“Dear Diary, I’m at the Edge. Now what?”

Now that my friend coud be a 7th question.  Surely my last post resonates?  No?  Well, a reminder: the Wakefield Doctrine.  It’s usefulness, it’s simple explanation of….pretty much everything.  Look for it (whatever “it” is) and it can be found, it can be explained by the Doctrine.  What a body does after the “explanation”  is, well, personal.  Throw it  in the pot of self-development, simmer, test, taste.  It will eventually become a staple you can’t do without. 

“It’s not for them, it’s for you”  is a common word group found at the Doctrine.  As with any tool offered by life coaches, career coaches, and coaches of all manner of things, it’s up to us as individuals to identify the “tools” (in life) that can best assist us in the day to day that is life.  For example, during last Saturday night’s Wakefield Doctrine Saturday Night Call In Show, the host of the show offered a personal example (of a clark on  roger office interaction).  The interaction itself was not an uncommon one.  What was “uncommon” was the explanation of the dynamics in play between the clark and roger.  Enlightening.  When you understand that a person’s actions are guided by their view of the world many “things” start to fall into place.  I find it difficult to believe that there aren’t more folks participating in the conversation that is the Wakefield Doctrine.  (“I’m not just a spokesperson for the Wakefield Doctrine……” LOL)

Therein lies the challenge.  Now don’t get me wrong – it’s particularly encouraging when I talk with someone I have never met and hear her say things I instantly identify with on a basic organic level.  Mirroring, if you will,  my own “reality”.  Such is the nature….of clarksMolly, aka Seven Ravens is a regular caller/reader of the Wakefield Doctrine.  As a fellow clarklike female, it’s a little easier to talk with her than say, a scottian or rogerian woman, without having to “explain” too much about what it is I am trying to say.  She already knows what it is I am attempting to express however awkwardly or badly.    Because she shares the same view of the world (how she perceives the world).  She looks through the same glasses that I do.

The challenge I find lately is how to explain all this Doctrine stuff to people who are not clarks.  How do I make it simple?  How do I avoid scaring folks?  How do I  make them think they’re NOT in for a long, boring drawn out explanation of… what?  What is the Wakefield Doctrine?  It’s not enough to write a  post with a few questions.  People want more and they want it as simple as possible. 

Except I don’t always do simple very well.  I have always tried to keep the mantra in mind, “simplicity above all”, yet there are times I find myself forgetting what that entails.  For a clark, it means stop the extrapolating.  It means act more, think less.  It means find the place that feels right without having to think about it. 

So, is that the answer to today’s question ” I’m at the Edge.  Now what?”  Act more, think less?  Sure, why not.  Time (life) is not static, it is forever on the move and if you don’t move with it, well, you’ll certainly be left behind.  If you find your own self at the Edge know this – there’s no better place to be.

Advertisements

14 thoughts on ““Dear Diary, I’m at the Edge. Now what?”

  1. why that there is just a darn good Post an such…. if you only had some pretty rogerian friends to stick on the bottom of the blog, you would surely get mad Comments…. (what the hell, I’ll give it a try)

    Thank you so very much!! I really needed to get such encouragement and wisdom from a totally anonymous stranger..you have changed my life (not to mention light bulbs).
    Anyone reading this can see the wisdom and insight in your thoughts and words…
    Thank you so much. Blessings on you.

  2. Molly M.

    I had to laugh when I came to your mantra, “simplicity above all.”
    I keep telling myself, “Simple is better,” but the practice of it is nearly impossible.

      1. Simple??!!!! Do you ever read your comments at
        The Doctrine? They are posts in themselves!
        Not that that’s a bad thing. But simple?
        Nope. I’ve got your number.

        As to your references to
        clarks and rogers. Blah, blah, blah… lol
        It makes for a difficult 45 minutes for
        scott(s) (if the other one is even there.
        If he is then it’s (more) fun…)

        Just sayin’

  3. Hey Clark…I think you’re confusing ‘rogerian’ with ‘ gay.’
    Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
    Does this mean that the WD will ultimately end up on Broadway? If that happens, I want to try out for a scott part.

  4. @GirlieOnTheEdge:

    Um… there is nothing “simple” as far as clarks are concerned. At least not that I’ve witnessed for the most part. But that’s OK. And I mean that with the best intentions…

    We scotts, on the other hand, keep things simple. We are not simpletons, but we weed out the unnecessary.

    1. Ah. Therein lies evidence of how different the “reality” between that of a clark and a scott.
      And the beauty part as well. A clark will see the totality of a thing, while a scott will hone in on a singular, focal point.
      [My Mom had a saying: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”. Love that saying. Couldn’t resist since you gave me a perfect segue.]

      Yes, scotts keep it simple. One of the reasons is that their memories are not great. Not good at recalling specifics of conversations, you know, details. Unless perhaps they have a strong secondary clarklike aspect.* I have proven this time and again at work with a scottian female co-worker. She can deliver a killer line(s) but will have no memory of what she said 30 minutes later.

      * Anyone curious as to why not a secondary rogerian aspect?

    1. Well, it has something to do with who “initiated” the conversation.
      A roger will know “history, details and proper order” if
      engaged in a conversation they themselves began. rogers
      tend not to recall (in the same fastidious fashion) the details of a
      conversation being lead by another.
      Unless of course, it has to do with a specific historical event or a
      historical person they are familiar with. Or, if it is of interest to them.
      As we know, the Wakefield Doctrine is about the specific “personal reality”,
      the type of “world” a person experiences every day (Outsider, Predator or Herd Member).
      Individual behavior stems directly from how he/she perceives the world around them.

      1. Funny I forgot how rogers aren’t particularly
        concerned by what others are saying
        in his/her midst unless, as you said,
        it is of interest to them. And unless you
        know that you are dealing with a roger he/she
        comes off as being snobbish.

        My my, how scottian of me to not expand on the
        details of my previous comment (history, details,
        proper order). Thanks for getting me out of that
        Girlie! I knew what I meant in my mind so
        that was that… lol

        1. That is why the Wakefield Doctrine has such value.
          Once you know a person is a clark, scott or roger,
          that is to say if you can identify the type
          of world a person is experiencing then you
          can pretty much know what a person will say
          or how they will act in any given
          situation. No more wondering
          “why did Bob say that?!”
          or “no way!,
          she did not do that!!”
          How cool is that!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s