Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
Not much time.
Fortunately the subject is the Wakefield Doctrine so…don’t need a lot.
(…damn! tried the ‘easier, shorter path’… nothin’. Guess we gotta go old school)
The Wakefield Doctrine is a way of looking at the world around us and the people who make it up. As an alternate perspective on people and our interactions with them, it is more a language than a schedule/chart of traits and behaviors.
There are three relationships, (holds the Doctrine), we might experience. It is the character of those relationship styles that determine what we do and say and respond when interacting with the world.
In one sense, the Wakefield Doctrine is a translator. By providing a glossary of experiences unique to the three individually, the determined person can not only better see the world as the other is experiencing it, they will know more about the other person than they know about themselves.
These three relationships? That of:
- the Outsider (clarks) grew up apart from, at a certain (before the age of knowing the rules) became convinced they missed a class: “Being a Member of the family/tribe/society). Assuming the worst, the clark see the world as a treasure hunt that everyone else has one more clue than they. Being different unfortunately has a default setting of ‘un-deserving’ but the Outsider has good survival instincts and keeps it to themselves/maintains a low(ish) profile.
- the Predator (scotts) life? You mean today? What else is there? If it’s smaller and moves: chase it. If it’s fricken’ huge and moves: run away. Sleep when tired, When awake listen to the inner shout! Live. Now.
- the Herd Member (rogers) The world is a puzzle. Not of information. Not of standards of behavior. It is a puzzle that, while you know what you are doing is the Right Thing, the rest of Life remains insufficiently resolved. You seek the Right Way. And you rely on the attractiveness you maintain among the people around you to guide you along that Path. While you’re doing that, the increase in the number of others looking towards you is your North Star.
There ya go!
Get out there into the world today and when the other person (in an interaction) says something totally non-sensical / outrageous / mean whip out your little Doctrine translator/glossary/Michelin Guide/Berlitz cheatsheet and you will be in a position to respond on the basis of what the other actually meant as opposed to seemingly intended.
About clarkscottroger
Does our aspect change with age?
Meaning our predominant worldview (aka personality type) pretty muchL No.
What does often happen with age is a person’s secondary aspect can become more pronounced.
Secondary and tertiary aspects vary from person to person. They are legacy personal reality, if you will. But they are expressed (and therefore, noticeable) as exceptions often under duress. They are the fluke, the behavioral sport. the outlier the flash of ‘I had not idea you had that in you).
Our uncovering of this concept (of active secondary and tertiary aspects) came courtesy of our Friend Cynthia.
Back in the day we got to be friends, in no small part, because of how thoughtful, creative and quiet she was in her blog (pictimilitude.com). Needless to say, she appeared to be a clark.
But then, just before it became all the rage* she started posting videos of herself taking a walk and talking to us viewers.
And, we were, like, “holy smoke! You are totally owning that medium**”
She was… and we thought, we know, if you had to pick a ‘natural’ for being the center of the spotlight/frontman/diva you go get yerself a scott. So where is this coming from?
She had a significant secondary scottian aspect.
huzzah!
Fun alternative perspective on the world around us and the people who make it up. no?
*being a clark means being the quality of creative that is little noticed because of no one else coming up with it and making it popular. that what rogers are for
** clarks are renowned for being camera shy
It should, in theory, be easy to recognise oneself as a this or a that or a this-that, but I’m finding it quite a challenge; not because I don’t know myself* but because I see aspects of Clark and Scott in myself. Overall, I’m a Clark – always have been and always will be ** – and I’m usually standing back and observing others, although I can manage handily in a group or party, if I must. But I’ve always found myself in a leading role, not by choice, and I rarely “flee” when “attacked” but I know my limits, and I’ll just walk away as if I’ve never given that person a single thought (and probably won’t ever again).
Anyway, it’s a challenge. An enjoyable one.
And thank you for the lengthy and comprehensive reply.
* I know myself very well, but I keep myself to myself.
** Keep the bloody camera away from me, and excuse me while I go stir the soup in the kitchen …
your welcome* (lol)
One of our most useful metaphors when helping people identify their own predominant worldview is that of the visit to the eye doctor/vision test. Learn the three relationships, both in what they are and the glossary of outstandingly characteristic expression. Now load up that circular contraption with the three and have at it! Ok here is the scene/situation: is this clearer (click) or is this clearer (click) how about now (click)… now (click) (Note usually you are comparing the world as seen by two of the three predominant worldviews. The first step is the ‘No frickin’ way I’m one of those’ lol
The tricky challenge is to let yourself admit when on is just a bit off/a touch blurry compared to the other.
* I used to do that kind of malapropism / malagramizing** back in the early days of coming online; it serves as an example of how the Everything Rule allows seeming cross-overs between predominant worldview to not muck-up the works
** not a ‘real’ word