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

Let’s return to the topic of Time and clarks, shall we?

A quick review, dip our toast, if you will, in the topic of personal reality (as a nod to our early risers a little tiffin) and then we, all of us, will best be prepared to sally into the world await us out there.

Before diving into the nature and role of personal reality as manifested in the Wakefield Doctrine, we’d be loathe to ignore a 1940’s giant of psychology, (back when the biggest budget item in grad school was: text books.*) We’re referring, of course, to Maslow’s hammer. Adapted to everyone’s favorite personality theory, he reminds us that if you’re a:

• clark (the Outsider) then everyone else knows something you do not
• scott (the Predator) everyone not attacking is prey
• roger (the Herd Member) everyone else is a potential member of your Herd

But you, the Reader, you ‘believe’ in the concept of personal reality. Because unless this is a ‘what-the-heck-are-these-people-talking-about?!?!’ random click into a list of suggested links (and, for the record, ‘Bye Bye!’), then you know what we mean. That the world we experience is, to a small, but significant degree, for us, not them.

So to our the brief reprise of ‘clarks and the Burden of Time‘

A marked and persistent tendency to cut short the effort, i.e. leaving a task not truly finished. In fairness to our Outsider friends, this is usually expressed predominantly (ha ha) in the case of assigned tasks, those with little, if any, personal investment. And, even then, this short-cutting is nearly always justified as a leveraging, the better to free up time, in the service of multiplying good.

Shout-out to Misky for giving us a smooth(ish) transition (intended or otherwise) to this topic of personal reality, vis á vis secondary aspects. We really should devote an entire post on this topic, but for now, know that our secondary aspect (when sufficiently strong/ robust/ get-the-#&@*-outa-my-way) offers an invaluable insight and, therefore, appreciation (well, for clarks and maybe scotts) of ‘the other two’.

In the interest of preserving what soul we might claim, lets end with a statement of the goal of this Doctrine thing:

‘through the insight into the personal reality of the three predominant worldview, permit us to: better appreciation the world as the other person is experiencing it.

*foreshadowing a future of commoditized communication? text books?!?! Serially, we’re referencing the late ’60s early ’70s Why would they even feel it necessary to qualify the character of the content?