Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
Open your pages to where we left off last week, please.
what?
Fine. Put your bookmarks into Page Wednesday.
Given we’ve hinted at a topic in our post title, lets go with:
With a proper understanding of the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine you will be a position to know more about the other person than they know about themselves.
It’s true.
ok, not to get all dramatic (aka rogerian) but we just pulled ourselfs out of a shortcut to posting this post. aka RePrint post.
Don’t get us wrong, it was a good ‘un. And made sense (for the early years, that is), but, if the truth be told, more often than one would think, we write to learn and practice this here personality theory here.
So, how is it we can know another person better than they know themselves?
When you are engaged with:
- clark know that they will not tell you everything, as knowledge (and his slutty half-sister, information) is the only coin-of-the-realm they believe they have and, besides, revealing all about a person, place or thing invites scrutiny
- scotts they act with out (necessarily) thinking, rely on their instincts and often battle their prey drive; any inquiry should be brief, succinct and lead to action or actions, hopefully involving chasing and retrieving
- rogers words are nothing more than fricken coat hangers (mostly the cheap, dry-clean type with a non-slip cross piece, if you see the equivalency of anything close to a all-wood high quality hanger, like from a custom clothing shop, you have them at their most vulnerable. (Ain’t no time to indulge in R. King)
OK!
Tune in tomorrow when we talk: Creativity and three personality types of the Wakefield Doctrine
*
About clarkscottroger
I don’t much care for the prey avenue of direction, but yes, for the love of every god, get to the point and knock off the “ya know” and the “erms and aahs “. If you want something from me, just say it and be clear. By the way, I want a new personality – as a predator that should be standard issue. Camouflage, you know.
Agreed!*
** wait for it….
we knew you would say that
lol
You’re telling a Scott to wait for it? That seems contrary to the Doctrine.
ikr?
(Hence the practical value to those of use who see the alternative perspective that is the Wakefield Doctrine. As a tool it allows us a greater ability to see the world as the other person is experiencing it, i.e. we know the world of the scott (as we do of the rogers and clarks) to a greater degree and depth than otherwise possible.
Therein the translation metaphor. When we encounter a scott shouting “Hey!” we hear, “I beg your pardone, but my instincts are raging. Please help me understand what it is that you are offering. Alas I can do little but see as a fleeing rabbit or a up-rearing predator”.
And so, (we students of the Doctrine) know better than to run away or over-emphasize eye contact, comfortable in the fact that if the intent (of the scott) is consistent with ours, we play a little and work a little with them.
If there is sufficient secondary clarklike aspect, they usually catch a glimpse of the world outside the savannah and take a chance on waiting a little.)
sorry, kinda wandered off into Parathentia on the Reply here are some spares to close any left open. ))))
As a Scott with shades of Clark-ishness, I would never say .. ‘Well actually, pardon me,” (and so forth) when it’s sufficient to say ‘Hey” …’ I’d just say, “Hey! (because the bus driver didn’t pay attention when I pressed the “stop” button for my bus stop, and now I have to walk up a Scott-like predatory hill that kills my knee.)
Yes, I love taking the bus. As a pensioner, it’s free anywhere in England. That is a very Scott-ish thing, I believe, taking what’s owed me.
I have great respect and admiration for Clarkishness; it must be mentally exhausting to weave so many taxing thoughts and words into interpreting a Scott-ish (having nothing whatsoever to do with Scotland, btw) shout of “Hey!
This reply is taking on an undertone of Clarkishness, so I will stop and simply say …
“Bye.”
ps: >>scottian females can be remarkably sexy or intelligent and even witty, but hardly ever both.<<
(laughing)
excellent! while the organization of the information over the past 3k or so posts has never been optimized for the New Reader, you have done well.
though in no way intending to provoke anyone’s rogerian aspect (be it secondary, tertiary or what-have-you) it is incumbent on us, as curator, to advise on pronunciation.
(and, total: ‘Good Job! Finding the adjective scottian! to complete the set: clarklike (ex. “My while I’m happy not to be scorned for a rookie error, his correction of my use of ‘clarkish’ is, what is the proper term, ‘clarklike'”.) and rogerian.
given exhibition of such yeoman work on your vocabulary acquisition, and despite the unlikelihood the Wakefield Doctrine will return to the days of Live VidChats… a few pointers on pronunciation:
scottian: scóe-shun
rogerian: row-jeer-ree-enn
clarklike: lol go ahead we know you can do this!*
*;o did we ever mention that our own predominant worldview, that of a clark, is enhanced by a strong, secondary scottian aspect? (alas, our tertiary rogerian aspect is paltry and weak(ish)
scottian: mmmmm … what’s for lunch
clarklike: noted
Speaking of “Put your bookmarks into Page Wednesday.”. I did and zeroed into your very last, long-ass sentence of the post which states “…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.”
The key to it all. Talk about taking the pressure off, alleviating the stress produced from “not getting it” because now, you do. Gratifying.
LOL!