Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
It is said that the Wakefield Doctrine can be the most efficacious of tools for self-developing oneself.
This is true.
This assertion will come as no surprise to most Readers, as there are nearly as many self-improvement schema, systems, programs and secret-religions as there are personality type/typing/this-is-you.
Of course, the Wakefield Doctrine’s Kyrie Eleison is different.
The road to self-improvement is about (our) relationship with the world, not: the things-we-know, the skills-we-hone or the focal-length of our emotions.
New Readers? That, that last line? Classic Hint. (Totally gonna be on the Exam). What our writer friends might refer to as foreshadowing So, if you haven’t been doing your assigned reading, you better hope your neighbor doesn’t mind your looking over at their notes. This is about to get all bullet-pointy.
The Wakefield Doctrine maintains that if we’re out to change our lives, then it is not about learning things and facts, skills and routines. It it about changing the way we relate ourselfs to the world around us and the people who make it up.
Someone just mutter, ‘Jeez, asking much?’
Yes. Yes we are. (Well, no. No we are not.) The thing about the Doctrine is that it recognizes the nature of each of the three predominant worldviews’s relationship to the world. All without judging, criticizing and, otherwise saying, ‘Well, you know, things might go smoother for you if you just realized/did/accepted (fill in the complimentary quality from the diametrically opposed predominant worldview)
Enough for the morning.
(We’re not just the Curator of the Wakefield Doctrine, we’re also a Student* too! And, today begins Practice Number IIXVVXCCMM)
(…to be cont’d)
* …to school there.
*
*
About clarkscottroger
Not to correct the teach’ but which of three is an “ourselfs” – and is that the same as ourselves, as in how do we put ourselves into someone else’s shoes. I suppose this requires appropriate punctuation, like a question mark … but it’s not really a question, so a full-stop will suffice. (full-stop) 😂
…this ‘appropriate punctuation’ and/or ‘spelling’ of which you speak, what are these things (lol)
Thank you, btw. I have been remiss in practicing my Wakefield Doctrine ‘Elevator Pitch’
No frills Doctrine description and instructions for safe and productive implementation:
The Wakefield Doctrine is an additional perspective on reality, i.e. primarily the people in our lives and how we relate and interact with the world.
The Doctrine is predicated on the idea that there are, in common parlance, three personality types.
The Outsider(clarks), the Predator(scotts) and the Herd Members(rogers). We are born with the potential of all three. For reasons not yet fully understood, everyone settles into one of these three at an early age (1-3 y.o.) They are referred to as one’s predominant worldview.
(ProTip: unlike a lot of the other personality type systems, the Doctrine will hold that the individual is in an actual reality (of the three). For us, it’s not so much people practice certain tendencies, inclinations and tropisms as much as we try to survive and thrive in the world/reality in which we find ourselfs. a clark knows instinctively they are in a world in which they are an Outsider and, so, develop the social strategies, personal styles that are suited to nature and character of their world/reality. (As do the other two). Here at the Doctrine, we say, ‘everyone has the perfect personality type’. This to acknowledge the context (aka personal reality) in which we grow, mature and exist.
Everyone settles into one and only one predominant worldview.
We never lose the potential to relate to the world as do ‘the other two’. Sometimes a Reader will ask, ‘Sure I can see I’m one of these roger people, but sometimes I am a scott and other times I’m a clark. I guess I must be a fluke! (Doctrine Answer: ‘No, you are not.) lol
Anyway, we all grow up as a clark, scott or roger.
Some of us (actually, in these pages, many of us have highly developed potentials for ‘the other two’. We refer to this potential as one’s secondary and tertiary aspects.
For example: I am a clark with a significant secondary scottian and minor tertiary rogerian aspect. One can tell this because I have a level of aggressiveness (in the context of the Wakefield Doctrine) that a clark without a secondry scott would not exhibit. (We have a great story about the time we discovered the effects of secondary/tertiary aspect involving Friend of the Doctrine Cynthia
So, back to the beginning!
One of the stated benefits of applying the perspective represented by the Wakefield Doctrine theory of personality is that it improves our ability to ‘see the world, as the other person is experiencing it. (Totally deliberate italics there.)
Last but not least!!
Warning Warning!! If you take up with this Doctrine personality types thing to the degree of understanding (of the characteristics of each personality type) you will begin to see the clarks, scotts and rogers in your world.
That, btw, is not the Warning.
The Warning is that once you start to see the clarks, scotts and rogers in your world, you may not be able to not see the clarks, scotts and rogers.
hope this helped
thanks for the opportunity for me to practice my podium skills
Still trying to decide if it’s worth seeing some of those rogers.
there is that, lol!