Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
People are always coming up to us, on the street, peristalsing through school corridors between classes, in the lull of a amatory pre-peak and asking, they ask, “Why are you still writing posts on your personality theory? We get it, and are amazed you don’t fall asleep at the keyboard, all morning-foggy, poster on the wall reflecting the LED glare, (the one showing Fabió flying towards a mountain-top castle where Helen Bonham Carter is semaphoring for help and across the top ‘It Was a Dark and Stormy Knight…)
One word: New Readers
We promise not to invoke Tennessee Williams other than to say, Readers from Mimi, to Cynthia, Denise to Kristi often write Comments that remind us to keep it simple and stick with the basics. Then, with their implied permission, a quick cut ‘n paste into a blank post and we’re off and runnin’
Last week, Misky wrote such a Comment. So,
“…figuring out which of three, or two or all three, people are if I don’t know them well. How do I anticipate a person’s response to the world if I don’t know them particularly well.”
Perfect set up! (Thanks!)
The beauty part, (as Lou Collins used to say), of the Doctrine is that we don’t need to know them that well. Hell, at all well. The biographical facts of the person in front of us, (or the one reflected in a mirror), are not the most important thing. Knowing the three relationships with the world that is the heart of the Wakefield Doctrine is…are… whatever.
The question, (at least when we are starting out practicing everyone’s favorite personality theory….theory), is not, ‘Which of the three is this person?’ The best (in the sense of being efficacious to our true goal*) is ‘On the basis of what I observe, see, feel from this person, which of the three makes more sense. Is most consistent with… (Look up the optometrist metaphor (somewhere in the pile of posts). …ok. we couldn’t find it either.
In a nutshell, (no, ceayr… not a word!), consider an eye test. The optometrist turns off the lights, flicks a switch and a bright rectangle appears on the opposite wall. Lowering a very cool, in a totally steampunk sorta way, mechanism with two lenses for you to look through, they say, “Read the first line you can comfortably see.” (one eye goes dark); “Now, is this clearer? [click], How about this?” Back and forth. That is what we do with the three perspectives of the Wakefield Doctrine.
We observe the behavior/dress/appetite, whatever, and look through the lens of: the Outsider (clark) … [click] the Herd Member (roger) [click] Is this clearer, i.e. makes more sense or [click] is this…
…as a wise woman once said, “That’s how it began.”
* The tool that the Wakefield Doctrine is, is focused on our being better able to ‘see the world as the other person is experiencing it’. (italics quite deliberate… remind us to discuss personal reality tomorrow.)
*
scotts have to be the easiest to identify. High energy, frenetic at times, you’ll never meet a scott who thinks more than a split second about what they’re going to say before speaking, lol.
I worked with a scottian woman. One day I heard her talking with our boss who’d just gotten back from lunch, they were kidding around. Then I heard her call him a made up nickname (variation on his name), I couldn’t help but laugh! Only a scott would talk to their boss like that and get away with it. And I knew for a fact, the rogers overhearing their conversation were secretly shocked anyone would speak to our boss (roger) that way.
The theory of clarks, scotts and rogers. Who said the Doctrine wasn’t fun?! It’s a tool that allows one to better communicate with those who are not of your “personal reality”. Reminder for tomorrow.
..and, more often than not, the nickname is a diminutive form of the person’s name… simple dominance move
You bring out the other, arguably more fun, aspect to understanding and using the Wakefield Doctrine (and the three predominant worldview) and that is in the anecdotal, list-like-any-real-personality-theory-system (Like Ocscar Myers Briggs & Stratton EFUDI EIEIo)
for example: scotts can be identified in a photo, tend to have (especially scottian females) prominent neck tendons (platysma) and hyper-efficacious cross-gender psycho-sexual strategies…. and clarks, posture and enunciation and rogers… well, there’s only so much that can be said
clarks think, scotts act and rogers feel
clarks motto, If I don’t stand out, they can’t see me
scott’s motto: I scream, therefore I am
rogers motto: I feel…. and the whole world feels with me
like that lol
Ah. Ophthalmologists. I thoroughly understand this example, having spent much time squinting through steampunk-Wellsian type spectacles. I will take onboard the ‘which-is-better 1 or 2 or 3’ approach.