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

As so often happens, a comment is the seed of a post.

(And, as any experienced Reader can and will, with the slightest of provocation, tell you, a post is a reflection of what the writer thinks they see.)

or something

To the Comment:

How fun and satisfying? Quite, when you can simply slough off someone’s behavior as “Just being a scott,” and know it’s nothing personal. (Mimi in response to this RePrint Post)

That’s the single most accessible, (sure, with a fair amount of time invested in sorting through 3k posts looking for the ones that focus on the characteristics of the three predominant worldviews), benefit of the Wakefield Doctrine. After all, when the other person has a perfectly good reason for doing/saying/thinking something that manifests and otherwise impacts us in a totally inimical manner,  knowing it is entirely because of the difference in what the other person is experiencing vis á vis the world/moment/situation we are, can and does make all the difference. (Whew! Hey, hey we’re dealing with the secret of the Universe and/or Life here. (You want it should be See Jane Run. See Spot Laugh (et al)? lol)

That said,  it allows some of us, (hint: rhymes with ‘clarks‘), to be comfortable with the concept, as our friend Mimi puts it, the other person is, “Just being a scott” (or roger or clark). Admittedly this aspect of the use of the Wakefield Doctrine tends to benefit one of the three more than the other two.

But then again, some of us go through life with a hair-trigger emotional cascade awaiting the trigger of, ‘What did I do to bring that on?”

Thanks Mimi!

* we should take heart from the proliferation of prescription drugs to the general, and for the most part, non-medically-trained, public with their list of… contraindications and serious side-effects; so with the Wakefield Doctrine. But ours is a simpler situation. We present three personality types. Each has benefits and liabilities (to self and others). Interaction between different predominant worldviews (clarks, scotts and rogers) add, arithmetically, an expansive, but not unwieldy number of outcomes (to these interactions).

And so, simplest: there are no ‘Good’ predominant worldviews and there are no ‘Bad’ predominant worldviews. Simply three ways to relate to the world around us and the people who make it up.

enjoyed hearing from Fred last week, what say we listen to one more before we move on to the darker side (Six Sentence Story later today)