Disappointment is a sentence of reduced possibility. And if clarks are anything, we are people who believe that having possibilities is the difference between a possibly happy life and a life where we still have options. In a sense, as long as we have the possibility (of something) there is hope.  Maybe.

 

*