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

Damn! Forgot to post the RePrint yesterday.

Here ya go*

* of course, today being a different present from yesterday. e.g. pre-present, we’ll simply have to find another reference point to search randomly.

That’s it!

Referential Authority.

One of the coolest moments in modern Doctrine development. Starting in 2009, it was an exciting time of discovery and exhibition. Like a room full of LPs in unlabeled cardboard boxes, or those 1950’s illustration of nuclear fission, where the non-Superman, clark kent-looking guy tosses a ping pong ball into a room that, while otherwise devoid of furnishings, has, like a zillion mouse traps covering the floor. ‘Look, kids! Isn’t nuclear fission cool’?

Anyway.

(Insider Insight: the posts here at the Wakefield Doctrine pretty much write themselves. But the early years were, like, ‘Damn! You know, you’re right! Those are good examplae of clarklike, scottian or rogerian behavior”.)

I was a wonderful time of discovery as well as teaching and examplifying**

But, being on the second half of the morning writing time, let’s make a long parable, short.

We decided to write posts that describe a semi-real life situation, (a restaurant) and offer the Reader of a choice of three ‘endings’. These alternate conclusions would infer behavior on the basis of a ‘character’s’ predominant worldview. In one of the first of this series, we had a girl go to the restaurant for a job interview. At noon. During the lunchtime rush. The storyette opens as she is acknowledged by the owner/interviewer and by the waitress. That she needs to wait, as they are clearly backed-up, is established.

Despite the rush subsiding, the lone waitress is clearly falling behind and a growing percentage of tables remain un-cleared. The ‘hook’ for the story is to present three ‘endings’. The three would, of course, represent action according to personality type.

One of the endings: the girl, seeing the waitress being overwhelmed, gets up and begins to clear tables.

Welll!

Two words: the rogers went nuts! The Readers, at least those who were Herd Members reacted with such vehemence, ‘She can’t do that!! She doesn’t work there. What the hell!!’ was the response with unanimity.

They meant it.

And, we’re, like, “Wait a minute… you’re serious. The interviewee demonstrating her willingness to work, not to mention be helpful, this is bad?”

And they’re, to a roger, “But she doesn’t work there yet, does she?!?!”

And, a purely serendiptious bathtub suddenly lights up: Referential Authority.

rogers, in experiencing the world as being quantifiable and knowable (or, at very least, learnable), require people to obey the Rules. And, since there is no official Book, there must be a control. A way of preventing, (or, at least hindering) the masses from taking the Rules of behavior into their own hands. ‘That’s not how it’s done here.’ ‘This is the Standard Operating Procedure. We all call it the bible’. (Said every HR manager to every new hire).

We had discovered an artifact of the world of the Herd Members. From beyond the range of extrapolation from primary characteristics. But then, we’ve been fortunate here at the Wakefield Doctrine. Insights are made available. All we have to do is practice seeing the world as the other person is experiencing it (all the time).

Benefit? Our fictional applicant did not have to beat-up on herself in (natural***) response to being berated by the over-worked waitress.

cool

** not a ‘real’ word

*** one guess which of the three predominant worldviews she was.

*

The post Et-Tuesday? -the Wakefield Doctrine- first appeared on the Wakefield Doctrine.