Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
the matter of secondary and tertiary aspects, briefly, hopefully succinctly and therefore, for the typical* Wakefield Doctrine Reader, useful
First:
Predominant worldviews, aka personality types:
- clarks (the Outsider) the person who relates to the world around them as would one who suspects they are different and, human nature being what it is, becomes wary of letting other know of this deficiency.
- scotts (the Predator) the ‘most natural’ of the three; pronounced prey drive, minimal need for introspection, lives to act with an emphasis on motion and aggression
- rogers (the Herd Member) the reason we have: culture (don’t judge, it’s a way relative accomplishment), technology because 2 + 2 is four with more certainty even than that which they ascribe to the ideal of the Right Way
Secondary aspects: since one has a predominant worldview, (and only one), that is a manifestation of the individual’s relationship with reality, the ‘other two’ remain, to a varying degree, an influence on a person’s perception of reality. Usually a secondary aspect is noticed in times of duress. If it offers a value that the individual can appreciate, it tends to be cultivated. A secondary or tertiary aspect cannot supplant or replace or otherwise have co-equal effect with the predominant aspect.
know why?
Because! Because this Doctrine system is not an assessment of self-reported inclinations, likes or dislikes. The Wakefield Doctrine is not a schema of observed preferences, tropisms or ‘rather do this than that’ in terms of an individual’s behavior.
The ‘personality type’ in the context of the Doctrine is simply a label identifying the social strategies, systemic behavioral adaptations based on the reality into which an infant finds themselfs at a very early age. In a sense, it is more accurate (but less fun) to say one is a mature, developed native to the reality of Outsiders, Predators and Herd Members. And, as such, act appropriately to the reality they experience on a personal, day-to-day basis.
This is why the likelihood of: “Hey! I got a strong secondary scottian aspect. I’ve seen me in action. I’m gonna practice all day/every day acting on impulse, pursuing prey and living in the here and now!! Then I’ll become a scott. Or, at very least some kind of hybrid.
No. No you won’t.
You will still wake up to a personal reality described (by this Wakefield Doctrine system) as that of: the Outsider/the Predator/the Herd Member.
You (dear Reader) currently have the perfect personality type.
…for the reality in which you grew up and developed and matured.
ya know?
About clarkscottroger
It is a comfort to know that I already “have the perfect personality type” for the reality I grew up in. But what if reality changes? Is there a way for a clark to become a scott (or vice-versa). I think it would be pretty easy to become a roger, if need be.
no, consider (from the view of the Wakefield Doctrine) if takes a lifetime (or, maybe just entire childhood and adolescence and… young adulthood) to become a clark or a scott or a roger
…besides, be careful what you wish for… a change in reality is no trivial matter
talking to a scott once (he had a strong secondary clarklike aspect, so a discussion of the Doctrine was possible, about what is ‘normal’ and I said, ‘as a clark if I wake up one morning and discover that, while sleeping, nature of the sky changed into one of purple with green clouds (true reality change involves, ‘what are you talking about?!the sky has always looked like this!!) and he said, as a scott he needed to know that the fundamentals are just that… not subject to change… like in nature, gazelles can’t simply decided they can fly!! that’d be bad for the metaphorical scotts (lions) lol
It sounds like getting these personality types is like getting five fingers on each hand. We don’t have to decide which one we want.
yeah, in a sense… I pretty much set aside the question of ‘how is the individual’s relationship with the world established at the very early stage of life’ the why am I a clark and not a scott or a roger is tempting to grapple with, but, like some things in life, the why is not as important as the what(do I do now?)
quite a non-clarklike view, as we’re always wanting to explore the why and learning, often too late, that that is (not necessarily) the most important aspect
ya know?
But those secondaries can sure come in handy (especially if you have to hang out in the herd most of the day).
ayiiee (you have my condolences lol)… in my case, it is the presence of a significant secondary scottian aspect that accounts for this blog (“well, yeah, its good idea this Doctrine thing, but what if people didn’t understand it or, worse, laughed”)
(“Hey! fuck’em. The fun is in doing it…as loud as ya can!”)
please, pardon the language
lol