Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
Man, Misky is on a roll! (No, there is no such thing as ‘too many apples on one’s desk, thank you very much’)
To her thought experiment:
I’d like to test a theory, please. Is there a rogerian genre of music? I could listen to Einar Selvik all day, and I often do, but I think this might be a scottian thing.
To prime the rhetorical pump, our Reply:
interesting idea.
(Allow me to be the strict Doctrinairien first: there are genre of music that will appeal to one predominant worldview more than the other two in a noticeable way. And, since I’ve never taken being strict to much to heart, there is the question of ‘is music created/composed by a clark/scott/roger distinguishable by virtue of composer’s personality type?’)
damn! (and thanks) your suggestion is totally deserving of a full AP level Wakefield Doctrine post.
in the meantime, an exercise: what do you think/what’s it make you want to do/how does it make you feel? its being this Einar Selvik’s music
ProTip: if one is inclined to explore oneself for the purposes of better self-appreciation, using the Doctrine is a fun way… this exercise, which can be found in most instances of taking up the alternate perspective of everyone’s favorite personality theory and use it illuminate parts of ourselfs that we usually don’t take the time to consider…
ok!
Before we start, anyone want to jump in?
Mimi:
It’s been such a long day I’m not so sure I’m following everything well. Maybe tomorrow.
(Saturday Morning Cartoon screeching car-tire sound: Here)
Thank you Mimi
Thank you Misky (for your patience in our less than maximally-focused Reply to (your) Primary Comment)
Hey! You wanna hear one of the lesser promoted benefits of learning the principles of this Wakefield Doctrine thing?
If you open yourself to it sufficiently to acquire a functional understanding, it (the Doctrine) will have an effect on you.
What? We forgot to tell you that?
No we didn’t.
(ish)
Just the other day, Denise, in her contribution to the TToT, Replied to a Comment by Ms. Pie who had mentioned how interesting a certain personality theory was (Hint: it rhymes with Wakefield Doctrine). By way of passing along one of the original Warnings to New Readers: ‘If you learn the Wakefield Doctrine sufficiently enough to allow seeing the clarks, scotts and rogers in your own life, you may find that you are unable to not see them, in your everyday life.’
Good advice indeed.
What does this have to with our point? Think: Re-do All the Exam Questions Upon Hearing: ‘Five More Minutes, People’?
Simple.
If you’re a clark (or a scott or a roger with a sufficiently strong secondary clarklike aspect) then you have a drive to make sense of the world around you and the people who make it up.
So you go through your day applying the three lenses (the relationship each of the three predominant worldview maintain), to those in your life. Fine. At some point you’ll observe someone who has the same ‘personality type’ as you and… a moment after your cringe/laugh/sneer it will occur to you…
but we’ve said too much already. .
ed. we will return to Misky’s thought experiment as soon as we get back into concise, clear and direct mode’
About clarkscottroger
This, in a sort of Salvador Dalí-ish round-about way, reminds me of the school fair I went to with my father (my mum and little sister stayed home for a reason I don’t recall, and probably wasn’t interested in knowing), where he paid numerous times for me to ride the merry-go-round again and again, until all the coinage that made his pockets sound wealthy went poor. He then persuaded me away from this dizzying activity with the offer of a hot dog. He was also scottian, and knew how to manoeuvre his daughter.
lol
… that is a totally seductive (in a family history understanding way) path… which of the three were my parental units?
btw: nothing inherently irrefutable to any influence on predominant worldview of: birth order/family demographics (of worldviews)/ or national origin*
*the Wakefield Doctrine is: gender, age and culture neutral
Ah, the fair. Grandma and Grandpa would take the children every year. #2 Son, inevitably, would eat and ride and eat and ride and eat and ride until he went into the bushes to deposit whatever he’d eaten, then come out to do it all over again, with undiminished gusto. Is it any wonder about an hour ago he told me, “Hey, mom, if you hear sounds up on the roof, don’t worry, it’s just me, I’ve been researching and I know you’ve got a couple of leaks up there and I want to take a look around, I’ve got some ideas for fixing things.”
appetite! ya can’t ignore them and (fortunately) they can’t demand first position (we kinda have to abdicate)
I would submit there is no genre of rogerian music just as there is no clarklike or scottian music. Musicians are either a clark, scott, or roger. The music they produce/create manifests from how they relate themselves to the world around them.
Which is what you ask – ‘is music created/composed by a clark/scott/roger distinguishable by virtue of composer’s personality type?’
Very often, yes. We “hear” it in their music. As a clark, I can listen and know why I know Jeff Beck was a clark. I can “hear” and know Al DiMeola is a roger. You can look at him, his stage presence and identify him as a roger. Same with Jeff when you watch him perform. (not that your ears wouldn’t tell you right away he was a clark!)
P.S. Imo, at some point we recognize our own “people”. There’s an unspoken identification – you simply know when you see another outsider, spot another predator or rub elbows with a fellow herd member. It’s kinda cool. Of course, if you’re not spotting your own people, then knowing the Doctrine comes in mighty handy. Takes a little of the pressure off.
that ear thing, good insight… the art of the Doctrine
as don Juan reminds us: those hunting knowledge/Power may encounter others… the only true exchange available is to identify with one and other to know (for a moment) how the other person feels