the Wakefield Doctrine

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

Before I get into today’s little theme, which, admittedly will tend to scan better for the more Doctrine-adept Readers, here is a little ‘Welcome and Introduction to the Wakefield Doctrine’.

Why the new Reader may get the wrong impression from today’s Post.
(and how they can understand the Doctrine better because of that…!)

the Wakefield Doctrine is a perspective, a tool, a game (of sorts) and a cool way to improve one’s understanding of the people in our lives. The Wakefield Doctrine proposes that, at an early age, say….4 or 5 years old, we find ourselves in one of three characteristic worldviews*. These are:

1. the reality of the Outsider (clarks) we know that there should be nothing different about us, and we believe everyone when they say that there is nothing wrong with us, but we are not a part of the world around us…we can see what people do, our families and our friends and we can see how they take…something for granted, and we think that, maybe, through no one’s fault, ….we just didn’t learn how to be a part of the things that people do…so we set out to learn, to understand, to discover that thing that they know and we…apparently do not, and then we can be a part of, we can be real people
2. the life of the Predator (scotts)  life is to be lived, there is not a lot to worry about, it’s all pretty clear…we recognize our own and give respect to them as is due them, it’s very simple to relate to others of our kind….within a few heartbeats of meeting we establish where we stand and the others…that’s the joy of life:  to dominate, to laugh (loudly without concern), to retreat and run, if overwhelmed and simply to live the day as much and as fully as possible… self-doubt is like a damaged limb…ignore until no longer possible, then chew it off and learn to run with 3 legs
3. the world of the Herd member (rogers): everything in its place and a place where one should realize things belong, the days pass in measured appropriateness against the backdrop of life where if one works hard, one can see the Right Way  to do things, as they have been done and will be done and, as long as this knowledge is shared with the others who make up the herd, life is good!  As to the Others…some are there to increase the pleasure and the pain of the day’s routine and endured and still others are meant to be used and cherished and held up to make what is established all the more right and correct

So we all grow up in one of the three worldviews and become what we refer to as clarks, scotts and rogers because that (each of these ‘types’) is how we relate ourselves to the world around us. We never lose the capacity to see the world as do ‘the other two’ do and, in some but not all cases, we even express these ways of the experiencing the world, we call this having a strong secondary or even tertiary aspect. (This is why, sometimes, you will see yourself as one of the ‘other two’ personality types….usually at times of duress.
And so, we go through our days, as Outsiders or Predators or Herd Members, none better than, none worse than and not one of them is ‘the best personality types’. In fact, given that we retain the capability to respond to the world as any of these three, everyone we encounter in the course of our days, reflects some part of ourselves.

This is the self-improvement use of the Wakefield Doctrine,  i.e. if you shy and inclined to dye your hair purple (if you can’t be accepted then at least you won’t be totally ignored) or maybe you have no trouble getting them to pay attention to you, (but you would trade in all the obvious flattery for simple appreciation of the things that you know make up the ‘real you’) and although you know you belong, you would love to not always be subject to the moods and the angers and the schemes of the people around you…(you would trade them all in for a genuine friend)

So. There you go.  The songs and the lyrics?  oh yeah!  one written about/by/for a roger and the other a clark…. better way to say this: if there was no Doctrine and you wanted to be able to describe the inner life of rogers and clarks?  these two songs would do it. (I would have done something for scotts, but the only song I could find in time was nsfa  (not safe for anywhere) lol

Doctrine by lyrics

You always hurt the one you love
The one you shouldn’t hurt at all
You always take the sweetest rose
And crush it till the petals fall

You always brea-eak the kindest hear-eart
With a hasty word you can’t recall, so
If I broke your heart la-ast night
It’s because I love you most of all

(not a good version of the song itself, but I saw the clark in the vid and thought, ‘jeez! hammer home the point, much?)( yes…this is so about how rogers are)

Dreamweaver

I’ve just closed my eyes again
Climbed aboard the dream weaver train
Driver take away my worries of today
And leave tomorrow behind

Ooooh, dream weaver
I believe you can get me through the night
Ooooh, dream weaver
I believe we can reach the morning light

Fly me high through the starry skies
Maybe to an astral plane
Cross the highways of fantasy
Help me to forget todays pain

* worldviews: personal realities, the degree to which what we see and hear and smell and feel of the world we walk through is a reflection of our own selfs, subsequently the most important component of the world, how we feel about it, becomes a personal matter. nothing too metaphysical, but if you don’t have this concept, ya don’t got the Wakefield Doctrine

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

You know how we say that you can’t get this wrong?  Well, that’s still true. But that is not the same as saying this Wakefield Doctrine is anything like easy.  Hell, I’ll take it one step further, this Wakefield Doctrine is not easy to understand.  By ‘understand’, we mean, of course, ‘to see all aspects of ourselves when the unique perspective inherent in the use of the Doctrine is turned inwards.’ That kind of understand.

Lately I’ve been re-examining my role here at the Wakefield Doctrine. When I started writing it, the job description simple and direct: explain the Principles of the Wakefield Doctrine in a way that anyone coming across this blog could read, understand and use it in their lives. We charged all new Readers to, ‘learn the characteristics of the three worldviews, observe the people in your life and infer how the (other) person ‘relates themselves to the world around them’.

And so the years passed, fun Posts, some serious Posts,  all written with the intent to tell Readers about the Wakefield Doctrine. With time, people began to ‘get it’. People who, with no direct contact or interaction with me, read the blog and learned to identify the clarks and the scotts and the rogers in their lives. And they shared their discovery. Slowly at first, Molly and Claire and Nell Rose, then Cyndi and Lizzi and Michelle, finally zoe and Jny, Stephanie and Christine. Until today when there are people in the world, people who may never have written more than a couple of Comments, finding opportunities in the course of their everyday days to stop and think, “…well, he was being a little overly excitable, even allowing for his   scottian aspect, wonder what’s wrong?” or perhaps “…little Lisa is such a clark, she has so much potential!”  or even, “hey!! I did my best don’t try to lay no guilt trip on me, roger!“, these new Readers learned the Principles well enough to extrapolate and use the Doctrine in ways in their respective lives that I did not necessarily describe. Cool.

And so, with the Principles firmly in the grasp of those who are capable (and willing) to pass along this unique, useful and fun approach to human behavior, what’s left for me to do?

…it took me a little bit to ‘remember’ what I am supposed to do. (But then again, I am a clark). It was just the other day, during a vidchat or a TToT blgohop or perhaps in the course of an exchange with a Reader in the Comments, it dawned on me that is was my job to explain the Wakefield Doctrine for the new Reader. Just like it’s always been.

…and so all of this Post today is, essentially, the result of Comments from zoe and Lizzi and Jny:

“…how is it that, though we know better, most clarks are inordinately concerned with the positive (and avoiding the negative) regard of strangers? Not only that… but we can find ourselves ‘factoring in the impression our actions might have on a total stranger’….  a person that we know fully well that we will never, ever see again!!  And yet we do.

(and so I Replied to zoe): ‘you know why this is? why otherwise smart and mature and reasonable people can allow their lives (and, by inference, the lives of their families and friends) to pivot on such a not-really-important factor?”

it is because, ‘clarks do not know how to take‘.