Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
So! You’ve done your reading. You now have a rudimentary sense of the identifying behaviors, social styles, fashion choices of the three predominant worldviews.
We enjoy the analogy (or parable or metaphonics…whichever, you know what we mean) of the Wakefield Doctrine as a language. This does not supplant the view of the Doctrine as an additional perspective on the world around us and the people who make it up. That is still the…official position advocated in these pages. The thing of it is, any perspective would have, attendant, a vocabulary (and. strictly speaking), a vernacular. And so you will see references to fluency in the Wakefield Doctrine. This reflects the ease and facility one may demonstrate when describing a person/situation. “She showed up at her interview at the bank with enough cosmetic metal and leather to trigger the metal detectors at the door. Her take away was, in part, ‘shoulda gone with the blue accents in hair to convey a calm demeanor’. She was such a clark.” Like that, except fluency permits a level of accuracy in observation of the situation and person vis á vis the Doctrine, in realtime.
As with any reputable language school, the best way to move up in comprehension, pronunciation and… (cough sound: <Misky>1) and grammar. Tomorrow we’ll beat deceased equine by suggesting common social settings to better practice the semi- lingua franca of the Wakefield Doctrine.
fun!
Where were we?
oh yeah, relying on our clarklike confidence to avoid either: a) backing our ownselfs into a corner or 2) looking silly.
Exactly! The three qualities beyond reproach in the three predominant worldviews (personality types) of the Doctrine:
- clarks (Outsider) soundness of intellectual capability. no, not how ‘smart’ or even intelligent. A fundamental faith in the sufficiency of intellect.
- scotts (Predators) total efficacy in judgement of (a) need for action
- rogers (Herd Members) rightness and virtue inextricably linked to one’s view of the world
Thanks and a shout out to Misky for gracing us with a very useful example (and illustration) of Doctrine-specific wordage.
1) what? who said that? no, there are no stupid questions* While the Doctrine famously maintains that ‘you can’t get it wrong’, we would be remiss in our duties to not help Students and Friends of the Doctrine avoid simple errors of vocabulary, grammar and syntax and the like. In this case, our scottian friend is leaving the zero derivation stick in the workshop when it comes to the substantive scott. or something. ex. By virtue of my self-admitted predominant worldview, I can say, “As a clark, well, I just did, didn’t I?” It is, however, considered improper use of Doctrine lexicon to say, “As a clarklike, I am the butt of…” no, not snickers and muffled laughter… wait, that is plausible. If, however, the speaker in this increasingly tenuous if not clumsy example were a scott, …well, less fun-making and more sidelong glances towards the exits on the part of those in our imaginary lecture hall.
* one of our favorite jokes from the early, carefree days of the blog, to wit: ‘There are no stupid questions. There are only your questions
*
