the Wakefield Doctrine

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

Given the level of Reader participation/feedback to yesterday’s post on the rogerian worldview, (thanks out to Mimi and Misky and our newest transfer student, Frank), lets go with one more anecdote from our early understanding of Herd Members.

The discovery of ‘referential authority’

Note: Warning! Anecdotal Scientific Principles Established by Observation. Chi-Square This. Everything Rule Compliant.

‘referential authority’ is the rogerian characteristic to cite a third party as the source of both moral imperative and Necessity of Compliance. Classic example: you’re at HR for orientation for new employment. In the course of the interview the HR person holds up something with a lot of pages and states, “As to procedures, protocol or SOP, it’s all in here. Everyone calls this ‘the bible’.

Point in fact: nobody calls it ‘the bible’. Not even the HR person, except when indoctrinating new employees.

The act of referring to it by a formal and distinctive name with the implicit threat that said ‘bible’ contains remedies, corrections and/or punishment for those who ignore the rules? That is referential authority. It is peculiarly rogerian as an element of the Herd Member’s personal (collective) reality. It is part of the inner landscape.

Much of the Wakefield Doctrine describes each of the three predominant worldviews in such detail that one cannot help but realize that it, (the Doctrine), is true, accurate and totally unassailable in it’s veracity, vis á vis the inner life of the three personality types.

1. clarks (the Outsider): poor posture, given to mumbling and self-effacement that goes from ‘charming’ to ”jeez-cut-yourself-some-slack” in the blink of an eye
2. scotts (the Predator) quick to act, slow to ponder and totally confident, which makes them good leaders (scotts are often wrong but rarely unsure)
3. rogers (the Herd Member) they know the world, (of people in groups), are confident, (provided no one challenges them), and charming (unless they become uncomfortable or otherwise feel ignored)

So! To our story of the the discovery of ‘referential authority’

At a certain point in the early years we got it into our heads to write little pretend-real life scenaria and include a multiple choice section. Basically ‘If you were in this situation, what would you do?’ Of course we wrote three answers that reflected the view of the three predominant worldviews.

The story has a protagonist (Emily) applying for a job in a diner. She goes for her interview which, somehow, is scheduled at 12:30 pm, just at the end of the mid-day rush. Fine. The owner/cook is a clark. The sole waitress is a roger. Emily…well, try and guess.

Our Protagonette is sitting at the one empty table watching the controlled chaos. One of the three answers to the question ‘What should Emily do?’ was: get up and start clearing tables to take the pressure off the waitress.

Welll, the response from the rogerian Readers (and rogers in the ‘real’ world) was unanimous in it’s outrage. ‘You can’t do that’, ‘That’s a terrible thing, she doesn’t work there’ etc etc.

Being the curator of this here Doctrine involves luck as much as skill, but there was no way to ignore the emotional ferocity of only rogers.

,,, and then we saw it: there is an implicit prohibition in the personal reality of rogers that says ‘Members Only’ and, referring back to ‘the bible’ cited above, everyone is expected to follow the rules of behavior whether they know them or not. And therein is the power of referential authority.

We are grateful for the chance insight into the unanimity of the response from rogers.

Note: in discussion with rogers after this episode, they have confirmed the existence of referential authority. With extensive qualifications, elaborations  and modifications, of course.

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

Despite today being Friday, while we will forego the weekly Quiz. scotts and rogers are given leave to go out and play. (aka chase ‘n eat, or gather unto oneself proof of Correctness)

(If you’re still bored, gather your little friends around you, scott (no snacking! friends are not energy bars!) and try this.)

For everyone still at your desks in this metaphor-logy, we Way-Back our ownselfs to the days of wood and metal classroom desks. Cool thing being, the desk had a built-in defensive, (well, actually, offensive), feature: a solid maple top on a hinge that, for an unsuspecting classmate distracted by their rummaging around inside them, can be surprised shut. ha ha.

…anyway

Compare and Contrast

‘The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;’

Which is the clark? Who is the scott? Where, (and there is one), is the roger?

Now isn’t that more fun than spending mandatory recess in the schoolyard dodging scotts and avoiding rogers?

Mimi, you had a Comment?

Why yes, there are times and situations, friendships and relationships-of-convenience that would make this period not entirely unpleasant. Example?

Correct! clarks have scottian friends/collaborators and, the same-but-different, rogerian best friends. ’twas ever thus.

Class? The danger in this set of relationships? (Remember: cite examples in terms of grade school level maturity and social context)

Misky! You’ve eaten the entirety of your recess-bound classmates already? (Well, of course you divvied them up with your fellow scotts. The pack does need to keep up their energy level)

Since you’re here, do you care to address the topic?

Very good! And controversial! Yates may very well be a roger. How would you support your assertion?

Denise… you’ve been uncharacteristically quiet. Would you care to contribute to our little discussion?

No, asking ‘Who let the dogs in?’ Is not quite what we had in mind.

oh, not in a bad way. lol Fine. continue

sorry time is up! pencils down.