Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
so, lets wrap up our little discussion of the insights into the deepest, darkest reaches of the… Herd? lol nah, lets review how this tool (the Wakefield Doctrine) is put to best use and, if we have time, maybe a way advantageous to understanding of the whole business of personal realities, predominant worldviews and clarks, scotts and rogers.
How to use: learn the characteristic behaviors and implications of (their) relationship with the world around them of all three personality types. If you see someone, (at work, in class, hell, at home), if a) you’re totally new to this thing and 2)have the good sense to keep your insights to yourself, then watch them as long as it takes until the ‘No frickin’ way they’re a….‘ personality type moment to occur. Now the fun/work begins. You have only two worldviews left. One will be the ‘correct’ one. There’s a good chance that you’re trying to decide between their being a scott or a roger. (We’ll tell you why only if you ask in Comments.)
Imagine being them. Then imagine that you are a scott in the situation that you’re working with…. ok, now the same while putting yourself in the shoes of a roger. Go back and forth as the ‘scene’ situation develops. Which feels more congruent? Which doesn’t make you feel like throwing something?
Congratulations!
You are working with the alternative perspectives afforded by the Wakefield Doctrine. (With sufficient practice you will know more about the other person than they know about themselves.)
cool
that other thing we mentioned yesterday, the insight into the world of the Herd Member that was not readily perceivable? a thing call ‘referential authority’. It is a quality of all roger’s personal reality. It is a primary identifier, as in, if you see a person exerting (or attempting to exert) their will on the world around them and the people who make it up, but are predicating their effort on a third party, that’s referential authority.
“Because that’s how we’ve always done it…. Ask anyone, they will tell you… It’s not me, I’m just telling you how everyone approaches that situation...”
Okay, Why?
ah! ’cause unless they have a significant secondary clarklike aspect*, it is moi unlikely that a scott or a roger would have gotten that far (with the level of confidence in what they think we’re saying to try it
*and they (scotts and rogers with significant enough secondary clarklike aspects) are, while not rare, in the minority. Phyllis is an excellent example of a roger with a significant secondary clarklike aspect… not easy (for a roger or a scott) seein’ how, in their natural environment, they’re both pretty damn competent and such