the Wakefield Doctrine

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

So, about that ‘Everything Rule ‘.

Thing was, in the early days of this blog, we would get questions to the effect, ‘My husband always does (this) whenever (that) happens.’ Is that scottian thing or what?’

Of course, being the early years, we were all about describing the three predominant worldviews (clarks, scotts and rogers) in as many ways possible. In context, in theory, in principle, hell, in fairy tales and opera (operae?).

It was understandable that New Readers, when hearing about the affinity of the scottian personality for the occupation of police person, would be tempted to think that there were activities and attitudes, predilections and preferences that were characteristic of one ‘personality type’ and not the other two.

Note: as so often has happened in these pages, the questions, (from Readers), provided an opportunity to explain and otherwise illustrate aspects of the Wakefield Doctrine that may have been underserved. In this case, the reality of personal reality. The early focus was that our personal realities were simply that, that zone between us as individuals and the greater world that was unique to each and every of us. This approach was to be supplanted/enhanced/made-way-easier-to-visualize by the notion of relationship, i.e. the character of our relationship to the world around us and the people who make it up.  You know, the relationship inherent in those who are Outsiders (clarks), Predators (scotts) or Herd Members (rogers).

the Everything Rule (‘Everyone does everything at one time or another’), reminds us that this personality-type system is not the product of a cumulative score where behaviors are tabulated and the number at the bottom of the column corresponds to a type.

No.

No, the membership in (one of) the three personality types, (predominant worldviews), is simply a coherence that indicates one over the other two. The easier way to get yer head around this relationship is found in our favorite metaphor of the eye exam. Consider each of the three predominant worldviews as a lens. In the course of a typical ear examin, the patient is asked to look at one set of letters and asked, as the doctor changes the lens on individual eyes, which provides the clearest view.

roger–scott ‘which is clearer?’ —<click> roger–clark —<click>

Getting off topic, (lol like that ever happens) and besides if you haven’t left by now you’re starting get the idea.

So, before providing a Reprint in which we describe the three personality types of the Wakefield Doctrine, lets conclucde this discussion of ‘the Everything Rule’.

The answer to our platform question at the top of this post?

No, there is nothing in one of the three that is not in the other two. It comes down to manifestation, how does a thing manifest when the person relates themselves to it (the job, the task, the avocation/occupation, hobby or love interest) and the world around them. ‘Everyone does Everything, at one time or another‘.

*

Of language and Laniappe(s), the Wakefield Doctrine…. lets get this thing going

February 19, 2013

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

As promised, today’s Post examines the (use of the) metaphor of ‘fluency’, in the context of developing the efficacy of the interpersonal tools that are inherent in the Wakefield Doctrine. Lets go to our little friends at Wikipedia for an outline of the commonly accepted meanings of this fairly cool word. (oh yeah, turns out this is Part I of what seems to be a much more involved topic than I originally imagined.)

Language fluency is used informally to denote broadly a high level of language proficiency, most typically foreign language or another learned language, and more narrowly to denote fluid language use, as opposed to slow, halting use. In this narrow sense, fluency is necessary but not sufficient for language proficiency: fluent language users (particularly uneducated native speakers) may have narrow vocabularies, limited discourse strategies, and inaccurate word use…

In the sense of proficiency, “fluency” encompasses a number of related but separable skills:

• Reading: the ability to easily read and understand texts written in the language;
• Writing: the ability to formulate written texts in the language;
• Comprehension: the ability to follow and understand speech in the language;
• Speaking: the ability to produce speech in the language and be understood by its speakers.
• Reading Comprehension : the level of understanding of text/messages.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluency )

So what is it we are trying to say? (ha, ha… a little linguistics joke. After all that serious rogerian time what with the Wikipedia and such, I went and implied that I was not sure:  a) what I was trying to say,  b) whether or not you were capable of understanding what I was saying or c) both of these statements.)

At first I thought it would be pretty straight forward. The goal of developing fluency (as used in this context) is, through understanding the language of all three personality types, to allow you to shape your message in such a manner, that the likelihood that the target of (your message) will comprehend it as you intended. That’s a goal that is both reasonable and ambitious and worthwhile (in terms of the effort necessary to accomplish it.) So how do we do this thing? It would be best to start with the basics.

The Wakefield Doctrine…all people are born with the capacity (and capability) to perceive the world in one of three characteristic ways and at an early, early age we all pick one of these three ways to relate to the world and this becomes our predominant worldview. All of us retain the capacity to access the worldview of the ‘other two’, non-predominant worldviews. These three worldviews are:

1. the perspective of the Outsider, the clark personality type maintains a quality of separation from others, from the world around them, even from themselves
2. the life of the Predator, the scottian personality type is the person who, ‘lives through action’, aggressive and impulsive, a scott stands out in a crowd like a Ferrari in a Kia car lot
3. the roger who is emblematic of the (natural) drive of humans to associate, congregate, analyze and dramatize, rogers form the warp and weft of all human societies

Since each of the three personality types relate to the world around them in characteristically different ways, it is only reasonable that they will seek to communicate with that world in characteristically different ways.

clarks you know one of the funniest, weirdest things about clarks? (ok, a couple of funny weird things) it’s the percentage of time they will use the impersonal pronoun when talking about themselves!! damn! them people is strange… Interesting note: to the un-trained ear, both clarks and rogers will be characterized as having a ‘rambling conversational style’. But if you listen closely, you will hear that (the) clarks are rambling because they are discovering inferences and implications that were not apparent at the start of the conversation, that would enhance the understanding and appreciation of the topic.  A roger, on the other hand, will sound like they are rambling because they are attempting to add new information that they feel further supports the initial topic. (nothing new or original, simply more corroboration for the point they are trying to make).

scotts, as we all know are all about short, declarative sentences. Noun, verb, object. Thank you very much. And, of course, the archetypical Interjection: ‘Hey!’  is always good. Mostly it is whatever demands action. Recently I witnessed a person get complimented on a new ‘hairdo’ the scott approached, conveyed positive response to ‘the look’ and simply said, “Look at you!”

rogers, as befits the personality type that most exemplifies the interactions of members of the herd, speak in terms that carry information not limited to the immediate subject, rather they will expand upon the initial topic, “well, we were all at the Calypso Club last friend for Jimmie’s Birthday Party (he threw his own party, can you believe that?) and Ms. Delguidice was there…dancing with a girl! Well, she was kinda cute and she was telling me how much she admired how far I have come in the Company in such a short time. Who did you say you knew that I knew?”

While it may be easy enough to imitate the language of the three personality types, the path to true fluency entails finding a way to see the world as (they) see it. Only by doing this can we truly understand their language(s). And only by acquiring this level of understanding can we claim true fluency.

(to be cont’d…. Part II ‘What do you mean, it’s more than vocabulary??! Rosetta this…)

*