Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

From Frank Hubeny

I kind of hope I’m not a roger, but then I do find getting machines to do what I want them to do easier than getting people to

As promised (in Comments to yesterday’s Post) let us consider the matter of ‘secondary and tertiary aspects’

As we all know, the Wakefield Doctrine is predicated on the notion that, while we all are born with the potential/capacity/inclination to relate ourselfs to the world around us in three characteristic ways:

1. (as would) an Outsider (clark): forever searching for the lesson they believe everyone else learned, i.e. how to be ‘a part of’ the family of humans (no, roger, we don’t think we’re aliens! you’re just saying that because of your own insecurity).  clarks exhibit a relentless curiosity as a result of their determination to learn what they believe (incorrectly) to be the key to becoming a real person
2. (in simple terms) a Predator (scott): live to hunt, hunt to live, embrace what is and eschew needless (and risky) self-doubt (a Predator spending excessive time in self-contemplation is, at best, a hungry Predator, at worst?…prey)
3. (as deserved) a Member of the Herd (roger) celebrating Life embracing the set-points of living and sharing (relentlessly) with others the Right Way

OK. Everyone with us so far?

Emphasis: only one predominant worldview per customer.

Fine! We’ll provide the Why (just this once, only ’cause our Guest interrogator is possessed of a certain patience (2 Corinthians 11:19); for reasons not yet understood, at a very early age, we, all of us, relate to the world in one of (the) three ways listed above. We learn to interact with the world, we develop our social strategies based on the personal reality we experience and that’s why we say, ‘You have the perfect personality based on the personal reality in which you grew up and matured(ish)

But! We all retain the potential of ‘the other two’. In some of us, these are more expressed than in others. These are referred to as secondary and tertiary aspects. Most often exhibited when under duress, in some, the secondary (most commonly) is a personal quality that seems at odds with one’s predominant worldview.

Example: I, your Curator, am a clark (predominant worldview) with (a) significant secondary scottian and (an) insignificant tertiary rogerian aspect. Serially, who can doubt that?!?! Look at the fricken picture!! Hint: I’m the one in the center looking all ‘They said the 9:30 am Express to Spectrumville stopped right here. What the fuck is up??!” (lol predominant and secondary, dig?)

Example: Every one of you reading this, (this being your second visit at a minimum aka not under duress), whether a scott or a roger has a significant secondary clarklike aspect. How do we know? Because without a (significant) secondary aspect, everyone is left with their predominant worldviews. A scott is a most effective Predator and counter-intuitively, is not curious about anything not having a direct bearing on the(ir) Hunt. A roger already knows everything that matters, to question that, well, that’d be crazy. The world is quantifiable. Ain’t no ‘un-imaginable’

To further illustrate this, one might say that having a significant secondary or tertiary aspect is like have a talent. It’s there, within you more often than not, not particularly obvious. When we accept it and embrace it, what it offers (something that might not be prominent in one’s predominant worldview) is distinctive and, very often, hit or miss. Just a potential.

Back to myself as an example: as a clark I am creative; as a clark expressions of creativity is often bound by the chains of self-consciousness. As a clark, I am photophobic (don’t even mention voice recordings) or, god-forbid, live video. The self-consciousness of a clark is often conflated with being an introvert as the primary …symptom (lol). But a clark is self-conscious primarily due to our aversion to scrutiny. Back to me. lol  Writing for others to read is fraught with risk. Suppose they don’t like it? Suppose they point and say, “Boy that’s dumb.’ Very real concerns in the personal reality of a clark.

So how to account for the seeming contradiction manifested by this blog, video posts exhibiting no concern for appearance, and other interactions with the world? One word: Secondary scottian aspect.

Full Disclosure: this section (from ‘To further illustrate…’) was added after posting.

Why this ‘Disclosure’? Hey I may have a significant secondary scottian aspect, but I’m still a clark.

So, to our correspondent Frank Hubeny we say, “Hey! Embrace your secondary rogerian aspect. Don’t worry, it won’t replace or push out your predominant worldview. You’ve spent a lifetime practicing the skills to deal/interact/thrive in the world, as you experience it.