‘…of repetition and behavior’ the Wakefield Doctrine “hey! this Neutronium makes a swell accent to my worldview!” | the Wakefield Doctrine ‘…of repetition and behavior’ the Wakefield Doctrine “hey! this Neutronium makes a swell accent to my worldview!” | the Wakefield Doctrine

‘…of repetition and behavior’ the Wakefield Doctrine “hey! this Neutronium makes a swell accent to my worldview!”

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

("… no! wait!! this is related to the Post…gimme a minute!)

(“… no! wait!! this is related to the Post…gimme a minute!)

Two Readers, two observations and two questions:

zoe, she says/asks/and comments:

“…inability to see the Doctrine as a coping skill beyond prediction… and prediction itself notes that people are well, predictable… why predictable? Because of the way they were raised, because of their life experiences… so therefore a sense of fatality was born in that those are unchangeable … kinda like … “this is who I am!” …which is a load of crap in my book… because it is often said with the inference of “this is who I am and I can’t change that so that is why I do certain things.”  ..so the more predictable someone’s behavior, the less likely they are to change?”

Cyndi (from her we have):

“…My director today wanted to give me a book: “conflict resolution” or something to that effect.
She was saying “you’re a nice person and I know you’re averse to conflict. This will give you confidence.”
All at once I was fantasizing about running my own school, perhaps, one day but simultaneously TERRIFIED that I’d have to hire and fire people, deal with irate parents, and then “flip the switch” and be calm and present enough to conduct a meeting and give hugs to children who need them.
Is that too tall a task for a clark? Inquiring minds want to know.
A part of me says, yes, it is: because we’re so freakin’ sensitive and subject to undue stress in confrontational situations. On the other hand, if we as clarks can control our fears and emotions, we could actually learn to lead – and be really good at it. :P”

for zoe:  remember, that when we describe the ‘typical/characteristic behavior’ of any of the three personality types, the goal is not ‘to know the person by their behavior’. The characteristics that we learn (relating to the three worldviews ) are simply an aid to discovering (a person’s) predominate worldview. How that person relates themselves to the world around them, is what (enables) the predictive functionality of the Wakefield Doctrine.  There is an element of subjectivity to this knowing that should limit neither the observer nor the observed. But, just as we say that the Doctrine does not take a list of traits and preferences, characteristics and inclinations in order to find a category that they best fit into, the predictability of these behaviors in no way limits the individual to a life of repetitive interaction with the world around them, which takes us to Cyndi!

for Cyndi: “…because we’re so freakin’ sensitive and subject to undue stress in confrontational situations.”  Look within… no! wait! better , look within yourself and into another clark and imagine those confrontational situations. Remember the last very (no, not kidding, the most not funny/amusing/interesting) emergency situation you were last involved in?    Now  tell me, that at these crucial moments, you were feeling ‘sensitive and stressed’.  This is not to say that we enjoy conflict and confrontation, we clarks do hate them.  It’s just that we demonstrate the innate ability to deal with conflict and struggle and all those things when we properly engage (the situation).  The question then is, ‘why do we avoid normal everyday conflict and confrontation’? That is a subject of another Post. It mostly has to do with our ‘fear of being discovered’ (for zoe’s benefit I will leave that as a cliffhanger-type ending).

Before I run out the door, allow me to suggest:

  • extend ‘your world’ to include the job that you have, make them like…. I don’t know, your family (the ones you really like) or your friends or spouse (lol) or… I got it, your dog! own them (those people and duties, responsibilities and benefits of your job… because, for us clarks, our truly ferocious nature is usually reserved for being protective of those we feel protective for (as opposed to ourselfs)
  • if the above approach results in building your strength (enhancing your scottian secondary aspect), the second half (of this suggestion) is meant to reduce your self-limitations… best accomplished by finding and identifying with other clarks (the cool thing about identifying, (in this context), is that it does not require anything of the person being identified with! no responsibility to reciprocate or respond or anything…the benefit derives from your knowing that they are existing in the same worldview as you are

Sorry to cut this short…. will try to return later today.

(for our Reader-ettes…who may not feel intrigued by the Neutronium portion of today’s Post, here is part of a Post that ran on Nov 21 2011

The worldview of the people who love that  ‘hobby’ referred to as, Civil War Re-Enacting?  rogers to a man (with the occasional scott who misread the invitations and  thought he could use live ammunition or, at very least, shoot the loud and noisy cannon off and startle things) and some supporting clarks ( after all, to make an impressive show of rank and file you need bodies and no body enjoys taking orders more than a clark):

  1. the thing that rogers like about the Re-Enacting is that it allows them an escape from the daily hustle ‘n bustle of the modern world and  they get to see what it was like to live in the old days of history
  2. rogers, given an opportunity will be the providers (in a given household) which is interesting, in that this is in distinction to a) being the homemaker or b) being the matriarch
  3. scotts will push everyone on the shoulder (figuratively or literally) for the express purpose of getting a response/reaction,
  4. the reaction that scotts look for when they are being pushy or noisy or obnoxious is always the same: ranking  (if you push back there will be a fight for dominance, if you don’t then you are in the pack and therefore submissive)
  5. the distinction between rogers and scotts in terms of sociability,  the rogers are very sociable and very good at being attractive and engaging but the purpose is simply to form a herd (around themselves),  a scott on the other hand, is very social but is looking for their next meal
  6. clarks can imagine both points of view (as a roger or as a scott), but are limited in that they (the clarks) know that they are just points of view
  7. clarks will on occasion slap down a scott with as little thought and concern as a human housebreaking a 6 week old puppy who has just ‘had an accident’ in the living room, which explains why clarks and scotts make such good friends
  8. clarks have nearly endless patience for the demands of rogers, mostly because rogers have (in abundance) what clarks lack  emotional attachment to life

quick song from back in the day

Share

clarkscottroger About clarkscottroger
Well, what exactly do you want to know? Whether I am a clark or a scott or roger? If you have to ask, then you need to keep reading the Posts for two reasons: a)to get a clear enough understanding to be able to make the determination of which type I am and 2) to realize that by definition I am all three.* *which is true for you as well, all three...but mostly one

Comments

  1. Interesting. Now, I think about my scott-friends…and…either it’s because of location, my ability to “hermit” or whatnot, I don’t actually have very many scott-friends. Husby is a clark, my two moms (mom-in-law and my own mom) are scotts and they drive me slightly nuts – I love em, but dang – and then the rogers who make me nuts, too. I’ll have to admit: I’m most at peace around other clarks, so I seek them out. But that, in itself, is difficult because we’re always in la-la land somewhere…

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      Cyndi

      …watching (identifying with) clarks, not always a pleasant experience (actually I would look for your input on this)… sometimes when I see a clark… being very clarklike (which, of course, often implies that it’s a clark with minimal secondary and tertiary aspects).

      I’m also looking forward to your thoughts on ‘adopting/owning’ a job and the people in it, in order for conflict aversion to be reduced.

      hey! how about an Interview? tomorrow? during the day on the Wakefield Doctrine call in number?

      …just a thought

      • Hmm…Thursdays for interviews these days are bad b/c I do my “hablamos cerveza” classes. :P
        BUT, lemme try to do the call-in on Saturday.
        In other news: here’s a “secret” – part of why my job is evolving to be what it is, is because they are “letting someone go” – and that day is literally today for that person.
        In a sick ironic twist, that girl called me (I know they haven’t told her, yet) to tell me about scholarships for grad students and she wants to come talk to me about it today.
        OMG – I just wanna run and hide until it’s all over with. :\ It’s been 10 minutes since that particular phone call, and I’m not shaking as much. O.o THIS. This is what I don’t like. It makes me crazy. How does a clark get used to stuff like that when running a business? OMG.
        I’m not entirely sure how much “clark” I am…I’d say it’s something like 65% clark. 25% scott, and 10% roger…but, we had a meeting yesterday and in light of your comment, for the first time, I really REALLY did look at everyone like family. I even took off my shoes and went around barefoot and I NEVER do that: I’m always too self-conscious. Finally, after a year and a half, I’m looking at everyone more like family. And for that, I will defend them fiercely. Where are my talons? ;)

  2. lrconsiderer says:

    Clarks – the ultimate subs ;)

    Yet I can do things, say things, and MEAN THINGS when in [protection/defense] of someone I care for, which I could never ever ever do for myself. And the stupid thing is that they are absolutely TRUE and RIGHT, and they stop being RELEVANT as soon as anyone caringly tries to apply those precise same things to me…

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      smiles (thank you for the identification benefit)…

      hell, an aroused clark is nothing a sane person (even a scott) would willingly tangle with…

  3. I like all this explication and further insight! jeh

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      hey! tomorrow is video Post day… any thoughts/questions/topics I can address?

  4. zoe says:

    I agree with all said ….yesterday I was inferring that up until the particular statement I then highlighted the Doctrine had a bit of fatality attached to it… I think it may propose one thing and perhaps unintentionally accomplish another….sorry….I gotta think more…. thats a helluva hip deformity though…

    or maybe im just a disagreeable bitch with an aggressive second on board? Who the hell knows?

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      (hand in back of room waving back-and-forth, some vertical motion as well)….I do!!! I do!!!!

      • zoe says:

        Hahahahaha!!!! you think I’m bad? My brother just read the guest posts for W and said what the f*** was that

      • zoe says:

        but feel free to enlighten me oh Sage…hee!

        • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

          err…. what was the question?

          lol

          I was wracking my brain for something to discuss on Thursday’s vid post (and, in all seriousness, your questions are good…they help me understand that the time is here for me to think about explaining the Doctrine for an audience not as …gifted as the current group of Readers are (present company, obviously very included)…

          • zoe says:

            you know what?…my brother is very bright, but I think he got pelted with the stupid stick or something…he couldnt make heads or tails out of “W” for some reason…. dunno… He got that there were three subtypes as he called them but couldnt put it together for himself… pretty atypical of him… so its either a lofty concept ( cool but not unfathomable) or he was having a stroke ( we do have bad genes…)…oh yeah and he says you need to tune into this [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itMdLTd1l4E&w=560&h=315%5D

            • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

              zoe

              (are you thinking, predominant worldview of roger?) there are, imo, several markers for a rogerian worldview… or maybe just not an interesting idea (for him)… the density of the prose is something I have been resigned to since I started, you guys (current Readers) have helped me not to be too concerned with the level of writing skills exhibited.

              • zoe says:

                The only question that was out was how long it would take you to get back to me with that conclusion… definitely… I got a fam of rogers or predators (and not the fun loving scottian type)…Your writing is fine.. friggin rogers…. hey get to rewritten… I quoted you today….