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

Damn! This* is dry. Interesting. Bordering on witty, slipping into boredom.

See?!?! Right there!

ok. pencils down. No, this will not be on the text.

the Wakefield Doctrine is an additional perspective on life, the world and the people who make it up. It is both tool and map. (Not instructions or hot assistant wearing a provocative outfit/clothing). It is presented as a theory of personality though there is no particular drive to justify suppositions, validate inferences or don a cap and gown (or tweed sports coat with leather patches). The terminology is used to justifiy using the term personality types, of which there are three. clarks, scotts and rogers.

{Spoiler Alert! New Readers, if you’re hoping for a fun narrative, outlandish metaphors, out-fricken’-rageous descriptions of behavior set in a rhetorical setting like a turnip in a museum display of Fabergé Eggy-weggs this is not the post. Go back to this post… or this one. Read it. Come back and ask your questions}

The Wakefield Doctrine is but one of countless attempts to make sense of the world, the human condition and how-to-get-through-Life-relatively-un-scathed.

The Beauty-part of who the Doctrine is intended to help is that, (and thank god! for the concept of secondary and tertiary aspects), the only people still reading are those who have a certain quality: once referred to as ‘flexible intelligence’, at time derided as, ‘jeez will you ever stop dreaming and apply yourself‘ or, even, “No! There never was a place called Kansas. This is as real as it is ever going to get.’ In other words clarks (or scotts with a significant secondary clarklike aspect / roger with a significant secondary clarklike aspect).

scotts and rogers have no particular need for the Wakefield Doctrine. Why? Why should they? Go find your (favorite, longest-standing) scottian friend and tell them about the Wakefield Doctrine. Go find your leading rogerian friend (the one who will spend time with you without requiring the presence of others) and explain the Wakefield Doctrine.

The result? They will laugh. (And we’re intending to characterize this reaction as laughing / laughing.)

The reason? As scotts and rogers with the minimum level of clarklike secondary aspect they enjoy what you seem to get out of the Doctrine. But, on the most fundamental level, they’re fish puzzled by your fixation on this ‘water’ thing (or quality or secret insight), if only you’d keep a consistent description, but hey, that’s the thing they like about you. You’re so crazy …and you don’t try to compete.

So what the hell is this!!! ⇑ ?!?!

Thank god we sent away the New Readers!

Where’s the good-natured fun, the silly metaphors of the early years?

Here’s a question: (Despite the voice in our heads going all, ‘You know what they’re gonna say man’).  Do we look upon our change in writing style as a deficit or an asset. Clearly our posts are far more self-aware and, arguably less fun/funny. But, what about the New Reader? Do we assume they’ve grown up over the years or do we need to incorporate the early style into our current in the hope of providing an insight into our little personality theory that is sufficient to the task of providing enough for them to start seeing the clarks, scotts and rogers in their world?

… tomorrow we’ll return to the task of discussing why practicing seeing the Wakefield Doctrine at work in your own reality will dramatically enhance the benefits you derive.

ya know?

* renewed resolve to present the Wakefield Doctrine to a new generation of Readers

*