now that you’ve had your little joke, Mr. Emerson

October 25, 2010 By 5 Comments

“If a man can write a better book, preach a better sermon, or make a better mousetrap, than his neighbor, though he build his house in the woods, the world will make a beaten path to his door.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

Well, you know…I gotta say that if Mr. Emerson were sitting here, I might have to challenge him on his pithy little, ‘hey-I’m-so-transcen-splendid’…Ground Control to Major Ralph (…huh, huh…he said ralph… ). Now before anyone says, “who said you have a better mousetrap?”, allow me to retort,

“I said we have a better mousetrap”. Stop reading. Click on google search. Type in ‘personality types’. Hit Enter.   What do you get?

Wait, don’t answer…I’ll show you what you get…(cause you scotts did not do anything I suggested), here is what you get:

About 3,600,000 results (0.12 seconds) 
 

Search Results

  1. The Sixteen Personality Types – High-Level

    Back to The Personality Page · Take the Personality Questionnaire · Information About Personality Types · Portraits of the Personality Types · Personality …
    www.personalitypage.com/high-level.html – Cached – Similar 

  2. Personalitytype – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Jump to Types vs. traits‎: Furthermore, because personality test scores usually fall on a bell curve rather than in distinct categories, …
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_type – Cached – Similar

  3. Four Temperaments – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In the ideal personality, the complementary characteristics or warm-cool and …
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Temperaments – Cached – Similar
    Show more results from wikipedia.org

  4. Images for personality types

     - Report imagesThank you for the feedback. Report another imagePlease report the offensive image. CancelDone

  5. Personality Types

    Sep 29, 2005 … Personality type theory aims to classify people into distinct CATEGORIES. i.e. this type or that. Personality types are synonymous with …
    wilderdom.com/personality/L6-1PersonalityTypes.html – Cached – Similar

  6. Myers Briggs Personality Test MBTI Personality Types

    A free online personality quiz or test to introduce MBTI Myers Briggs concepts of personality type and cognitive style. Links are provided to many …
    www.personalitypathways.com/type_inventory.html – Cached – Similar

  7. Personality Test and Types (Jungian Psychological Typology)

    Personality test and types information based on the research of Isabel Briggs Myers, Katharine Cook Briggs and Jungian psychological typology.
    www.mypersonality.info/personality-types/ – Cached – Similar

  8. Personality test based on Jung and Briggs Myers typology

    Online test based on Jung and Briggs Myers personality approach provides your type formula, type description, and career choices.
    www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp – Cached – Similar

  9. Personality Types

    Comparison of many different four type personality systems.
    www.2h.com/articles/personality-tests/personality-types.html – Cached – Similar

  10. Personality Types

    Information about personality types, Myers-Briggs personality tests and quizzes and personality profiles from an INTJ.
    www.systemsthinker.com/interests/…/ptypes.shtml – Cached – Similar

  11. Welcome to Personality Type!

    Knowing your type–and learning about the personality types of those around you–can make you happier and more successful in every aspect of your life.
    www.personalitytype.com/ – Cached – Similar

 

 MoreFewer

 
….notice that last entry?…”morefewer”…tell me a clark did not come up with that and they will swear that it is the only word that will do…
 
Point? My Point? You are wondering what all this and Ralph have to do with the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)?
 
I guess my point is that we have not done a good enough job presenting the benefits of our little improved personality/self-understanding/self-improvement/party game mousetrap here. And that is our fault, not yours.
 
So lets start all over again.
 
“Ladies and Gentleman, this is a Wakefield Doctrine”... It is a fun and useful, unique and intriguing, insightful and easy to understand, way to look at the behavior of those people in our lives. With the Wakefield Doctrine, why people act the way they do will finally make sense. With the Wakefield Doctrine you will know more about the other person than they know about themselves. With the Wakefield Doctrine, you and your friend will have hours of fun, at home, at school, at work or just getting about your lives. With the Wakefield Doctrine you will be able to understand yourself in way that will be useful. With the Wakefield Doctrine you can change the things you want to change about yourself and resist the efforts of people who would have you change things about yourself that you would rather not change.
 
In short, the Wakefield Doctrine will make an awful lot of things understandable and put things in a context that you can do something about.
 
And all you have to do is read and imagine. All you have to do is be willing to accept, just for the sake of demonstrating this Doctrine, that everyone you meet today will be living in a reality that might be a little different than yours. All you have to do is be willing to accept that “what you know” might not be the only way. All you have to do is read, understand and have fun.
 
So, for a nearly free hat (for your damn head) who can tell us which our boy Ralph is, a clark or a scott or a roger. (Sorry DownSprings and Progenitors not eligible).
 
YouTube Preview Image
 
 
 
Share
Filed Under: Featured, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , , , ,

If I were King of the Forest, Not queen, not duke, not prince

August 24, 2010 By Leave a Comment

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) What we have heah is a fun, pro-ductive an u-neek way ta look at thems what are already in ah lives. Ya know that we mean ever-one thats aroun you…work folks and friens and even kin! They all actin this ways,  that a ways and such, ya amost never know what they might be up to. Well this here Doctrine here, it’ll let ya see through ‘em faster n a scott at the Evelyn Woods Readin Comprehenshun Course.

a painting called "Venus at a Mirror"

Thank you for visiting. The Wakefield Doctrine is more serious and useful than the Post Title and opening paragraph may imply, but sometimes the process of writing these Posts requires a side trip or two. What makes today’s Post “interesting” is not the strained effort at a regional dialect, but rather the quote from the Wizard of  Oz.
It started yesterday morning, when the Bert Lahr line , “now if I were the king of the forest, not prince, not duke, not earrll…” from the movie popped into my head. For a variety of reasons I did not write a Post yesterday, but I thought,  ”that’s alright I’ll save that until Tuesday’s Post”, figuring if it stayed in my head that long, I would use it as sort of a platform to launch the Post (from). Come this morning, looking up the line and it turns out to be: “…not Queen, not duke not prince…”  Damn, mis-remembered it!  Then, to add insult to injury, I get this pidgin dialect in my head as I try to do a standard, ‘Welcome to the Doctrine…” opening!

Well, I (still) welcome (you) to the Wakefield Doctrine! Regular Readers will notice a number of changes going on in the format of the blog and other signs of activity. It’s all part of the 90 Day Challenge, which is the Readership Drive that started a week or two ago. Some of the more noticeable changes are the result of suggestions of ‘Our Consultant’, Miz ‘Becca (Rebecca Giles over at Web Savvy Marketing). Brought in to help us tune up this thing from a search engine point of view, she is hard at work trying to help our Doctrine become the biggest visitor-count website, this side of the Philippines. Even though I am still jonesing for my beloved ellipsiseses… the early consensus is, “yeah, you go Consultant”! All the DownSprings have been hard at work as well. Story-lines for the coming months (that would be Progenitor roger and DS#1) and surveys/questionnaires  hopefully  from Joanne and of course, Ms. AKH has been especially busy on researching ways for us to ‘get legit’.  Every bit the scottian female,  AKH has taken the 90 Day Challenge very much to heart. Say what you will about scotts, but when they decide that something needs to be done, they all over that thing. Somehow since Sunday, she has found herself a seo guy (hey Doug, welcome to the Doctrine,“read it and sleep”…), started something in Wikipedia and has two or three other lines of inquiry going…not bad, not bad at all!
We’re still waiting for glenn to get back from “Inappropriate Comment Rehab Camp” (motto: ‘fuck everyone!’) and we will see if we can’t survive until Thanksgiving.

Does that give us a Lesson of the Day? nah, not yet. I could get all Marxist (or Marist, for that matter) and talk about how, when you look at what each of the DownSprings and Progenitors have chosen as a way to save this thing of ours, they are reflecting the characteristics of their type. The clarks (DS#1) is utilising and channeling the ability of others (in this case trying to motivate Progenitor roger), the standalone rogers (Joanne) she would be finding hope in the form of a  mechanism that is quantifiable and measurable, i.e. a survey/questionaire that will tell the Visitor Reader which of the three they most likely are and the scotts who are all about action.

I could, go on at length about these comparisons and inferences and it might be a good idea, seo-wise. (You know, where I stick in words like personality type and relationships and clarksscottsroger so the google can find us and stick us at the top of the search results along with “Lindsay, We Hardly Knew Ye”, and “Secrets of the Housewifes of Delaware (“I told my Lover, Incorporate this!”) but I won’t. With so many new Readers coming in, lets just get all ABC with the Wakefield Doctrine.

The Wakefield Doctrine is built upon the idea that everyone experiences the world/reality differently, from one of three overlapping but distinctive perspectives. It also proposes that our personalities are but  a result of our perception, of our habitual responses to the world. The Wakefield Doctrine maintains that this characteristic perception of reality can be grouped into three distinct types, called for reasons stated elsewhere, clarks, scotts and rogers.

Born with the potential to view the world in one of these three ways, all people possess the characteristics of all (three) but soon (by age 7 or so) ‘become one of the three.  Put another way: we also possess the potential to see the world as aclark or a scott or a roger. It is only the predominance of qualities from one (over the other two) that makes us what we are. No one is only clarklike or scottian or rogerian.

The value of the Wakefield Doctrine is that once you can see the world ‘through the eyes’ of another, behavior becomes understandable. If a scott sees the world as a predator (would) then all action is predicated on interacting with the world as a predator. This is distinctly different from a roger, who seeing the world as a social being, predicates action and reaction on the basis of a world in which the intereactions of the herd is the dominant theme.

…hey Just found the Lesson of the Day!! Which of the three (Scarecrow, Tin Man Cowardly Lion) are which ( clark, scott or roger)? I was just downloading the clip of the Cowardly Lion and it seems that the movie would be a productive context to illustrate the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers. Provided you are old enough to be ready to collect frickin Social Security.

Maybe not to the level of  a “Win a hat (for your damn head) Contest”, but go ahead, send in your choice of which was who (and don’t forget the corroborating evidence, yo)

YouTube Preview Image YouTube Preview Image
Share
Filed Under: Featured, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , , , ,

develop a thesis that goes beyond “Thing A and Thing B are similar in many ways but different in others.

June 30, 2010 By 6 Comments

…and maybe even a damn Venn diagram.  How cool would it be to have some of those rascals set into a Post…”…and further in conclusion, I submit the following Venn (damn) diagram, for the Board of Reviews consideration…” Yeah!

Hey, even though we are in summer school and most of the good (interesting) ‘voices’ here at the Wakefield Doctrine are out gallivanting around doing interesting things, doesn’t mean that we can’t have fun, sometimes.  Almost eerie when you stop to think of it.  It was without thought that we have read that all the ‘others’ have gone off on summeristic project, except for Jimmy (our scottian) friend of Janie Sullivan.  And who do we hear from in the first of these Summer Session Posts, but DownSpring glenn!  Talk about life imitating art, or art dressing up like life or some damn thing.  At any rate all we seem to have is Mr. B and the occasional Postcard from the others.

But the Wakefield Doctrine is always open.  So let’s make the best of our time here.  Yesterday saw the beginning of a(n) argument centering on the difference between clarks and scotts.  That is as good a place to start today as any.  (You should go back to the Post and read the Comments) But to paraphrase; no…I best not paraphrase otherwise someone will insist that I took it out of context or inflectuated the meaning in the wrong way or did not understand the orientational spin, so instead here are some clips, with my second favorite grammar (nooo mf, those are grammatical devices…you’re welcome)  thingies…ellipseseses

Seals and Croft.  Seals went on… as a country singer.  Croft went into some… religion thing … At concerts he would sometimes make anti-abortion speeches.  Talk about being too serious to be entertaining.  Same thing happened to Lenny Bruce…at the end…railing about how he was being denied his first amendment rights.  Audiences wanted to hear him talk about “tits and asses”.  They were not interested in all that serious shit.  He went all rogerian on them.  Left his (better) scottian self behind–and failed.  Lessons there?  Be who you are.  Embrace it.  Love it.  Revel in it. Whatever you love about yourself, is…yourself.  Whoever loves you, loves YOU.  Not some new, “improved”, more sophisticated, added onto, you…Sub-lesson?–let others revel in who they are.  Appreciate, enjoy, and marvel at how they move through the world.  Different from how you do, but valid and functional nonetheless.  To me, THAT is the utility of The Wakefield Doctrine.

I’m sorry, Clark…I’m sorry, Clark… I’m sorry, Clark…I’m sorry, Clark…I’m sorry, Clark…I’m sorry, Clark…I’m sorry, Clark..  Croft had success as a singer.  He must have loved it.  It was who he was.  Then he got all wrapped up in how important his thoughts were–and bingo!  His thoughts were no longer important.  Same with Lenny Bruce.  He must have loved being funny at one time.  He was brilliant at it.  Then he got to thinking of himself as IMPORTANT–and suddenly, he no longer was.  Stubbornly refusing to live in the real world is decidedly UN-scottian.  Both of these guys lost rank in the pack.  They abandoned their true nature–and became—essentially—fucking nothing.  A scott would not dream of doing that… You stay vitally tuned into the effect you’re having on others.  Both of these guys got all wrapped up in their own alternative world.  One died.  The other lives in obscurity.

Now, does anyone have anything to add?  Then…”allow me to retort”…(damn I will never get tired of that Samuel Jackson line in Pulp Fiction…in fact let’s hear the master do this thing)…

YouTube Preview Image

 (lol) anyway…the above is useful in a “compare and contrast” sort of way.  As a scott, glenn evaluates on the basis of ‘what it’, i.e. Lenny Bruce was funny, then not funny therefore the element of change spotted in closest proximity to being not funny is the false Lenny, everything and anything prior to it was the real Lenny.

But, of course, this is not about Lenny Bruce or Dan Croft or even about what is the nature of the  relationship between the performer and audience. It is about how  the scott (of clarks, scotts and rogers, theory of) perceive the world.  Which actually is not quite the point…the real point being what kind of world/reality does the scott experience?
Afterall, the Wakefield Doctrine is founded on the proposition that we all have the potential to interact with the world in three distinctive ways, referred to as clarks, scotts  and rogers.  The Doctrine actually goes further than that, we are really saying that the scott exists in a reality best characterised as a world of predator/prey, black/white, here and now.  The genius of the Wakefield Doctrine lies in the fact that if you accept this initial premise, i.e. that glenn, for example is experiencing a world of predator/prey and you put yourself in that (kind) of world yourself, your choices of actions/reactions will be essentially the same.

The Doctrine proposes that behavior follows (from) from the reality the individual experiences and not from some internal inclination to act a certain way, or learned behaviors mimic’d and modeled from family and friends at an early age.  If you can imagine the kind of world glenn experiences, you will then know how he will respond to virtually any situation.  Beautiful theory, isn’t it? (Thank you,  thank you…no! please! sit down everyone please! sit down we are not done yet!)

(Hey!! HEY! what about the clarks‘ take on this?  I read a whole lot of commentation yesterday).
Valid point.  clarks will take the position that there is no certainty to reality, that there was a time when Dan Croft was an excellent performer.  And then there was a time when Dan Croft was an excellent coptic abyssinian preacherman…both were Dan Croft at their finest.  The only point of intersection of views (with glenn) was that as a preacher man he was not as good a Croft of Seals and Croft.  He should have paid more attention to the audience.  But here is where the tangle of perception between a clark and a scott gets interesting!  glenn seems to maintain that Croft should have stayed true to his “Seals and Croft” nature, the one that glenn enjoyed listening to.  He (glenn) seems to go on to say that only by staying true to that nature was he being true to himself that by changing he betrayed his audience.
I would submit that the change was, in fact, the truest expression of Croft’s scottian nature…he had a (new) message and that was who he was and therefore that was what he had a right to bring to the audience.  And if the audience didn’t like it…..then fuck’em

Dudes!!!  Complex topic calls for totally complex tunes…

YouTube Preview Image
Share
Filed Under: Featured, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: ,

It is not necessary to understand this…M. Eckhardt

June 17, 2010 By 1 Comment

The topic of today’s Post is: Discourse and Discussion  (quick definition so we will not get any shit from people saying that this blog is amateur scholastecism),
discourse: from the Latin discursus; the act of running about. Sociologists and philosophers tend to use the term discourse to describe the conversations and the meaning behind them by a group of people who hold certain ideas in common

Alright lets start there people, the sooner we get through the “serious” part of the Post, the sooner we can get to the music videos. This the Wakefield Doctrine Lesson of the Day. The question before us is:

What is the goal, the perceive object of the act of conversation/discourse for clarks, for scotts and for rogers? (and as a follow-up question), What does the Doctrine offer to aid the person trying to effectively communicate with a person of the other type (clark, scott or roger)?

First up, clarks. clarks value knowledge information above all, therefore they will attempt to bring as much fact, knowledge, information, inference and implication as possible to the discourse (see?). You will know a clark by the fractured sentence structure. Their goal is to offer (the listener) the maximum choice in paths to take, because (to a clark), everything branches off everything else and each branch offers some information that is discrete from other (branches). That accounts for the (heavy) use (as opposed to light use) of parenthesis. It is a clarks way of saying “hey! by the way, had you considered this…?
Sample: “what is it that real people do with all the time in between sentences?”

Second up, scotts. scotts need to know: are you predator or prey; are you dominant or submissive. For that we require a verb.
Sample: “Hey!” secondary example: “pretty simple, isn’t it?”

Last, rogers. rogers are not using words to communicate or carry specific questions, rogers use words to exist. They live in a purely social world, one comprised of people, however these people, all being rogers do not interact. Instead the rogerian members of the herd are relating to each other…and s0 the only thing to talk about is the past. The past of each of the other members of a herd is the topic of all rogerian discourse. That is why rogers tend to be good at writing, they are laying out a world, not imparting information. It is a fabric of emotion.
Sample: “did you hear what she said about him…?”

Now you know how each of the three converse/communicate/engage in discourse/run about. What good it this information? Glad I asked. So you can understand the other person, knuckleheads! There is this old saying, “clarks are crazy, scotts are stupid and rogers are dumb”
Why is it necessary to mention this?
Because the best tools in the world are useless without the skill of the person using (them).  And skill in the use of tools involves understanding the material/the object that the tools are being used on as much as (understanding) the tools themselves.
You know that clarks are trying to impart too much information, so take what you need and ignore the rest.
The scott is barking aggressively at you, so decide if it is in your interest to be prey or predator/submissive or dominant and bark back  or roll over.
The roger is spreading information throught your workplace about you, and you do not want that. Take a clue from terminex and contribute information into the network of your own, it will work its way into the social matrix and maybe surplant the bad information.

That concludes the Lesson of the Day. Now to the entertainment portion of the Post. We have a mix, two music video and one movie clip for the scott, the roger and the clark. (In that order, in case, you are a new Reader)

YouTube Preview Image

(Now roger)

YouTube Preview Image

(Before you ask, I’m sure there is a perfectly good reason to have a double-neck guitar consisting of a bass and a telecaster looking guitar…)
(Actually the simple fact that it was the 1970s should suffice to account for it…)

oh clark! you will enjoy this (and the rogers and the scotts will totally flee the room, lol)

YouTube Preview Image

Hey! Got a minute?
(Tell me you have ever heard that expression used as a preface to an enjoyable conversation?)
Its just that the ’quality of writing’  of Comments, given how long we have been at this, really sucks.
And it is not as a rhetoretician do I say this thing. I will be the first to say that, if I was taking a writing course, I would consider myself lucky to get a C- (and that only on the basis of the sheer volume of the stuff I put out there).

HAving said that, if I were a new Reader I would be looking for that little fucked up “F” icon that facebook totally plasters over everything they piss on. 
(Seeing that in print, I realize that I might not be giving the rogers who inhabit Facebook (and the scotts there to prey on them) enough credit).
Its just that after nearly 12 months of practice,  the Comments submitted still sound like a bunch of grade school kids left alone in the auditorium with the PA system on…HEY!!! HEYY!! Listen To me….NO!! dont listen to HER!! Listen to ME…Ca Ca!!

Cut it out.
Evolve yourselfs. If this ends up being a vanity published blog of an over-ego endowed clark, then so be it.
But if you want to see your thoughts in print in front of 50 regular Readers, then you are going to have to do better…

…oh yeah…tomorrow is Phuck you Pfriday

Share
Filed Under: Featured, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Understanding and a little bit of lovin’, thats all in the world I need

April 28, 2010 By 8 Comments

…The lyrics are Hendrix…the photo is something from a regional theatre production…out in Mel‘s part of the country…you know…the Midwest.. let me make some assumptions about a part of the country that I have not only never been to, but have very little direct knowledge of, other than what I have a learned on television*

The first assumption is that this is the part of the country that the middle-of-the-bell-curve personality types live…the healthy (on the outside), the moderate (of spirit) and the down-to-earth in worldview people will be found. In other words…rogers… Of course, the most likely of the three (clarks or scotts or rogers) to be found in the Midwest are the rogers…they are the solid, conservative (in the fullest sense of the word, not limited to political inferences), religious (in a simple and fundamental sense) and overall, most down to earth kind of folks that this culture will have produced…

(Hey heres an idea! Lets write a Post ‘on the fly’…in other words half finished…I will write and then leave for a time when I finish each section and see if anyone notices…need to get to work for now (2:06pm EST)

(I’ll be back…any ideas for where this Post should go next…thats why Jethro invented Comments.)

(3:39pm and I’m back)…and…a scott is in da house!  Damn, Glenn you really need to learn to not be so circumspect in your (written) Opinions…lets all stop and reflect for a moment on the vagaries of Life that combine to put us in the place…nah screw that…a blog is the ulitmate public forum and by the rules (at least here at the Doctrine) all Opinion will be presented, and as all writers are responsible for their words, all Readers are equally responsible for their own reactions to (these) words.
National Lampoon once did a joke ‘satisfaction guarentee’ for their magazine: “If you are entirely satisfied, simple return the un-read portions of the magazine to us and we will return the un-spent portion of your money”; or words to that effect. (Study Guide Alert!!! clarks do not tell jokes very well). (gotta run..be back…

(9:42pm) Hey, we tried…a bit of an experiment in writing these here Posts here…not such a success. Tell you what I do like, these pictures. The new format really makes a photo necessary, both as an anchor and a visual cue to the content. And there is an internet world full of pictures and snapshots and photos.

But plan on a lot of little Posts for a while.

Anyway, thats all for now. Lets get out with some video entertainment.

YouTube Preview Image
Share
Filed Under: the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , , ,
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »

© 2009-2012 the Wakefield Doctrine All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright