Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
So, how real, really, do we mean when we speak of the role of personal reality in the experience of the three predominant worldviews: clarks (Outsiders), scotts (Predators) and rogers (Herd Members).
Like, real real or just real real?
Like the old saying, “When the Teacher grows complacent, a remedial Pupil will appear.”
from our frequent correspondent, Frank, a Comment last week (in response to Friday’s post.)
2 + 2 … hmm … quick? I’ve got a master’s degree in math. In base 3, it would be 11. In base 4, it would be 10. In base ten, it would be 4.
But good point about mixing all of them together. I’ll stick to being a clark. That gives me an outside view of the world.
(Fortunately, short of having a (forget the term used, back in the day, for the week that teachers had off…teacher’s convention or something) we have Mimi to refresh our… vocation (Doctrinistically-speaking that is):
“The situation is different if you see it from every angle. Having an imagination helps, I think, you can imagine what it looks like to “the other two.”
ahh… better now.
So! Given that it’s taken us as long as it has (185 words +-) to get to thesis statement stage, what we’ll do is set up the question (inherent in Frank’s underlying assumption) and continue the theme through the rest of the week. (Well, ceptin’ for Thursday which is Six Sentence Story day)
Firs the set up’
The Wakefield Doctrine is predicated on the central tenet that we, all of us, live our lives in what is, (to a small but definite degree) a reality that is personal. Our posts have a…no! Wait! Lets follow our original plan for this subject, i.e. not to try and write it in one post.
Damn! Sorry, yo. Went looking to find the post in which, by having a clark, as scott and a roger go out to lunch together the personal (in personal reality) is made clear if not obvious. Unfortunately, we could not find it. Lesson (Chapter Minus 23) Do Not Devote More Time to Saving Time Than Would Be Required to Complete the Task the First Time.) lol
But we did find a good description of the three predominant worldviews (aka personality types) of the Wakefield Doctrine.
Our ‘personality types’ are simply a label for the most appropriate style, based on the nature of the world we encounter.
-
the Outsider(clarks) realize immediately that they are not only different, they are not included in the world shared by everyone around them. They learn to blend in to the background, the better to observe those who apparently know something that they do not. This curiosity is not idle, it is critical. If the clark missed a lesson that others obviously learned, then either they were excluded or they were unforgivably absent. Neither is something they want to advertise and both are reasons to devote most of their lives to learning whatever they don’t already know. clarks think.
-
the Predator(scotts) start moving as soon as the lights come on because, in the world of the predator, it is all about eating or being eaten. They notice everything in the world around them that is important and necessary. If it moves away, chase it. If it moves towards you, run or stand and fight. The world is full of life and conflict, which kinda are one of the same. To live is to be in motion. scotts act.
-
the Herd Member(rogers) feel at home, even among strangers because the world is complete. What it is is all that it is. They have the feeling that while there are many things to be learned in life, there is a Right Way to do things. They see the world and feel a part of it. Even the bad things are connected, and, provided they are allowed the time and resources, they will learn the Right Way to do things and show others what they have learned. It’s important, because in a Herd, there is no center. However, there are always others surrounding them. The only Good is to influence as many in the Herd as possible. rogers feel.
We will continue our ‘How Real is Personal Reality in the Doctrine’ theme with tomorrow’s post.
Now, to share an earworm a little tuneage from the late, great Stephen Foster:
About clarkscottroger
I’m still thinking of 2 + 2. In base 2, it would be 100, and in base 1, it would be 1111 (add up four 1s, that is, 1^3 + 1^2 + 1^1 + 1^0). Don’t quote me on any of the above.
I like your description of scotts: “If it moves away, chase it.”
I was heard someone* say “Now, quote me if I’m wrong.” as I have been ever since! lol
ok the ‘2 + 2 = test for predominant worldviews. might be best for me to provide the answer that is most indicative of a clark
Test Giver: “How much is 2+ 2?”
clark: “In what context?”**
* he was a scott! lol
**This is not a response by someone wanting to make sure that the Interlocutor was not asking for alternative arithmetics… it is the response by someone who assumes that there are more than one reality. To be fair, the set-up is necessary in the form of a roger answering the question with a ‘4 of course, what’s wrong with you? everyone knows that 2 + 2 equals 4. rogers, by definition live in a quantifiable world, their’s is the 2 plus 2 can only equal 4. (citing different bases and other manifestations of math is not at issue. (for the roger) the world follows certain rules, individual opinion notwithstanding,
That 2 + 2 stuff makes me think that a calculator is a roger. It will only give me 4 for an answer. I could argue with some AI program. But none of these are persons, so the personality test doesn’t apply to them.
exactly!!!
lol
no serially, the ‘test’ is funny because the only reasonable answer is 4 (given by a roger who, of the three is the most reasonable representative example of the world at large. without whom (and whomette) we would still be running on the savannah trying to catch dinner or being chased around the savannah to avoid being dinner)
roger are representative of the quantifiable (aka reasonable and consistent) world… they reason we have computers and toilets, civilizations (and witch burnings)
by george! I think he’s got it!
And who has a better imagination than a Clark, to dream up this whole scheme?
tru*
*and, thanks for the reminder to write a mention of how creativity (and her half-sister from the side of the family that hardly ever gets mentioned at Thanksgiving dinner, at least until very late and the cider is digging it’s teeth in) manifests in clarks, scotts and rogers
**note on dreaming up schema, I genuinely embraced the title of Curator for this here Doctrine here… there is not doubt that the whole concept was an example of (the all-too-rare) serendipity of life… not on a social-importance level of, say, Paul of Tarsus (lol) but kinda, ya know.I should reprint the Eureka moment again sometime