clarkscottroger | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 2 clarkscottroger | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 2

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

I can't hear you, theres a banana in your ear

Let’s try this:

[Damn! Ya gotta love the way random luck (aka stop fricken’ trying to control the non-controllable!) rarely ever declines an invitation to dance. Look at what we found in a search of all Posts by ‘using the Wakefield Doctrine’.]

(Remind us tomorrow to speak to the writing-as-path-to-telling-the-world-something-useful (and, then remind us about how faux rogerian that sounds) lol)

the singing of the clarks, scotts, rogers

...in the news...clark...scott...roger

…in the news…clark…scott…roger

 

Here we are, the beginning of the third month of our effort to tell the world about the Wakefield Doctrine, (aka the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers).

Given that the attrition rate of new blogs is probably 99% disappearance in the first 30 days, we are surely entering ‘middle-age’ in the realm of blogation.

The two challenges facing us: a) creating an enticing and engaging introduction to the Wakefield Doctrine(in the form of these Posts),  b) explaining the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers in an effective way. Given a window of opportunity with new visitors  measured in seconds, it is critical to say the words that will convince you, the reader, that it is worth your time to explore the Pages of this blog.

A part of this development process is the search for a voice. That is, a style of writing,  that is most accessible and engaging to the widest range of readers. The voice that developes here will be the ‘proof’ of the Wakefield Doctrine. The way it is described by each of the three Progenitors (clark, scott, roger), if the theory is correct, means that it should appeal to at least one segment of the audience depending on author.

Fine, if you don’t believe me* let’s have a damn contest! The first person who can correctly designate  the Post to the author (clark, scott or roger) will qualify** to win a hat. Thats 3 Posts 3 different writers.

Sorry. Anyway if you are reading this (as opposed to acting it out (which actually you are in terms of your reactions)), then look through the Pages. We are trying to provide objective examples of the principle that does not require an active ‘guide’ in order to convey the way and the use of the Wakefield Doctrine.

Whatever.

The purpose of this blog is…(to use the start of many a grade school book report) to make the Wakefield Doctrineavailable to as many people as possible. Granted there is no shortage of  theories and approaches to personality and understanding human behavior, this Wakefield Doctrine is simply fun. Fun to learn and especially fun to use out in the world.

  • see that girl with the rather strange choice of footwear? she has a tendency towards goth, will talk with her hands, probably laugh a little too much and will not complete a sentence;
  • hey, here comes that guy that is always telling jokes that push the limits of taste, what do you want to bet that he will insist on using the diminutive of your name and probably make fun of you for the entertainment of his friends
  • see that office administrator? she always leaves at the end of the day with something that she announces is work that she will do at home, well if you want to know how is on trouble at work or who is most likely to get laid-off, she is the go-to person.

(This just in from scott: ‘hey, jus tell them to read the damn thing and then tell us how much they like it!!’)

So read through the Pages. (Personally I recommend the ‘You might be a…‘ Page and the ‘So what am I?’ Pages.)

Read, comment, buy a hat.

 

*”Believe what!?! I didn’t say anything, just trying to figure what the hell they mean by “one segment of the audience”.

**Progenitors and Downsprings are not qualified to play. At this rate not overly qualified to participate, come on people, a little help here.

 

*

Share

Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

Mimi said something in a Comment yesterday that got us thinking.

[New Readers? Who among you just muttered , ‘As opposed to acting? Instead of feeling?’ Very good!]

She say,

“How to have fun? What do you think I’m doing, I wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t to have fun.”

>Fun Fact? Pretty much everyone who returns to this blog more than twice, if not a clark then (they) have a significant secondary clarklike aspect.<

No, it’s true!

From the very beginning we’ve described the Wakefield Doctrine as a ‘fun, productive way to look at the world we live in with the added benefit of knowing the other person better than they know themselfs‘.

The thing about the Doctrine is that it is but one more perspective on the world. And the single hardest, nay impossible for some, is what we used to call ‘flexible intelligence’. This is the capacity to accept that what we all refer to (out of either necessity or need or both) as ‘reality’ is not necessarily one thing. That there is such a thing as personal reality. Nothing weird or made-up. Just a certain part of the day we experience, say today, is created by us/for us/at us.

And, this is captured in our, if we had one, mission statement:

With the practice of the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine, we increase our ability to see the world as the other person is experiencing it.

>Fun Fact? The Wakefield Doctrine is gender neutral, age neutral, culture neutral.<

 

 

Share

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

Quiet, little RePrint post (to prime the rhetorical pump) a quick Doctrine insight and on with the show.

ok, ok, time is doing that thing, like with the blind date saying, ‘Be right back. No, don’t wait to order. Just a little thing I need to do.’

Time! That’s it!

(New Readers? Next in value to the fact that we live in only one predominant worldview but have secondary and tertiary aspects, there is a thing in the Wakefield Doctrine referred to as ‘the Everything Rule’, What it means is: if one, (of the three), can do it/have it happen to them/experience it, then the other two can and does. How that thing manifests, in a given personal reality, that’s the important part.)

Of the three predominant worldviews, clarks have the most developed sense of time. Not, the rememberance of time (aka historical record) and not the passage of time (that place between ‘Go!’ and ‘Stop’,) That’s all we’ll say at this point.

(hey! clarks! Take a look at the clock. Got it? Now, in fifty minutes ask yourself self “Now?’)

(scottian and rogerian friends of the clark here in this case? Go ahead, ask ’em!)

-the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘of clarks and pre-emptive denigration’

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
John-Grimek-le-premier-Mister-Univers-1948-dans-un-mouvement-special

(Note for New Readers: the Wakefield Doctrine is about nothing, if it’s not about understanding ‘the way that we relate ourselves to the world around us’.*)

This concept of pre-emptive denigration initially emerged from a conversation about how clarks tend to laugh too often. No! yeah, I did so say that! And I mean it, even though I suspect that making this statement will generate multiple  parentheseses and feet notes…*

clarks laugh too often and, these events of laughter, are (often) the manifestation of preemptory denigration. We (clarks) laugh, (and self-denigrate), to take the pressure off  ourselves. A clark will, at times, take on a responsibility that becomes the focus of attention of the people around them. It may be at the job or in class or perhaps even calling out a teacher who appears to be singling out our child in a negative fashion. No matter what the individual circumstance, there are times that clarks find themselves the center of attention. Somebody out there want to tell the Readers what the biggest fear of a clark is?  Anyone?  lol…. no, don’t worry! I won’t insist on a Comment. lol. I know you know! lets give the others a chance.

New Readers: the Wakefield Doctrine maintains that we live in one of three worldviews (personal realities). The personal reality that we grew up in is referred to as our predominant worldview and is sorta what others call personalty type. We have clarks (the Outsider), scotts (Predators!!!) and rogers (people who live in the world as a Member of the Herd). The really tricky part of this Doctrine is that these personal realities are real. They are not: interests or inclinations, (they aren’t) tropisms or sub-conscious drives, nor phobias or likes and dislikes. The world I woke up to this morning is the reality of the Outsider. And my way of relating myself to the world today is the most efficient and effective in terms of successfully navigating the course of my Monday, May 4th. Oh, yeah!!  one other thing. You’re born with the potential of all three. You live in only one, but have the potential to have the behaviors and strategies of ‘the other two’ at times and to certain degrees (most often at times of duress).

ok! times up! the answer? ‘scrutiny’.  What clarks fear the most (well, not quite, what they fear the most, but the way that clarks express to themselves, what they believe they fear the most), is commonly called scrutiny.

….where does the time go?!  Quick wrap up:

  • clarks laugh too often in order to ‘hedge their own bet’…. (ex: I will write a book about the Wakefield Doctrine. No, don’t worry I won’t mention names or addresses… ha ha)
  • clarks do not do this hedging because they don’t take themselves seriously enough, but because they take themselves too seriously
  • clarks, being Outsiders, have way too little sense of acceptable risk of failure (as defined by themselves, but ascribed to everyone around them)
  • the pre-emptive denigration?  ‘I’ll give my best shot, hope you’re not disappointed’  ‘I don’t know, yeah I can try’  ‘Look, if this doesn’t work out…’  ‘Before I start, maybe I could ask a few more questions, you know?’

You know, this book writing isn’t as easy as it seems. (ha ha)

 

 

* and this concept is so key and so easily misunderstood, that I’ll point out that what was just said was ‘the way that we relate ourselves to the world around us’ not ‘how we relate to the world’. This is a very common mis-something…but that one little word, ‘ourselves‘ totally makes all the difference in the world.

** I will make this my last footnote, someone out there is absolutely correct. I do sometimes underestimate my Readers and do not have to explain everything. Although, in  my own defense I’ll say, “I’m still striving for the Perfect Post, which, by definition, will be directed at the New Reader. But you’re right, I need to stop with the extra explanations.

*

Share

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

Now, this (post) is a blast from the past!

(A little backstory);

Watching a show last night. It’s set in the late seventies. And as the show ended, the Boomtown Rats started singing about ‘silicon chips’.

Two things followed:

  1. Phyllis said something the effect that, with period pieces like (the) show, Mindhunters, our age shows; we are able to enjoy music as ‘old favorite songs’ as opposed to ‘oh, that’s an interesting song,’ that might be the reaction of a hypo-aged viewer in the audience;
  2. I suddenly felt the urge to use the song in a post. And, as luck would have it, it was going to be a Monday post

As it happens we were in a discussion on the Saturday Night call-in about the early days of the Doctrine. we shared with Denise and Roger how, from the very first post I was, to borrow from a character from the MCU,  “burdened with glorious purpose.”

And so it was, on more than one occasion; we’d hear a song, see a label on a jar in the refrigerator and jump up and write the next Wakefield Doctrine post.

What became increasingly clear, in the course of our conversation, was the drive to write posts only rarely manifested as the product of the drive to write the perfect Doctrine post*. Rather we were putting up words and ideas, examples and illustration in faith that if we wrote long and often enough, the result to allow people to understand the fun and benefit of the Wakefield Doctrine in the world around them and the people who make it up.

Now, it’s nice to have a quick trip in the wayback machine, to remember a more innocent, not to mention, exciting time in the execution of our duty as curator of this personality insight thing.

But, we’re at, like, four hundred words, so let’s hold off on the RePrint. (For the record, we scanned a whole bunch of posts trying to find the one that was inspired by the label on a jar of pickles. No, serially! We did write such a post. Couldn’t find it. Will keep looking.)

 

 

*

 

* ah! the legendary ‘Perfect Doctrine Post’  this was (and remains) a goal, no, make that more an aspiration. To write, in three to five hundred words, a post about the Wakefield Doctrine that a first time Reader can read and understand the principles of our little personality theory sufficiently enough to see the world differently. To have the fun and enjoy the insights afforded by employing our alternate perspective.

Share

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine- “…of simple math and the Outsider.”

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

“At least no one will see how badly I did.”

While, at first blush, this statement might be attributed to a clark, it is, in fact a rogerian sentiment.

Before we do that, let us review the three predominant worldviews of the Wakefield Doctrine:

  1. the Outsider (clarks) like a singularity (in astronomy) it is tempting to describe this predominant worldview as what it is, rather than the more efficacious approach of sharing what it is not; (the first hint as to the conundrum that started us this morning);
  2. the Predator (scotts) a classic blue herring. Even the first, cursory examination with the distinguishing characteristics of our speedy friend hints not only at not being the solution to our puzzel but, in fact, hints at a far greater (and way more subtle) concept
  3. the Herd Member (rogers) ha! you have been, by your first thought (all while believing you are safe from the relentless understanding of the Wakefield Doctrine), bathing in the false security of being on the far side of this display); the subtle subtitle of today’s post is both noose and garrot.

ok,

this is why we normally post the RePrint first, instead of second.

But you knew that, didn’t you?

Quick, down-and-dirty lesson:

  • clarks are Outsiders. they live in a bubble that does not actually exist. so they cannot be our elocutor, as the (beginning this day) leaves no possibility that there cannot be a response from others
  • scotts are Predators. they are busy living life, not in a ‘Clearly, de Kooning intends the viewer to…’ sense of life, more, the Wiley Coyote/Road Runner duprass*
  • rogers are Herd Members. why on earth would you have eliminated them in your deliberations? they (the rogers who are, of the three1, are truest to this statement). this would lead us to believe that one’s conscious belief provides immunity to a relationship is a folly on the scale of the one that clarks maintain.

End of discussion.

If you are reading this: Congratulations! You are eligible to enjoy the benefits of our little personality theory. The fun and useful alike!

 

*search ‘Cat’s Cradle’ K. Vonnegut

  1. remember, for our follow-up discussion, one certain unifying Princple called ‘the Everything Rule’

 

*

Share