the Wakefield Doctrine

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

As often happens, a Reader will write a Comment that is, like, a total essay question (minus the stomach-wrenching anxiety, of course).

Today we thank Misky for, what’s the technical phrase in rhetoric? Teeing one up

…(I assume I’m permitted 2): Do Scotts get on with other Scotts, or do we try killing each other in the sandbox?

Good Question.

Answer in three words: pack ranking and hunting grounds.

lol

New Readers! the most helpful insight into learning this here personality theory here is contained in, ‘the Everything Rule’. Simply put, ‘everyone does everything, at one time or another’. Less simply: there is nothing in the common shared-reality experience that is exclusive to one or another of the three predominant worldviews. Least simple: the experience of (this) manifestation is shaped by the observed but interpreted by the observer.

ProTip: the manner/style/nature of the manifestation of anything is a reflection of the character of the individual’s (personal) reality. Knowing one totally helps in anticipating the other. …and vice versa.

Now back to the question. scotts do not try to kill one and other, in or out of the sandbox. Of the three social/behavioral metaphors deployed by the Wakefield Doctrine, the interactions among scotts (Predator) is the simplest to understand.

Essential to the social experience of a scott is ranking. We’re all familiar with this concept among most animals that manifest social order as a pack. Wolves and dogs are the most accessible (and fun) to cite.

Interesting thing about ranking: it’s a process not an award or station or office or any other static thing. It is an on-going dynamic among scotts.

Critical thing about ranking: placement in the ranking order is not personal nor is it a judgement of the individual. We once asked our friend, Bernadine about this. Being a clark our question took the form: “When you find out that among other contemporary scotts not alpha, is it hard to accept?” She laughed her most excellent laugh and said, “No! Of course not! Ranking is about order in the pack, not a judgement of the person.”

Also, the process is elemental to the social paradigm. It is ongoing. There is nothing about killing or damaging the other person. It’s actually not overly personal. It is, however, essential to a scott to know where they stand among their people.

This also provides us with a way we can detect a scott in a social gathering.

(Lets answer Misky’s implied question: Outside of the hypothetical gathering of scotts, how do they behave when encountering  clarks and rogers)

You ever attend a social function, a say party or a mixer or a break in the schedule of a convention or, even a family reunion/picnic and see the person that is moving from group to group? (Better to say, they move about the social environment and cause others to gather around them.) There’s your scott.

In any/every situation, the first thing a scott does is engage in ranking. Not only with other scotts. Everyone. Now, unlike our photo at the top of the post, violent behavior, ritual or otherwise, is not the key. The point is to establish dominance/submissiveness. So a scott will engage everyone and push them on the shoulder. Usually figuratively, though not necessarily.

What is important is to find out if the other person pushes back or not.

…running out of time, real quick: the Wakefield Doctrine is gender neutral.

Sure, a scottian female may choose not to physically push the other person on the shoulder. (Speaking as a native of Y Chromia, we can hope. lol.

However they (scottian females) will, nevertheless, challenge all others at our hypothetical gathering. They will establish their ranking. For the moment.

Multiple scotts (at a gathering)? They will divide the territory. They will almost always hunt alone.

Hope this helps!

Remind us to address the question: “ok, that makes sense. What about clarks and rogers? How does competition manifest with (and between) Outsiders and Herd Members? What about that?

Lets get a scott out here for a closing tune:

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.