the Wakefield Doctrine...a very brief overview of the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers
62
This Hub is meant to give a sense of what the Wakefield Doctrine has to offer.
It is my opinion that the people who are inclined to read sites and blogs like hubpages.com and the incredibly diverse range of blog post-like hubs that it contains are, as a group, representative of a certain set of personality traits. Further, much can be understood about the person behind these Comments when a paradigm like the Wakefield Doctrine is superimposed.
I trust we all agree that there is no single 'personality type' that accounts for the amount of time and effort exhibited in the the creation of all these hubs. And that is leaving the 'effort factor' underlying the writing of Comments and Replies that is attendant to each and every one of the hubs. Is the percentage of this particular population so biased towards the 'self-examining/introspective/auto-actualizing personality types? Or are we seeing an inherently skewed sampling (that these hubs and comments constitute)?
Clearly there is no shortage of personalty theory(s) in the world. With examples that range from the most meticulously researched and documented, all the way out to the garden variety, "hey is everyone like the Three Stooges" personality theories, the one common factor we always see is the seemingly insatiable appetite of the blog-reading-population for an explanation for why people do the things that they do. Depsite this variety of theories, the most significant shortcoming of most (personality type) systems is that they are based on observation and interpretation and as Heisenberg tells us, the Observer always messes with the Observed. (I had to kinda paraphrase the theory of indeterminacy, hope you don't mind.)
The aspect I most admire about the Wakefield Doctrine is that, as a system of personality typing, it does not require the observer to become involved in the (determination) of the 'subject' personality type.
To enjoy the benefits of the Wakefield Doctrine, all that is required is a willingness to accept one...little...(really not such a crazy notion)... idea, which is this: 'all people live in their own realities'.
Not such extreme notion, we are not proposing extreme differences in individual realities, we are merely saying that despite having nearly everything in common, each of us exist in distinct realities, nonetheless. The Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) holds that it is the nature of the (individuals) reality that determines the 'personality type'. This in contrast to most personality theory that strive to examine an individuals, traits and emotions and circumstantial behavior and from this decide that they are "Type A" or ENTPB or some other such catch all label. It is not the describing of the persons behavior in an certain situation that these approaches fall short.
For example, if you experience the world as a predator then your behavior will have certain characteristics in common with other people who (experience the world as predators). Not exactly the same, but essentially the same. And if you view and interact with the world at large as does a social/herd based person does, then your behavior will be fundamentally different.
Same external world...different set of assumptions...different solutions and strategies to get through the day....
The point? damn...oh yeah...how to explain the different types of personalities coming to these blogs....real simple explanation from the Wakefield Doctrine:
...put a red ball in the middle of a parking lot on a windy day...it might roll a little and stop, roll again etc...
...one person (experiencing the world as a predator) would immediately (but cautiously) go right to the ball...is it a threat or is it prey?...once they have determined that it is 'just a ball' they might play with it, but ultimately leave it an go on with the business at hand
another person (experiencing the world as a 'herd/socially-linked') would see the ball and immediately look around to see if anyone else sees the ball and will base their actions on the behavior of others in the parking lot
...a third person will see the ball...watch (the ball) and the other people and try to understand what it (the ball) is good for and what value the ball has for the other people in the parking lot.
the Wakefield Doctrine would describe these people as scotts, rogers and clarks, respectively.
Pretty simple, isn't it?
CommentsLoading...
Plus! the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) gots nearly free hats (for your damn head).
Hell them losers at Meyers-Briggs/Entammen-engram and Bakery, betcha they don't even let people claim parts of the world (by Right-of-Hat)!
What a wonderfully informative article. And by god, you hit the nail directly on the head with you comment about the commenter's being very much biased against anyone who is free thinking and self actualizing. dw
...plus we gots hats (for our collective damn heads), lets see the mainstream academiacs match that! lol
damn! Sorry I missed when you Commented, Sophia. I enjoy reading the opinion of anyone willing to make to effort to type the words into (the ether).
Would love to respond, just not sure how to do so, not certain which elements of the Post is the what exhibits the poppy cock-osity.
...I remember when I was young(er) and in the habit of engaging in long, random topic conversations with like-minded friends. Invariable, at some point, especially after I went far, far afield from the subject we started with, I would stop and announce, "but then again, I could always be full of shit".
Still a possibilty. And then again, I often get the reaction (similar) to your Comment from scottian women.
...it's the strangest thing!
What about the type who sees the ball, thinks, "Wow, some parent's really gonna be pissed when he/she finds out the ball he/she just paid a buck ninety-nine for got dropped out the car window by the kid," and goes on about his/her business? I think I'll call that type L.T.
good call, that person (in your example) though, technically speaking, would be considered a roger, in the Doctrine parlance.
The reason being, upon seeing action produced, the first impulse (of the rogerian personality type) is to 'understand' the person/people associated with it (in your example, the ball being dropped from the car).
Then comes the 'quantification' aspect (of the rogerian personality) which calculates the cost of dropped ball and finally (lol) the (personal/social)consequences of the dropping of the ball.
To use your scenario to contrast the other two personality types:
a clark would immediately look around and make sure they had an explanation/alibi in case someone decided to blame them for stealing the ball (and)
a scott would either a)chase the ball and hope to start a game of 'keep away' or b) would keeping running after whatever had them running when this example started.
Thanks for the Commentation. Once I acquire some rudimentary writing skills, I will invite you over to the Doctrine blog, (we have hats!), but at the present moment we are gathering facts to support our little personality theory and it kinda looks like someone's grandfathers' garage workshop! lol
AKH 18 months ago
finally a new theory about personality types. forget about all of those Big 5 Personalities, Myers-Brigg, Personality Tests, etc... They are all too general if you ask me. This distinctive theory of 3 personality types is readily understood and actually makes sense.