Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
We enjoy comments on posts and stories, Sixes and Challengae. However, there are the not-infrequent occasion when a Comment gives rise to a theme suitable (or demanding) an entire Post. Mimi, (a total font (lol) of inspiration) is one such influencer. Denise and Cynthia have for a significant tenure, whispered (or shouted) ideas that lay half-developed in the discourse. Of late, Misky has contributed. Now, Cia has stepped up to the mic with the following:
Even if a person doesn’t own a secondary personality, they can randomly exhibit aspects of it, but not show signs that they vaguely acknowledge they have that trait.
After reading it we thought to ourselves, we thought, “Damn! this is a gift disguised as an opportunity to practice what we really hope to be effective in our writing.”
Cai’s comment clearly coincides conclusively with (our correspondent’s) coming to a near complete understanding of one of the Doctrine’s core concepts, i.e. despite there being only one predominant worldview in which one grows, matures and develops, the ‘other two’ (of the three) remain and have the potential to become significant factors in a person’s ...err personality.
They are referred to as secondary and tertiary aspects. They manifest to differing degrees in different people. They can be significant or they can be negligible. Example: we are a clark with a significant secondary scottian (and) weak/negligible tertiary rogerian aspect(s).
We have found, among Readers, that often one’s secondary manifests under duress. In instances of extreme stress one might behave in such a manner that, after the emergency has resolved itself, others say things like, “Where did that come from?” The answer: our secondary aspect kicked in.
In a less dramatic fashion, some (of us), exhibit our secondary aspect in less dramatic fashion.
Cynthia is a good example. She is a self-identified clark*. Very early on in our friendship, Cynthia decided to add live, unedited video to her blog. (Selfies at time before they became ubiquitous.) In any event, we were watching the first video and, like in the first thirty seconds we were all, ‘Yow! You’re a natural on camera. Total presence! But…but…. you’re a clark!!
And then, it thunderbolt’d us, “What we’re seeing is her secondary scottian aspect! ayiieee!” (one of us may or may not have actually said ‘ayiieee’…. well, yes. yes we did.)
There is no limit to this secondary/tertiary thing. Well, there is, in a three-factorial sense of the combinations of the predominant worldviews, but our tertiary rogerian aspect is quite weak. So find a roger to explain.
That said, Phyllis is an example of a roger with a significant clarklike secondary aspect. She not only ‘gets’ the Doctrine, she has contributed to the body of knowledge. (Example: rogers create a ‘box’ to define the perfect world and deliberately erase their knowledge of it (the box, not the world).
Thanks, Cai! We’re sure this makes everything much clearer on the matter of the existance, significance and effect of secondary and tertiary aspects!
* Note: no one can, with any actual authority, designate another’s predominant worldview. It is up to each of us to discover. We do, however, refer to others for the purpose of education, illustration and…well, fun, But there is no color of law to it.
