Phinish the Photo Pfriday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

Today we join Kristi and Kenya at the newly revamped Finish the Sentence Friday bloghop. The primary change was to provide a different ‘theme’ or prompt, each week. There’s a chart out there that Kristi put on the group’s page on ‘the Facebook’. It tells one what needs to be done, wordistically-speaking.

So this week it’s… (hold on, let me do a copy paste)

Finish the Sentence Friday is a link-up where writers and bloggers come together to share their themselves with a particular prompt (different formats each week of the month). If you’d like to participate, join our Facebook group. Link up your prompts below! Please no “link dumping.” If you include a link, comment on other posts.

 

Photo Share Friday – share a photo and share the story behind it.

So.

The story behind the photo.

This photo is, in a very real, yet quite imaginary sense, my very own: Wardrobe (CS Lewis), Tornado (L Frank Baum) Rabbit Hole (Lewis Carroll). The people in the photo are the namesakes of the central idea that brought me to the virtual world: the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

The Wakefield Doctrine is a perspective on the world and the people around us. It is easy to learn, fun to use and available only to those with the kind of curiosity that welcomes new ideas and the intellect to permit major league suspension of disbelief.

The people in the photo? They are the people from which we derive the three personality types1 of the Wakefield Doctrine. Before we go any further, I will state un-equivocally: the Wakefield Doctrine is gender, age and culture neutral. As it happened, the people around which the concept of the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers took form were three guys by the name(s): clark, scott, roger.

As with any personality type schema, the names are markers, the characteristics of the three types is where the fun (and usefulness) are at.

I’m thinking, ‘OK, the instructions for this week are clear enough, ‘share a photo and share the story behind it’. Do they mean the story of how the photo came to exist or do they want to know what the photo represents, symbolizes or simply ‘why this photo’.

Gotta go with Door Number Three.

You know how all those personality type systems with their clever little surveys and tests and all are so much fun to take and even more fun to share? “”Honey? Come here, there’s this Quiz on the Facebook, it so has you down to a ‘T'”.  The Wakefield Doctrine is exactly like that, except different.

Being a perspective, rather than a thing, the purpose, use and value of the Wakefield Doctrine is aid us in our efforts to better understand the world and people around us. The Doctrine approaches this by challenging us to discover how a person is relating themselves to the world around them. It (does this) by proposing that we all experience the world, to a small but certain extent, on a personal basis. This is referred to as a ‘worldview’. The theory holds that we are, all of us, born with the potential to experience the world (and, very importantly), grow up and develop in one of three worldviews, that of the Outsider(clarks), the Predator(scotts) or the Herd Member(rogers). At a very early age we end up in one and develop our coping strategies appropriate to the character of that worldview.

“But! But what the heck does this have to do with CS Lewis or, for that matter, the blogosphere? What about that?”

Guess I should describe the path from a chance insight in 1981 and typing today’s post.
In the summer of 2009, I was driving around with a friend talking about life, reality and ‘the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers’. For whatever reason, I said, ‘This theory is so true and so much fun, I got to do something more with it’. My friend replied, ‘I agree and, in my work in counseling, I do in fact use the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers at times. But the name is not good, too college dorm. You need a better name.’ I then said, ‘Alright then. From now on it’s the Wakefield Doctrine.’ He laughed, ‘That’s an excellent name. What are you going to do with this Wakefield Doctrine?’ I replied, ‘Well, I guess I need to start a blog. Let the world know all about it.’

The weird part? Until that Saturday evening, my opinion of blogs and bloggers was the rather typical, ‘Sure, now what makes you think that you have anything to say on this blog that anyone would care to read? What you had for breakfast? Maybe your opinion on the state of the world! Yeah, right.’ The thing is, with the decision came a passion that I cannot recall experiencing before, at least not in public and in the daytime. I found that writing posts was the opposite of work. I couldn’t wait to start the next one.

Now the really weird part. I didn’t change. I was still a clark. (I will leave the fun of discovering the full implications of that statement to new Readers). Suffice to say, all of my insecurities, fear of scrutiny, fear of looking like an idiot, fear of meeting people, all stopped existing in the context of writing this here blog here. Seriously. I found a strength (I already used the ‘passion word’) that not only had me going beyond my lifetime-accepted limitations, I enjoyed doing everything and anything I could to get the story of the Wakefield Doctrine out to as many people and readers as I could. This ‘everything’, included joining my first bloghop. Yep! Finish the Sentence Friday (and the Facebook) was a threshold I crossed that brought me into contact with many I still value as friends.

…the actual photo? Taken in the mansion at Harkness Memorial State Park on the shores of Long Island Sound in the town of Waterford, Connecticut.

Guess that says it all. The photo I’m sharing this particular Friday explains how it is I’m here sharing this photo.

1) hey! I was down here getting ready to disclaimer whatever it was I thought I should, to head-off any criticism of ‘over-reaching’ or ‘being silly’ with the terms I use to describe the Doctrine. You know, something to the effect that ‘this is all based on anecdotal evidence and does not claim status as…’ then it struck me, ‘Well, duh, clark. Give the readers some credit, why don ‘cha?’ Ain’t a chi square, distribution analysis or bell curve within fifty metres* of your blog.’
I thank you, future Readers, for reminding me to stay with what makes this Wakefield Doctrine so unique and fun… the fun and uniqueness of it!

* lol, sorry, couldn’t resist

 

Share

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- “…of practical advice and insightful questions.”

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

So here’s the starting point (as found in this past weekend’s TToT):

Cynthia and Denise and I were discussing workplace applications of the Doctrine. And, to use one of the examples we were working on, lets say I’m in an interaction and feeling very stressed. I can stop, ‘circle around back and enter the situation through the rogerian (or scottian) ‘backstage entrance’. By doing so I have the opportunity, (knowing what I do about the realities of scotts and rogers) to get a sense of how the other person is experiencing the situation in question. Very often I discover that what they are doing that is causing me stress has little or nothing to do with me personally! Talk about taking a load off one’s shoulders. You really should try it.

Cynthia then commented with the following:

It’s rarely ever personal, is it? LOL. In fact, maybe it’s never personal. That would be in line with Don Miguel Ruiz who said to “never take anything personally” in is Four Agreements book. I wonder what Castaneda would have to say. Anyways, yeah, Ruiz argues that we’re all in our own “dream” (worldview) and that if we experienced life as they did, we’d know that it is never about YOU but always about THEM.

Followed by Denise’s question/inference:

Clarification please. When dealing with scotts for sure not personal, but it’s not personal with rogers? I don’t have Doctrine vocabulary words to express what’s in my head at the moment. With rogers, it will first be about them, how, whatever is going on in their interaction with us, affects them, the herd and or reflection thereof, yes?

 

That should get us going for a mid-week Doctrine post!

Quick refresher: The Wakefield Doctrine maintains that all of us are born with the potential to experience the world in one of three characteristic worldviews (personal realities): that of the Outsider(clarks), the Predator(scotts) and the Herd Member(rogers). At a very early stage, for reasons not yet understood, we settle into one of the three. The thing is there is only one predominant worldview and yet, ‘the other two’ potentials remain with us. When it seems like we’re being a scott when really we’re a roger, that usually is at a time of duress and is an indicator of a secondary scottian aspect.

One of the benefits of the Doctrine is found in the arena of self-improvement (the ‘third date’ of the new personality type couple…lol). Most people seek to become better…at whatever it is the perceive they are; mothers, workers, performers, thinkers and fighters. Natural. What can be unnatural (found in many other systems of self-improvement) is the belief that one needs to acquire, learn, borrow, imitate behaviors and other ways of interacting with the world in order to improve. The Wakefield Doctrine holds that it’s not necessary; that quality or characteristic you desire is already a part of you. It is simply not expressed.

Wait, I said that not quite the way I wanted. Remember the part about settling into the world of the Outsider or being left in the reality of the Predator or waking up in the land of the Herd Member? The predominant reality? Well everything that follows are our efforts to develop strategies to get through life. A scott learns to be quick, aggressive and not spend a lot of time in reflection, a roger sees a quantifiable world and knows he/she must study, be organized and deliberate. A clark… they kinda wing it. lol. No, the defining style of negotiating with the world and it’s people for clarks is grounded in the belief that knowledge holds the key.

In any event, my point about already having what you believe you are looking for, want to be more assertive? You have a scottian aspect. Need to be more detail oriented? Hello roger! You have what it takes to be the person you think you want to be. The thing is, you practiced a lifetime to be the clark, scott or roger that you are. So don’t be discouraged if you try to assert your inner (whichever) and it doesn’t work the first (or 21st) time. The main thing is that those characteristics are yours to develop.

Holy smoke! I totally got off the topic. (So much for the quick refresher).

So the Wakefield Doctrine is a perspective that can be especially useful in the workplace. The use of the Doctrine requires learning the character and nature of the three worldviews. Now before anyone leans back and says, “Great! Now I got to go read and memorize a bunch of charts and descriptions! At least the Oscar-Myers EOSH people have only four letters to learn to use it!” Allow me to say, don’t worry, all you need is the most cursory understanding of the three worldviews The scary thing about the Doctrine is that when you spot your first roger or scott or clark, in all probability they will proceed to put on a demonstration that will have you thinking, ‘Wait a minute! What are the odds that my supervisor/grocerystore clerk, teacher, friend, wife could be a follower of this blog?’

No, seriously. When you get to the point of identifying the three worldviews, I guarantee that you might feel a little creeped-out. With good reason, but not the way you think. I always warn people at this point, ‘If you get to the point that you can see the rogers and scotts and clarks in your world, there is a very strong possibility that you will not be able to not see them.’

You been told.

Ok to Denise’s question about the conflict between accepting that what a roger might be doing to you is not personal, while knowing that everything in the world of the roger is personal. My reply in the Comments:

everything is personal with rogers

if the coffee in the break room is burnt-tasting and stale, they will take that personally and seek someone whose fault it is or…. if there is a traffic accident and the highway is tied up….

… knowing that, makes it less a personal responsibility for us as clarks (and never let it be said that clarks shirk responsibility for…. everything but mostly the bad things lol) it is a way of short-circuiting our own autonomic entanglement… with a lifeform that is to emotions as a scott is to anything that darts away…. lol

 

Share

Finish the Thought Friday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

Today is Saturday and so we’ll hasten to complete a Finish the Sentence Friday post and then write us one of them TToT posts.

Last week, as you will recall, we combined our participation in the two bloghops into one long, and somewhat perplexing (to some of the newer Readers), post. The thing is, Kristi and Kenya and them, have altered the format and so, each Friday the ‘theme’ is different. Which should be an interesting change. Unlike winter. Sorry, getting ahead of myself. (Ayiiee, when you consider the theme of this week’s FTSF, and that last sentence, surely you recoil in empathic horror or lean-forward in identification with the conundrum I almost put myself into… have I lost the thread?  Good! Back to the intro).

This week the theme is Stream of Consciousness (in general) and our feelings towards Winter(specifically?) Here, let me let Kristi tell you, I have to go find a timer…

In the new format, which I host with Kenya from Sporadically Yours, each week is a little bit different. Week three of each month (this week), is a stream-of-consciousness post where you write for five minutes (or more) and just post. That’s it.

And yeah, yeah, yeah… I ended up adding some photos because I couldn’t NOT add them, but we promise, you’re free to edit as you’d like but editing is unnecessary.

Finish the Sentence Friday is a link-up where writers and bloggers come together to share their themselves with a particular prompt (different formats each week of the month). If you’d like to participate, join our Facebook group. Link up your prompts below! Please no “link dumping.” If you include a link, comment on other posts.

OK, I got the timer… not ready?  no problem I’ll wait…. (Why no! I don’t think that ‘preparing to engage in a stream-of-consciousness activity’ is contradictory. Have you talked to a clark recently? lol  Old joke: Q: “How can you tell when a clark is engaged in stream of consciousness? A: “His/her lips move.”)

Some of you might be thinking, ‘Did they just imply that they need to prepare for writing a Stream-of-Conscious post? Isn’t that kinda self-defeating?

Yes and No* lol

So I have my timer ready and, in case this ends up too jabberwockerish, I’ve put a photo at the top of the Post that says it all.

(go)

There is nothing I enjoy about Winter. The photo above illustrates its nature better than I can describe it: cold, life arresting and yet taunting in what it is that it (Winter) holds in its inhospitable grasp.

alright!  What 4 minutes left? damn!

hey! wait… this just in. Una enjoys the snow! And, now that I think of it, so did Bella and Ola. So it is not that the season itself is bad, it’s simply that I am not inclined to embrace its character and nature. I had a video up last weekend that shows how much fun Una had with the snow. (link here).

Boy, my five minutes have about lapsed. I got a feeling that I do not want to reflect on the implication of that! lol

So this week, my Finish my Thought Friday is: ‘…because Una enjoys the snow.

But now that I think of it, she enjoys all four of the seasons. That’s why she’s my role model. Una, as do her kind, has a natural appreciation for ‘what is’ as opposed to ‘what it should be/might be/supposed to be’. That’s not a bad reminder to me today when it’s too damn cold outside to remember that I’m able to go there and prove how right I am about that assertion and what a total gift that is. And, since it’s never too late to engage the present, I will stop with the stream of conscious writing and try to have a stream of present day.

Don’t forget to stop by the others (to my figurative right, left and above)… there you’ll find insight and reflection that will surely carry through your weekend.

 

*hey! one of the earliest tests for determining if a person is a clark is found in the simple question: “How much is Two plus Two?” a roger answers “Four” without the slightest hesitation because, well, that’s the correct answer. a scott might say “Four” or he/she might reply, “Who wants to know?” a clark? we’re inclined to answer, “uh, under what circumstances?”

Share

January 1, 2018 -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

‘Una and Phyllis sitting on the bridge at the pond on a single-digit temperature afternoon.’
(landscape orientation)
Three quarters of the photo is of winter-bare trees, background woods and a snow-covered bridge identifiable as such by the repeating divisions of the top surface, as the snow is so light and dry as to allow the gaps between each plank to show dark. Una and Phyllis are in the lower right quarter of the photo. Una is the triangular shaped fur-covered lifeform who appears to be smiling, if for no other reason than she has the quality of living in the moment. Phyllis is the blue, black and grey shape to Una’s left. Phyllis is smiling as she is practicing the way of life that permits such a response, despite the conditions of the external world at the moment.
I am behind the camera assuring both that ‘that’s a great shot! it’s a wrap’.

the Wakefield Doctrine is a perspective; inherent in all perspective is a new way of understanding.

the Wakefield Doctrine is a tool; (one definition) of a tool is, ‘an artifact created to enhance and multiply the intended effect of an effort’.

the Wakefield Doctrine is fun; fun has been defined as ‘the byproduct of relating ourselves to the world around us in a manner that meets the external demands of the world while leaving the opportunity to be creative‘.

Thanks and a big shout-out to Friend of the Doctrine, Cynthia for her ‘first of the year clarity statement’ Which simply means that, as a clark, she has captured the spirit shared by all clarks.

Two and an eighth clarks….*
Cynthia and Una and John.
Una is sitting in her chair at the head of the table. Cynthia is standing to Una’s right. John is on the left side of the table, mostly ‘out of frame’.
No one is looking at the camera.
of course

As per the above definition, the work in the Summer of the years past illustrates that one (circumstance’s) effort (and labor (and expenditure of energy)) is fun when those involved contribute (creativity includes assembly) to producing a thing of utility and value.

And so, in the time that unfolds into the next culturally arbitrary division of time aka the ‘New’ Year, we here at the Doctrine will take up our friends challenge to have an effect on the world by finding ways to become a more and better self.

(Clearly that admonition is hypo-grammatical both literally and figuratively.)

The third ‘definition’ of the Wakefield Doctrine above mentioned fun. It is. Fun. For example, from one of the earlier posts in the blog, a discussion of jobs.

All jobs, employment, occupations, avocations, professions, missions, crusades, escapades and ways that we chose to earn money fall into one of three categories:

Scientist, Salesman and Machine Operator.

  1. Scientist is (for our purposes) the one who wants, no, make that needs to discover the unknown and upon discovery wants to share it with others. clarks, it has been noted elsewhere are the creative one of the three, creative in the purest sense of the word.
  2. Salesman is the one who wants to change others, to get them to conform to his/her will.  A scott will get others to do things just because if she is the one directing others then no one is directing her.
  3. Machine Operator is a person who believes that the only tasks worth doing is the one with a defined set of variables, anything from engineer to accountant to musician.  Rogers tend to be the most excellent of musicians from a technical standpoint. (If you had a band comprised of a clark, a scott and a roger, the scott would be the ‘front man/woman’, the roger would play lead and the clark would play rhythm (but also be the main songwriter).

So get out there and look around.  What do you like to do for work or for fun? I guarantee that whatever it is, it will fit into one of these three jobs and more than likely it will correspond to whatever it is you are (clark or scott or roger).

 

Share

FTSF -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

Today we head over to the most excellent of bloghops, Finish the Sentence Friday. Hosted by Friend of the Doctrine, Kristi and (for this Week) Hillary Savoie.

“Can you say, ‘ello there Miz Kristi, Ms. Savoie? Sure you can.

The way this bloghop works: participants are invited to complete the sentence, the fragment of which is provided. Each week a different sentence fragment. When (participants) complete the sentence, in the manner of their choice to whatever length they deem proper, they add them to the list of posts to be found at Kristi and Hillary’s blogs. That way all are available for reading, hence the term, bloghop.*

I will join the others and invite you all to join in this week’s ‘hop. It’s fun and it’s interesting and, if you’re into the stream of consciousness school of post writing as am I, you might be surprised at the post that sits on your screen and dares you to hit ‘Publish’.

The Sentence to be completed:

“When it comes to belonging…”

“…the concept tempts me to believe that I know how might a blind man or woman feel, surrounded by well-intentioned people earnestly describing Niagara Falls and with each new narration of the experience, I smile in their direction and nod at the descriptions and metaphors, analogy and examples.”

The above is my immediate ‘Finish’ Arguably that makes it the most honest completion of this week’s sentence. I do, however, have a second, perhaps more… fun Sentence completion. But first a little backstory and, hopefully sufficient context to make my post more…fun?

The above complete sentence is what I think about ‘belonging’. My perception of myself, (hey, all the rest of what follows is an elaboration of what those four words imply. Not so much that the words themselves explain anything as it the way I describe the process underlying my response), is that of an Outsider. For me, the world is ‘out there’ and I am here. (One of the ways to spot an Outsider, aka a clark in the Wakefield Doctrine system) is to say, ‘Every day I wake up and try to figure out what I’m going to have to do with the world out there.’ It’s been my experience that a lot of people do not make that distinction between themselves and reality. They tend to be the people who belong.

Now the follow-up Finish (of the Sentence):

“…the closest I come to belonging is when this topic comes up and I sense others, who hesitate and look around the group, quietly, un-noticeably before responding. At such times I believe I can see the rainbow in the mist at the edge of Niagara Falls, if only for a second.”

 

 

 

* sorta… I suspect the etymology is far more involved (and interesting) than my suggestion, seeing how no one actually ‘hops’, not that that’s possible, being a medium that does not permit direct physical interaction. ‘though, that being said, there is nothin in the rules that forbids participants from hopping, at least that I’m aware.

Share