Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
Frank has, as Readers often do, provided us with launching point for today’s post in the form of his Comment on yesterday’s.
I was trying to decide which of these personality types is the best, but I am glad to find out that “We all have (the) perfect personality type.” The one I have is perfect.
Someone’s been doing their reading! lol
As stated, ad astra, the Wakefield Doctrine holds that we, all of us, settle into one (of three) characteristic relationships with the world around us. We then proceed to grow up and mature. And, in doing so, develop those social strategies, perceptual biases, habitual preferences and stubborn resistances. aka we develop a personality in response to the reality in which we live.
To use ourself as example: we found ourselves in a (personal) reality that seemed to have a slight (just a little, not all the time, just occasionally), tendency to blindspot us. Nothing weird or crazy just that clearly to our very young eyes (and ancient soul) we were overlooked at times. Comparing our estimation of our role/status in the family unit, there clearly was a touch missing in the quality of our belonging-ness. It became obvious that most everyone in our single-digit-life experience knew something we did not. Not for nothin’ we were already being told that we lived, at least part of the time, in a world of our own, a ‘dream world’ according to parents and teachers and such. The only honest conclusion to a four or five year old was that we missed a class in ‘Being a Part of’ Not good. Naturally we began looking for the missing information.
For a person living in the world of the Outsider (clarks) that is a decent description of a perfect personality… (again with the ellipsisesses!!) given the conditions we found ourselfs in.
ProTip: if you already know your (Wakefield Doctrine) personality type, you can go back in your memory and see how your personal choices were geared and set to maximize your efforts to thrive and grow. (Unless you’re a roger. In which case nothing you ‘remember’ coincides with our little explanation. oh well, what’re ya gonna do? There’s always Briggs,Stratton, Oscar & Myers ERBW f system of personality types! lol)
Dovetailing perfectly with yesterday’s closing ellipsis
Which is not a bad thing provided you want to be able to…
increase your ability to see the world as the other person is experiencing it.
ok running out of time… Tuesday tend towards that
fine, nothing gigantically original in this:: our ambition/the Doctrine’s Mission Statement/walk a mile in another’s moccasins
we would submit that this sentiment, that of holding identification (with another) as the next level of the classic: ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’
this because one is transaction, the other is not.
Tomorrow!! More of this what’s the good of considering the other person if there ain’t nothin in it for us?
*
About clarkscottroger
I’ve tried seeing the world as my Brother-in-Law is experiencing it. It makes things worse.
lol
well there is the thing about better appreciating the personal realities of those less… agreeable.
but, practice increases the facility we develop to do this, nothin in this ambition that requires us to do it to everyone (and totally nothing in the Doctrine that says we need to endure unpleasant people… it all comes down to becoming ‘fluent’ in the other two predominant worldview so, if we were in Paris and practicing our French with this couple who were, like, totally not Elsa and Lazlo… we improve our language skills and move on
this is kinda where the value of the alternative perspective of the Doctrine is a matter of art rather than science… by knowing the world of scotts and rogers I am in a position of being able to communicate more effectively and, for myself, translate whatever errant nonsense comes out of their mouths into something I have a chance of deciphering
Both the scotts and the clarks seem to be outsiders. The rogers are the herd.
Kinda… but not really
for two possible reasons you might (deliberately or otherwise*) be over-thinking the whole three personality types
The underlying principle in our little ‘personality schema’ is the relationship one maintains with the world as they go through life.
too literal, eg a scott seems to be a loner when identifying them in one’s ‘real’ life (we usually have one scottian friend and maybe a few scottian acquaintances) so it’s tempting to look at a scott (in our lives) and think Outsider.
But that is not a correct application of the the behavioral metaphor of the three predominant worldviews.
a Predator/scott is socially organized as a pack. the social dynamics of this pack (metaphor) is observable in the behavior of a scott, i.e. ranking Nothing solitary ’bout that.
A clark is defined (in the behavioral metaphor) as an Outsider. Capital ‘C’ ie no common association with others, other than that which they affect to avoid being scrutinized. clarks are apart from (this is from the perspective of the clark, it doesn’t matter (to this assertion) what scotts and rogers might think. clarks do not share the fundamental associationalism that rogers and scott have (so fundamental they are not aware of it).
Back to basics:
clarks grow up and develop in the personal reality of the Outsider. they are apart from and their personalities are geared to this condition
scotts grow up and develop in the world of the Predator. they associate with others of their kind in a pack schema and have the personality traits best suited to this personal reality
rogers are not ‘the herd’. rogers live in a personal reality in which the world is knowable and quantifiable and act accordingly
thanks for the reminder. We need to spend more time on the concept of ‘personal reality’
next week after the Six Sentence Stories
*yeah! there’s useful information for you in your self-identifying your predominant worldview