Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
Fluency and Proficiency.
looked it up.
(for our purposes: tomato tomahto)
The single most valuable ‘product’ of the Wakefield Doctrine lies in being able to translate the language of one, (of the three predominant worldviews), into another.
New Readers: a part of the fun of the alternative perspective that is the Wakefield Doctrine, the proposition that each of the three ‘personality types’ exist in a different, distinct, (though subtly related), personal reality.*
But wait! There’s more! Of the three predominant worldviews:
- clarks (the Outsider) life in a puzzle that is missing one piece, but for reasons too unpleasant to explain (to others). thinking and examin’ the world is, by-and-large an intellectual exercise. the world is one of thought
- scotts (the Predator) life is to be lived, there’s no need (or time) to consider other explanations for the purely natural predator-prey procession, the world is a physical expression of the essential life experience, i.e. to act is to live
- rogers (the Herd Member) life is a rainbow of emotion disguised as people. the world is a feeling and the only way to connect is to send out a ripple (or a splash or a fuckin’ cannonball off the diving board) of emotion, which is as complex as it needs to be. think: throw a dictionary (which lacks any binding) at one and other and they will gather the pages, take your meaning and throwing it back. mostly
A fundamental difference, but with an unseen ‘Universal Translator’ running in the background of our everyday lifes.
Stay with us. Almost there.
When a roger says something to a clark it, (the message), is grounded in the language of the Herd, i.e. emotional. It gets transliterated, translated, transmorgified….whatever (lol) and the clark hears it (this message) in words of the intellect.
Big finish:
what the clark hears…no, better we say, How the clark translates what they hear the roger saying is not always what the roger meant. Or, at least, not how the roger meant for the clark to feel.
Stopping now. You’ve got some homework, yo.
Takeway: the more we can put ourselfs in the mind, (predominant worldview), of the other person, the better we can understand the ‘why’ of their statement and the less likely we are to say, ‘What the fuck?’
*ok, calm down. Nothing weird. At least nothing extravagantly weird. The idea of a personal reality is simply a fun designation for the thin, thin, in-some-not-so-thin layer of experience between a person and the world they are in, say on a Monday, like today. caveat! If you’re feeling suspicious or wondering when the punchline is coming… this thing of ours might not be quite appropriate for you. Perhaps you might try the Oscar-Meyers, Briggs and Stratton personality system or, even GenZ’s: ‘Talking is for Losers…just tell what we should know, provided you’re hot…Guide to Life’
About clarkscottroger
If I understand, when a roger speaks he wants the listener to feel an emotion, but when the clark speaks he wants the listener to understand something. The scott just wants the listener to obey (or else).
lol
close
seeing how you’ve gotten the essence/spirit of the Doctrine’s concept of predominant worldview: it helps to think of communication starting on a more fundamental level: each interacting with each other, for the most part (aka the rogers and the scotts) unaware that there is a ‘natural universal translator converting their original message into that of the target listener’ it helps to think of the universal translator as being, well, kinda basic, rudimentary in it’s accuracy (of translation)…sorta an (invisible) being reading (real fast) out of their roger-to-clark tourist language dictionary (lol)
so, it by-and-large works… for the most part, but like most languages, some have more subtle degrees of definition for some things than others…
my only caveat (with your comment) is that it helps to keep it ‘arms length’ saying that a roger wants the listener to feel and emotion implies that they are aware of their ‘language’ being different
to make it worse (or more fun if you’re into the challenge) is the ‘nature’ of a roger’s (personal) reality is ‘of emotions; the nature of a clark’s (personal) reality is that of ‘thought and ideas’ and a scott… surprisingly difficult to imagine… their reality is manifested in action and motion
ok
but, hey good job with making the leap to the ‘ok, they may sound like they mean one thing, but the discrepancy lies in how ‘my predominant worldview native tongue’ can handle their message
It sounds like the guy who tried to write a translation dictionary once upon a time for people from Tibet to teach them English. From what I read, he had a Tibetan to French dictionary, so translated everything into French, then took a French/English dictionary and translated it again. It didn’t work too well.
no. no it would not (have) lol
now…now!!! take the framework of what you describe (‘we call that a car’) (‘well, we call it a ‘voiture’) (these two must be on drugs! that’s obviously a རླངས་འཁོར།)
reasonable as the human brain/mind assigns symbols, vocal and otherwise to the world and it’s objects
but now, replace each context with:
an intellectual concept & an physical action & and emotional expression
can I get an aiiyyeee