Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
(To continue with our classroom metaphor…)
AP Level Wakefield Doctrine (“surely each of the three predominant worldviews are not saints/saintinae, right?”)
Correct.
We, as your Curator, would be remiss in our duty to disclose the dark side along with (“Are those the three?? I wanna be a….”) the more gooder side of human personality and social interactioning.
clarks are heartless, scotts are cruel and rogers are mean
Now that your individual inner critics have had a moment to shriek it’s outrage (purely on your behalf, of course) let’s say this:
“To know others is knowledge; to know oneself is wisdom” Lao Tzu (ish)
Why do we write such seemingly negative (and hopefully) provocative assertions?
For fun and engagement.
Pretty simple, isn’t it?
About clarkscottroger
It sounds like clarks, scotts and rogers are three different ways to be awful.
exactly because each grew and developed their personality appropriate to their personal reality (aka the character of their relationship with the world at large)
so… keeping the behavioral metaphor in mind of course scotts would manifest ‘being awful’ in a way that would be seen as cruel; rogers as well… looking to the nature of each reality it makes perfect sense
Yes, heartless is a good way to put it, which is why you have to put the brakes on it early and look for the better way to respond.
(surely the most dangerous and damaging way to be awful (as Frank, quite appropriately phrases it)
which is why, as you’ll other say it, ‘in situations that lead to one becoming angry*, when a clark gets very, very quiet…that’s the time to run’
*well, duh Everything Rule is there to be used (to understand)