Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
From Faithful(ish) Correspondent Misky:
I require assistance in ascertaining which of the three this person might be. Here’s the scene: It’s 36C/97F, and I’ve waited 3 weeks for a new licence plate for my electric car (EVs have a green strip on the plate because we’re allowed to drive into cities without paying tolls). The first plates were lost by Royal Mail. The next set arrived on Tuesday, and so I drove to the dealership to have them fitted (holes drilled; screwed into the bumper; etc). The young man, not willing to work in the heat any longer than necessary, I assume, forgot the steel knobs required so the screws don’t rust. And then I discovered that he’d not removed the plastic protective film on the plates. I rang up the dealership and said, “It’s hot. I’m grumpy. And this doesn’t make me less grumpy. I’m driving to you as I speak, so you can fix this.”
Which of the personality types are happy to do a half-arsed job and consider it as a bloody job well done?
Thank you Misky.
Readers? To start us off, here is our (first) response to Misky (in a Comment/Reply)
the Wakefield Doctrine is for you, not them.
ed. as to the core question: which of the three would be ‘happy to do a half-arsed job and consider it as a bloody job well done?’
(come on…you know this one!)
All three of them.
The ‘answer’ to our Correspondent’s question is to be found in how they relate to her (if such a meeting might be arranged). They will reveal their predominant worldview by how they ‘defend’ their work.
(Hint: one will laugh, another will have a reasonable explanation for how, given circumstances beyond their control, it was not their fault and the last might simply apologize. But… (some of you are insisting) the question is ‘which personality type would not be concerned with the quality of work, insisting it was sufficient’.)
(Two word Hint: the Everything Rule. And, this is not quite what at least 2/3s of you are thinking it is. The inference pertinent to our discussion, not the actual Everything Rule, that is)
The actual and most productive answer to what sounds like Misky’s conundrum is: we can’t tell at this kind of distance. Were we there, at the dealership, it might be otherwise. “Wot? I was just about to enjoy a cuppa of Grey. And a scone, absolutely scrummy, they are. pip pip”
The shortest path to determining one’s predominant worldview is to interact with them in real time. First of all, the eyes:
- direct stare in return, (not necessarily hostile, but way not shy) maybe a disarming laugh; non-direct, constantly looking at anyone observers, or,
- failing that poster on the wall ‘The Customer is always Right (pip pip) or even
- subtle, but minimal eye contact but not shifty, and clearly not defensive or even critical other than to glance to the lower left, then up (NP fans will concur)
With a proper depth of understanding of the three relationships (with the world around them) of the Wakefield Doctrine, one can identify their personality type. And…and most germane to our discussion, by doing so successfully, be in a position to know more about our wayward mechanic than they know about theyselfs.
There is a saying in the field of ‘Decorative Word Arrangement and Proper Story-Setting’ that suggests the author ‘Show, Don’t Tell’.
Tune in tomorrow and we will.
(Question and criticisms in Comments below. (pip pip) And remember! “There are no stupid questions. Only your questions.”*
* a joke lol, come on! ya got to have fun with this thing! besides 1.5 percent of Readers know it’s funny. …and an automative 15 points deducted for not
*
About clarkscottroger
I am glad to hear that a proper answer to some questions wanting to know which of the three it is, is: “All three of them.”
ah yes! the Wisdom of the Everything Rule.
so this Rule came about (or, become apparent) in the early days of the Doctrine blog. Readers would ask, “My cousin is the only person I know who does this-and-such, is that a clarklike thing?”
and the answer is/was as you so supportedly provide ‘All three of them’.
This is not, of course, saying that there is no standalone distinction among the personal realiiies ‘of the three’.
It is/was to serve as a reminder that the persepctive of the Wakefield Doctrine is on humans, not the world/reality-in-genderal. After all the Doctrine ain’t no mystical “Welcome to the world of the clark/scott/roger, there are things you must not touch…if you do…” lol
We all (three of us) live in the common world.
The Doctrine is predicated on the three distinct types of relationships everyone maintains in order to interpret and discern and decide the course of their life and actions.
As always, ‘Thanks, excellent question”
all of which draws us back to the fundamental challenge of the Doctrine:
“I know he/she/they are a clark/scott/roger. Unless they have the same relationship with the world around them that I do, how do I ‘get their side of this ‘argument/conflict/at the door at the end of a first date’*
That is where (in a further emphasis of today’s Post and Misky’s question) we should hear in our heads, “Hey, if you could see/hear/know how the other person is experiencing this situation, don’cha think that’d be a good thing” Ex Per Riencing important! Not what you know they’re seeing etc, what they’re experiencing.
sorry to go on at such length, Frank… apparently I have not (over the course of 3.6k posts) quite got the perfect insight/answer/explanation of the ‘Why’ of the Wakefield Doctrine.
ya know?
*well, try to remember, not everyone who reads the Doctrine and it’s comments is, like old and haven’t seen everything, or have what us onlies might consider ‘don’t worry so much situation…everyone’s been there’ opinion of ever day life
i really enjoyed your question Misky… it sort of laid it out all on the table so to speak… and given this is an often occurrence situations as this it is nice to know and to have clarity… and yes Frank I like your thought as well… i think that has been a prevaling answer the doctrine has repeated often and i think it’s finally starting to sink in… well, yeah, but no, i don’t think so… sorta, yeah… We’re all three at any given time…. sorta like the doublemint commercial from way back when when they’d smack the gums together with that sound … two mints in one… well instead of two it’s three… does anyone remember? otherwie it’s a losss… and Clarke appreciate the clear response … giving examples etc., etc., having been in a similar situation that just sorta blew my head right off… my reaction to their reaction to my reaction… i find rather soothing…. and the whole NP link had to go see… dang i need a doctorate to get through that…. had to sit through a class of NP a few times which i sorta fell asleep halfway through but definitely got a clearer picture…. no mind i was sorta tired in my defense… in the beginning of reading the doctrine i could not absorb the ‘we’re all three’ no matter how many times you mentioned it but i think i finally got it… the highlight was ‘..the WD is for you not them’ and when i first read ‘Decorative Word Derangement’… what?? i had to go back and read again…. Arrangement… myself personally i like Derangement better… have a great week you guys….
thanks for that, I will (at least in next week’s Doctrine Posts) return to the topic of the three predominant worldviews and how they shape our (personal) realities.
and it’s good that you mention the we’re all three. that is one of the less sexy topics when explaining the dynamics of the three worldviews, i.e. we’re born with the potential to establish any of the three characteristic relationships (Outsider/Predator/Herd Member). For reasons unknown, we all settle into one (and only one) of the three and develop from there. That we all have that original potential, combined with the idea that an ideal person would exhibit the characteristics of all three, can lead to some confusion, a little dilution of the benefits and a lot less fun.
Nope. Show me a person. I’ll show you a clark or a scott or a roger.
of course it’s against the Rules of Doctrine decorum to say to person directly, “You are a clark (or) a scott (or) a roger.” It’s for all and each of us (so inclined) to decide for ourselfs which is our personality type.
Now, that said, there’s nothing wrong in a discussion among students of the Doctrine to point to public/historic/they’ll be back from the bathroom any minute, hurry up!! people and consider the evidence. lol
thats what tomorrow’s post will be doing
thanks for the set-up for the plug for tomorrow.
Yes, I see. I shall not argue the point, you being the curator of said doctrine, however (there’s always a however isn’t there?) I’ve come to an inkling of clarity about the situation. I’ve had numerous workman botch jobs over the years, and I’ve rarely if ever felt hostility at someone else’s lack of attention to detail. I happen to be a stickler for detail, and doing a job well.
Is it possible that the mechanic’s assistant-assistant was scottian, and therefore the fire starter was more than weather induced — it was a dominance/hierarchy thingie … in which case I don’t think I like myself that much … and I probably need a big slice of cake.
good point (and near Post-worthy*)
Allow me to rephrase** (oh, oh! extended Reply with footnotes! that can’t be good)
I’ve rarely if ever felt hostility at someone else’s lack of attention to detail.
Now the thing of it is, in a (hypothetical) purely scottian reality. (We say hypothetically because we all have secondary and tertiary aspects to some degree. The degree ranges from negligible to very strong. I’m example of one with a significant secondary (scottian) aspect. I have a friend who is a scott but has secondary and tertiary aspects that barely move the needle. Which is too bad. Good friend. Known him for years. But his secondary aspect is a weak rogerian and a barely there clarklike tertiary aspect. Minimum curiosity, wonder, (creative) imagination.
Thing of it is, a scott does not get angry or elated or any other ‘standalone’ emotion at the process of ranking. I have this on the authority of my late friend Bernadine. A scott with significant secondary clarklike aspect. but lets delay that discussion until Wednesday’s Doctrine post
*with your consent a course
** total caveat: the arena of the learning/practice/refinement-of-understanding of the Wakefield Doctrine is the self. as in, ‘relate myself to the world around me’. the pronoun is essential and the whole point. To understand, accept (good with bad) and grow from knowing what it is we are. We don’t say, ‘I relate to the world around me’ cause that’s shallow and not very production, self-improvement-istically. In order to ‘relate myself’ I need to know myself.
I’ve botched things before, always go back and redo it while apologizing profusely. I might come back tomorrow and read the comments more thoroughly, right now it’s late, the new baby is on the way and there just aren’t enough brain cells to deal with it all.
we got you covered… at least here in ‘Never-ok-MaybeLand