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

So, in yesterday’s Doctrine post, we said:

clarks tend not to tell jokes effectively? (Now, scotts! damn! that’s a whole post in and of itself.)

And Frank, he responded:

Regarding jokes, I imagine scotts would use them as excuses for inappropriate behavior, rogers would laugh and might even (witlessly) tell some good ones, but clarks would use humor as self-defense.

And who can blame us for responding to Frank’s comment with the obvious setup to use a vid?

…allow us to retort!

Where to begin?

Hey! Let’s borrow the counseling model/technique that made us* give up three-quarters of the way through grad school. At the time the newest counseling style totally embraced by the psych dept was that of Robert Carcuff. He brought the phrase, “What I hear you saying is…” to the world.

So what we key on (in our Reader’s assertion re: scotts) is the suggestion that scotts would place a value on (having): an excuse. For inappropriate behavior.

While that is a totally valid assessment for a clark or a roger, it would not be something a scott would given a second thought.

Damn! Not for nothin’ but Frank does have an ear for the Doctrine. Quietly frequently he offers a productive insight. In this case today, it is the most challenging aspect and the most useful aspect of the Wakefield Doctrine: acquiring fluency in (the language) of all three predominant worldviews.

So, for those still reading, sure we all get the Doctrine, with it’s surface description and Michelin guide book to the personal reality(s) of the Outsider (clarks), the Predator (scotts) and the Herd Member (rogers).

But the real challenge, just as in learning any foreign language, is to perceive the world from the ‘native’s’ perspective. Or, as they sometimes say, get to the point of thinking in the (new) language.

Hey! Frank! Thanks.

*no, didn’t make us… we were young and this way predated the Wakefield Doctrine