the Wakefield Doctrine

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

While everbody can see the Wakefield Doctrine as ‘an additional perspective’* it takes a little extra reflection to appreciate it’s utility as ‘a tool’* and a whole lot of clarklike imagination to accept that it (can/might) offer a lever*** on the world. It might be more accurate to use the term, ‘personal reality’. (While more comprehensive and conducive to understanding the Doctrine, the description of three ways to relate ourselves to the world around us was, originally, “Σοβαρά, θα εμπιστευτείς ένα google translate για ένα κρίσιμο στοιχείο στο Δόγμα; (ναι, φαίνεται ωραίο όμως, σωστά)”.¹

The concept of personal reality is both simple and irrational. (so, yeah, welcome to the world of clarks). It maintains that we, all of us, experience reality to a small, but not insignificant basis, as personal . Nothing cool, (or scary), like singing toasters or having the ability to fly (though, clarks out there are all too familiar with our capacity for being invisible, deliberately and otherwise), just personal. Therein lies the key utility of our little personality theory. The Doctrine reminds us that all that meets the eye is insufficient for complete understanding while, at the same time not conveying the ability to read minds (damn! was that too much to ask of this serendipitous insight?) but providing (an) additional aid to allowing the world to be different for the other person than that which we are experiencing.

In the early days we spent a lot of time with this concept of personal reality. Mostly because we needed to communicate that our personality types are not necessarily our conscious (or even, unconscious) choice. The clarklike female does not add neon highlights to her perfectly nice-looking hair and the clarklike male does not hunch his shoulders and look at anything other than the eyes of the other person because they’re (as a scott might express: goofin’ on the interviewer)… we do it because it makes sense. To us; in the context of the reality in which we find ourselfs. And that, according to many authorities with books and colleges named after them is a definition of rational behavior.

So, in conclusion:

Εάν δεχθούμε την ευθύνη για τον χαρακτήρα του κόσμου που αντιμετωπίζουμε, τότε έχουμε πρόσβαση στη δύναμη να τον αλλάξουμε.³

Teaser: so, we’re engaging in a live action application of the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine, going all Sy Sperling on this here tool here. Will keep you up-to-date.

(for those with longer tenure, we might reference a period of time shortly after starting this blog that we provided an example of attempting to act as a live demonstration. and, for reasons uncertain but respected we will keep it simple and say ‘This link for that reference’

* “…on the world around us and the people who make it up”

** “…for seeing the world as the other person is experiencing it”

*** “Πᾷ βῶ, καὶ χαριστίωνι τὰν γᾶν κινήσω πᾶσαν [Pā bō, kai kharistiōni tan gān kinēsō” (Archimedes) That thing about levers and moving the earth. Yeah, extra points to the Reader who cupped handed ‘roger‘

1)  we trust Nick, if he’s reading, to not so much do the translate check, as let us know if we’re saying something like, “The can of dog food forms the basis of a complete breakfast” or phrases other than what we actually wrote

2) something to the effect: ‘Seriously, you’re gonna trust a google translate for a critical element in the Doctrine? (yeah, does look cool though, right?)

3) damn! let this put to rest the persistent rumor that, at least in the public eye, clarks are totally risk-aversive (That said, everyone lets have a round of applause for Nick and his good-hearted efforts to eq this bad-boy (linguistically-speaking) into something that gets us at least a B-minus)

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

RePrint?

Who said that?

(thank you, very much)

(all we had was a couple of examples/illustrations/manifestations of ‘the Everything Rule’*)

* ‘Everyone does everything, at one time or another’

But, interestingly enough, it (the Rule) has become less necessary than it was in the early days. Most likely this is attributable to a) the frequency of visits from people coming to the blog for the first time, 2) the percentage of rogers confronting the lack of herd evidenced in the posts, comments etc or c) developing the idea of predominant worldviews (the ‘personality types’ of our system) as relationship (‘how we relate ourselves to the world around us’) as opposed to the notion of encountering three characteristic personal realities. i.e. that of the Outsider, the Predator and the Herd Member. We suspect Readers are more comfortable with the former paradigm than the latter: ‘are you saying I am stuck in the screaming dimension‘ / ‘no, sorry, but you have overlooked one thing, ‘my opinion‘ / ‘cool‘.

damn! interesting  but not as invigorating as this Monday warrants

wait! shit! all this way before the topic appears! ‘Aging and the three predominant worldviews of the Wakefield Doctrine’

nah

the level of comprehension, (if not natural affinity for the concept), of Readers these days is too great to stay interested in a topic as simple as:

‘While age neutral, the Wakefield Doctrine accounts for the subtle changes in one’s personality as time goes by. This is not simply because there is, on the whole, less energy for the individual to express and manifest the effects and products of their interaction with the world around them. The interesting thing is that a person’s secondary aspect rises in relative prominence as their predominant worldview declines.’

Just as in the early days of this blog, the question tends to be: ‘I know my (spouse/friend/boss) is a (clark/scott/roger) but sometimes I’d swear they were not. Worse, sometimes they act inconsistently with your theory! I know the Doctrine is perfect in it’s basic premise so what gives?’

As the predominant wanes, the secondary, (and on occasion, the tertiary), aspect becomes more apparent.

ok… RePrint

snippets, tidbits and snicky-snacks, stop and set a spell at the Wakefield Doctrine personality spa

October 2, 2011

Welco

Welcome to ( ah! much better! ) the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers )

As the title purely implies, today is an easy day…easy font, easy title and easy on the complex, OMG! I had no idea how totally insightful you people are…kinda way. No grammar concerns, no worries about ‘story arc’ just going to have a little conversation.  Well, we know it is not going to be a ‘conversation’, because that would require a give and take, an exchange of ideas, a frickin effort to get out of your Chair-of-Total-Self-Idulgence and and actually do something. ( And we know you are too fuckin lazy to bother doing that! Life in the Virtual Zone!! ain’t it grand?)

Lets play with fonts, seeing how we’re all ‘comic sans-ly this morning’. Like the following short statement:

This is type on wing dings font  what the hell!

now, would someone out there please tell me why this ‘font’ would be permanently installed in my software?  Seriously, other than some pudgy-fingered, greasy-hair, bad-complected roger (male or female) using this font to send secret messages to other rogers, why do we have it? No answer, is there?   (And we now arrive at the Wakefield Doctrine Lesson of the Day):

We all know that this Doctrine is based on the premise that there are three characteristic ways/manners/styles that all people perceive the world, i.e.  ‘as an Outsider’ (looking on) if you are a clark,  ‘as a predator’ (watching out) if you are a scott  (or)  ‘as a member of the group (looking around) if you are a roger.
With me so far?  good! Then you know that at an early age, we all become predominantly one of these three, (and this is where the magic happens):

• If you are a clark: you are different, you know that everyone and everything around seems normal and you know you are not crazy (well, not crazy crazy) but everything is out there  and you are here watching and hoping that you can understand what it is that everyone else seems to know (and then) you will fit in and you won’t be out here
• If you are a scott: you just got to do something, you see people act and move and you feel….you move  you suspect that you are different but everytime someone does something you re-act and you are …not glad…not happy…it’s just right. Sometimes you feel like you maybe, shouldn’t do so much so fast, you feel bad when others seem to not enjoy it…but you know thats the way the world is
• If you are a roger: you are busy, all the time, things need to get done but they must be understood and appreciated and …and enhanced  You feel the responsibility, the sense of duty but it is not oppressive, sometimes you know that there are people around you who are in the way, but for the most part, everyone has a place and life will unfold as it should

What we are talking about here is not the dominant aspect, the fact that we are mostly clarks, scotts and rogers  (most of the time), what we will look at is the role of the two ‘non-dominant’ aspects. Remember! We never lose the capacity/capability/drive/instinct to experience the world as any of the three types, so what happens to the other two that we are not (mostly)?

*

Hey! That was interesting in a dissappointing-but-haven’t-we-matured-so-we-don’t-feel-the-need-to-get-upset way. The font effect of the original did not copy forward.

Oh well, Readers will have to use their not-inconsiderable imaginations to visualize the effects we were going for back …. er holy shit! thirteen years ago!!  ayy-fricken-yeee