Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
As often happens, a Reader will write a Comment that is, like, a total essay question (minus the stomach-wrenching anxiety, of course).
Today we thank Misky for, what’s the technical phrase in rhetoric? Teeing one up
…(I assume I’m permitted 2): Do Scotts get on with other Scotts, or do we try killing each other in the sandbox?
Good Question.
Answer in three words: pack ranking and hunting grounds.
lol
New Readers! the most helpful insight into learning this here personality theory here is contained in, ‘the Everything Rule’. Simply put, ‘everyone does everything, at one time or another’. Less simply: there is nothing in the common shared-reality experience that is exclusive to one or another of the three predominant worldviews. Least simple: the experience of (this) manifestation is shaped by the observed but interpreted by the observer.
ProTip: the manner/style/nature of the manifestation of anything is a reflection of the character of the individual’s (personal) reality. Knowing one totally helps in anticipating the other. …and vice versa.
Now back to the question. scotts do not try to kill one and other, in or out of the sandbox. Of the three social/behavioral metaphors deployed by the Wakefield Doctrine, the interactions among scotts (Predator) is the simplest to understand.
Essential to the social experience of a scott is ranking. We’re all familiar with this concept among most animals that manifest social order as a pack. Wolves and dogs are the most accessible (and fun) to cite.
Interesting thing about ranking: it’s a process not an award or station or office or any other static thing. It is an on-going dynamic among scotts.
Critical thing about ranking: placement in the ranking order is not personal nor is it a judgement of the individual. We once asked our friend, Bernadine about this. Being a clark our question took the form: “When you find out that among other contemporary scotts not alpha, is it hard to accept?” She laughed her most excellent laugh and said, “No! Of course not! Ranking is about order in the pack, not a judgement of the person.”
Also, the process is elemental to the social paradigm. It is ongoing. There is nothing about killing or damaging the other person. It’s actually not overly personal. It is, however, essential to a scott to know where they stand among their people.
This also provides us with a way we can detect a scott in a social gathering.
(Lets answer Misky’s implied question: Outside of the hypothetical gathering of scotts, how do they behave when encountering clarks and rogers)
You ever attend a social function, a say party or a mixer or a break in the schedule of a convention or, even a family reunion/picnic and see the person that is moving from group to group? (Better to say, they move about the social environment and cause others to gather around them.) There’s your scott.
In any/every situation, the first thing a scott does is engage in ranking. Not only with other scotts. Everyone. Now, unlike our photo at the top of the post, violent behavior, ritual or otherwise, is not the key. The point is to establish dominance/submissiveness. So a scott will engage everyone and push them on the shoulder. Usually figuratively, though not necessarily.
What is important is to find out if the other person pushes back or not.
…running out of time, real quick: the Wakefield Doctrine is gender neutral.
Sure, a scottian female may choose not to physically push the other person on the shoulder. (Speaking as a native of Y Chromia, we can hope. lol.
However they (scottian females) will, nevertheless, challenge all others at our hypothetical gathering. They will establish their ranking. For the moment.
Multiple scotts (at a gathering)? They will divide the territory. They will almost always hunt alone.
Hope this helps!
Remind us to address the question: “ok, that makes sense. What about clarks and rogers? How does competition manifest with (and between) Outsiders and Herd Members? What about that?
Lets get a scott out here for a closing tune:
About clarkscottroger
This is really interesting, and thank you for answering my question.
Two of my oldest and dearest friends are textbook Scotts. We get on so well that other people (in a social situation) end up sitting with us. We always choose a large table, and inevitably the same people end up sitting with us. Is there ranking between us? I honestly don’t think so, but maybe I just don’t realise it — we’re all three quite strong personalities. I’m not married to a Scott, but it does make me wonder if a Scott ‘partnered’ with another Scott, is there a ranking between them?
remember the ranking process is but the scottian form of relating ourselfs to the world around us that clarks and rogers do, except it manifests differently for them…because the character of their personal realities are different.
each of the three do this ‘checking’ in a manner that reflects their realities…
scotts are aggressive, impulsive, action-oriented, hypo-self-reflective… the world (of the Predator) is in a sense the simplest of the three: sleep, eat, hunt, survive…repeat. It is this simplicity, the embracing the here and now that makes scotts good leaders (scotts are often wrong, rarely uncertain) as people are drawn to confidence and certainty
rogers on the other hand are more social in the traditional sense (community and synergy) and they too have a drive for dominance that is expressed in asserting relationships… while a scott is driven to assert dominance (while being willing to accept being submissive to another, dominant scott, roger seek to be the center of the herd. the more people relate to the roger, the higher the percentage of inward-facing rogers…
clarks? well, they assert themselves in a more subtle way, best expressed in the observation: ‘clarks abhor being the center of attention but will not tolerate being ignored’
lol
ProTip: the map is not the territory, the language we each of the three use to describe the world is different from each other… the long-term goal of learning the Doctrine is to acquire fluency in the languages native to the three predominant worldviews
ya know?
Scotts are mostly fun, too. At least, the ones I know are.
agree but… like sometimes, think a puppy cooped up all day going out to the yard…exhausting!
I kid scotts
but the thing is, and so not surprising, the relationship between a clark and a scott is quite different than that of a roger and a scott
(there is a dynamic between clarks and scotts… from the perspective of the scotts we’re a bit of a puzzle. they know that rogers are their natural food group, couldn’t look more like prey if they had sweaters with large letter P on the back, but clarks are different… while we tend to give a certain passive vibe (mostly as a result of simply being busy inside our own heads) we have the capacity to swipe back.. return aggression (when we are paying attention) this facinates scotts… not prey, not scotts something unknown with the added intrigue of the potential to return the…attention of a scott)
ya know?
lol
Pecking order rules the pack. It could be pandemonium with everybody jostling for space all at once.
yet, established (if only for the moment) it is a stable order… alpha, beta et cet a rah