personality types | the Wakefield Doctrine personality types | the Wakefield Doctrine

Tewesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

There! That does it.*

So not to get too metaphysical. (yeah, right If metaphysics were imaginary food, we’d either weight six hundred pounds or be on a permanent intravenous drip of Rao’s Caramelized Onion Sauce over extra broad egg noodles.)

No, seriously has anyone ever wondered why the clarks in their lives have so much difficulty with the simple things while achieving more effective results with the unnecessarily complex topics?

Well, damn! If we knew you were going to be tossing the softball Doctrine questions, we’d a waited to more of the last minute to answer.

Two words: emotion. (No, it’s not that clarks are not emotional/bereft of emotion/emotionally-impaired or otherwise disadvantaged. The problem for clarks in the execution of the ordinary challenges of normal, day-to-day living isn’t that they are trying to compensate for a lack of emotion. The problem for clarks is the perceived excess of said emotion. Or, more precisely, the potential of emotion to create chaos and otherwise push the car down too steep a hill. ya know?)

Alright! If we were in a classroom and a pop-quiz was announced, you’d totally hear the word ‘define and refine’.

lol

Hint (for the ambitious rogers (with significant secondary clarklike aspects)… the scotts… nah, they’d be drawing crude life figures to illustrate and clarks?

Welll. This is actually something more of a challenge for you clarks out there than it would occur to you to admit.

Chill. Not to worry. It’s not like you’re going to be asked to come to the front of the room and read what you wrote in response to this essay question.

...much

oh yeah? I’ll step in yer frickin river as many times as I

Yeah, it is Sunday again.  And no, there is no rule that we have to get all weird (alright, weirder) on Sunday Posts.  But the Doctrine allows for virtually anything, as long as there is something (in the Post) that advances the understanding of the Wakefield Doctrine.
The Wakefield Doctrine Lesson of the Day:  talking yesterday to a person who has recently encountered this blog.  She expressed some concern about knowing for certain which of the three (clarks, scotts or rogers) she was, which is appearing to be a rather common experience among new Readers and as such is important to us here at the Doctrine.  We want everyone to immediately get the Wakefield Doctrine and then conribute to the blog through Comments.  As to the un-comfortable part,  I suspect there is an element to the writing “style” of these Posts that imparts some kind of “you better get this right” vibe to the First Time Reader.  Damn.Hey Readers, yo. (No you’re wrong, I am totally entitled to affecting any (writing) style, slang, patois, pidgin, dialect or any other form of projectile cool (including a delusional perception of sounding cool, inevitably limited to my own imagination) if I want to cause I am the one writing this Post and who is anyone else to say that I am not in fact a dreadlocks-sportin, surfboard-on-the-car drivin’, pants-worn-down-about-mid-thigh wearin’ scott or roger or, for that matter clark(except the part about the surfboard and pants and dreadlocks but otherwise, I’m there) Sorry, lost control of the parentheseses.  Besides, the job is open, anyone got a Post you want to write then step right up.  Let us know in the form of a Comment and we will be too damn happy to let you write one of these rascals.Anyway, the important thing here is this:  the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and roger) proposes that all of us start life with the qualities ascribed to  three (‘personality’) types (clarks, scotts androgers).  Further, at some relatively early point in life, we begin to experience the world mostly from the perspective of one (of these three).  At that point we can say we are a clark or a scott or a roger.  Having said that, we always retain the qualities/capabilities/capacities of the other two types; but except for you Readers, we all seem to forget that we have a rogerian side or a scottian aspect.
The reason you are reading this is that you have the intellectual flexibility to imagine that which is not. (Yes, I know what you clarks are thinking at this point, but let’s just keep that to ourselves for now, shall we?)
The short form (lol, as if) is this: you already know this shit.  The Doctrine is a productive, unique and fun way to look at the behavior of those around us and understand why the people in our lives act the way that they do.  Pretty simple, isn’t it?So, New Reader…relax take a deep breath (not too loudly, scott) (not too dramatically, roger) (breath! clark, breath!).  There is no rush.  Since you are already all three, deciding for yourself which of the three you are predominately will take care of itself.
The most frequent experience of new Readers is to say, “Yeah, I get the theory, but sometimes I am like  one type and at other times one of the other two. Almost as if I am all three”.
To which we say, “Very good!  Many of us feel that way when we start, then we frickin read what is written about being all three and it being predominately one of the three and we get over it!”  Jeez…come on, people I know you have an extra capacity to understand new shit or you wouldn’t still be reading this, you would have long since moved on to crocheting-with-emily.com or wrench-and-sports.com.  Relax, trust your instincts and get over it.  Have fun! (clarks, see us after class and we can help you apply an overly long, convoluted, tail-eating definition with complete instructions on how-to have fun).And write a Comment.  Win a hat (for your damn head).You want pressure?  I give you pressure…watch the following music video and tell me (through a Comment) if the Conductor is a clark or a scott or a roger…(come on scotts, some of you must like classical music)…but the challenge is identifying the type.
Not easy, of course, but I don’t want anyone to feel that they should not submit an answer….there is a hat (for someone’s damn head in it) for the correct answer!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZwgLrVEw84…put down your keyboards, your time is up…answers are in…remember what we say here at the Doctrine,  “there are no stupid questions, just your questions”(Come on Readers, lighten up.  Take a chance, clark; don’t feel threatened, roger;  hey scott, you can do this)Hey! Who said, ‘What we really want is a pleasant melody with near-incomprehensible lyrics? Here ya go, clark!

 

 

* the writing prompt effect of a RePrint post eliminating all that blank space. As always, ‘It’s way easier to edit than it is to write fill an empty page.’

Share

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

Hey, you know you really should call in next Saturday, right?

The Wakefield Doctrine Saturday Night Drive, that is.

Heck, we might even drive around Wakefield, if’n you do, (call in), the number is: (605) 475-2200 code 6660467# 8:00 pm EDST

So, this last Saturday’s Drive we were delighted to hear Friend of the Doctrine, Cynthia (Need help with your website or online marketationing? Get on over to ArtFunky! Tell ’em the Doctrine sent ya!)

I was late joining the Call. Which prompted the question to her: ‘So what was it that prompted your first call to the Doctrine?’

(New Readers: We ‘met’ Cynthia on the Facebook, way early on in our tenure here. But it, (our nascent friendship), was all in Comments and association with a FB group, Bloopy Bloggers. (Yeah, we know!) Those were simpler times and we were so new and enthusiastic then. In any event, we’d been doing the Call-in a relatively short time when she called. As luck would have it, we were not on the call that particular Saturday Night due to being on a roadtrip. Fortunately, Denise was. And the rest is Doctrine history.)

Well, she, Cynthia, she say, “I was curious and had heard that you were doing an online radio Show.”

 

RePrint

the Wakefield Doctrine: the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers ‘…more at 4!’

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks (who are the creative ones and therefore the ones to show up with something like this here theory here) and scotts (who are the ones who are all about ‘the doing’ action-oriented who thought doing an internet radio show was a good idea) and rogers (who are the ones in touch with the feelings and emotions of the masses and has the voice that the audience will respond to))

Allow me to say, Thank you for your encouraging ‘knuckle bumps’/’chest bumps’/’high fives’ and your (secretly destructive) well wishes and other booby-trapped sentiments!

Today’s Post is going to be brief as I am trying to outline some sort of  script for the Test Show that I will be doing on BlogTalkRadio today. There are a lot of reasons for trying this thing, but for now, bottom line is that I will have 30 minutes to fill this afternoon at 4:00 pm.
The interesting thing will be how I manifest not only my pre-dominant clarklike aspect but my secondary scottian and (distant) tertiary rogerian aspects in the course of the day today.

This is, of course, the beauty part of the Wakefield Doctrine and it’s use and value to anyone  who has ever said “I know I can do better, why do I always hold back? I know my bad habits,  when I change them things get better, but somehow I end up back doing the same thing that I know I don’t need to do!’”
Sound familiar? Well, good news! The Wakefield Doctrine maintains that self-improvement/self-development is not about getting rid of bad habits and trying to learn something totally new (and therefore so unlike you) and then trying to remember to do the new thing instead of the old thing!
No, it is not!
It is way better than that, but I need to save something for later today, so you will just have to dial in to hear how the Wakefield Doctrine can change your life and such.

The thing about this radio show format that is daunting is that, unlike the Saturday Night Drive Call-in show, I will need to assume that there are listeners…for the entire 30 minutes. On Saturday Night, in-between calls I don’t need to talk!  Well, I’m sure it will work out, I will simply need to bring out my scottian aspect (for the lively pacing, the enthusiasm, the excitement) and my rogerian aspect for the words, and descriptions and that (god, how the hell do they do it?) total conviction that the world is hanging on their every word!

(as they say in the radio biz..)

The lines are now open! So write us a Comment and suggest ways I should spend the 30 minutes of internet fame.*

 

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-wakefield-doctrine/2012/11/14/the-wakefield-doctrine-episode

* back in the days of Pictimiltude

Share

TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

This is the Wakefield Doctrine’s contribution to the Ten Things of Thankful (TToT) bloghop. Our foundress, L, as the recipient of a grant by George V as part of a deal to ‘get the rest of those malcontents off to the ‘new’ world and generally clean up London’. (The subtext being to focus on the rabble-rousing nouveau-social activists like Mrs Cooper and her sisters-in-law, Ann and Margaret Fletcher who seem to have travelled the length and breadth of Lancashire raising support for the locked-out-workers*. This last, one of those elegant (and mnemonic) slogans and catch-phrases that dot the admittedly under-researched period of the worker’s rights movement in both the UK and the States. The thing about these events? One might infer something about catchy phrases and… well, it rhymes with ‘Pen things of Rankful’.  (Seeing as we’re on the topic of worker’s rights, we would be negligent if we did not mention the strike of personal interest, ‘the Bread and Roses Strike**’ (‘Short Pay! All Out!) which served as a focal  point for the first part of our WIP ‘Almira’.

1) Una

2) Phyllis

3) the Wakefield Doctrine

4) the Unicorn Challenge ‘Prime Ear of the Week’: ‘The Robber‘ by jenne (‘In which our story-teller walks us into a veritable maelstrom of un-tagged dialogue. Some of us Readers found ourselfs running through the story like a puppies in it’s first snow flurry’.)

5) the Six Sentence Story, ‘The Six of the Week’: ‘Untimely Utterances- Part II, Mystic Rains‘ from Friend of the Doctrine, Spira/Nick In the way of the virtual world and synchronicity our intro here was written prior to reading Nick’s post. We love that stuff. “Linear, monolithic timeline reality!?!? “We don’ need no steeken’ linear, monolithic timeline!” As it happens, we’re the clear beneficiaries of this juxtaposition as our reference to the seemingly endless river of antipathy towards those without power by those with, could have gone afield, had it not been the availability of the jinn of hyperlinks to provide context. Nick’s most excellent post was far more challenging.

6) yard project/status in photation (Grat 7)

7) as soon as it stops with the endless rain

8) something, something

9) Bridge Update (Nothing new to report. We suspect the timeframe for the project has been pushed back as Phyllis’s mallard family are, as the New Yorker Magazine* might say, ‘In residence’)

10) Secret Rule 1.3 (From the Book of Secret Rules, aka the Secret Book of Rules) that states and provides for, in part: “[t]he process of reaching Grat Items eight (or seven, if you’re feeling all-powerful) is, legitimately, and without qualification, a valid item on the list (“…gratum notatio gratitudinis.” op.cit. page 222); with the proviso (Latin: prōvīsiō (“preparation, foresight” but said while wearing, like, a toga)

 

* reference here to Ten Percent and No Surrender Strike 1853-1854

** ok, here is the perfect example of the difference between rogerian literalness. The title of the Wikipedia article we’re citing is: ‘The Lawrence Textile Strike’ also known as ‘the Bread and Roses Strike’. While we are not experts in the history of the worker’s rights movement in the early 20th, we are experts in a certain theory of personality. Guess which of the three would be drawn to the first title and which would be attracted to the second. The question you might ask yourself, provided you, the Reader’ are still with us but are pausing, ‘What is it you’re trying to say?’

music vids

*

*

 

Language Advisory! (Strenuous use of ‘fuck’ as a lyric motif, if not an excessively enthusiastic anaphora)

*

*

You are invited to the Inlinkz link party!

Click here to enter

Share

Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

So, the question is, (almost always): would knowing of the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine at an earlier stage of life made any significant difference to the course of said life?

Sure. Of course.

No, not necessarily.

WARNING! Turn the page if you are not certain* that your predominant worldviews (aka personality type) is that of the Outsider (clarks),

New Readers? It’s a given that (if) you’re still reading, you are either a clark or a scott or roger with a significant secondary clarklike aspect. We used to refer to this as (having) a quality of flexible intelligence. But that definition has been surpassed by the more elegant statement of secondary aspect.

Ayiiee!

We just re-read today’s post. ‘El-oh-El y’all.’

No, we’ve got an excuse for the content. You, on the other hand, are not necessarily off the hook for reading and getting something from this rather short post.

Like the wise old saying reminds us: ‘If we would self-improve ourself, everything is a lesson. Provided we can remain silent enough to hear our second response.’

 

* ha ha clarks are smiling**

** sure, of course the Everything Rule applies to how laughter is manifested in the three. That said, it is worth exploring further, as there is one of those passing, ‘Holy shit! Look at the complementarity among clarks, scotts and rogers in the matter of laughing!!’

No time this morning. Extra credit to anyone willing to address this fascinating question.

OK one hint, that’s all. Consider that the most awful of states (of being) that each of the three can imagine and then, consider the inter-relatedness of each.

Share

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

Full Disclosure: We’re writing this intro section on Sunday evening. As most Readers know, RePrints have come to serve as prompts… maybe stimulants (in the laxative use of the term as opposed to the speed freak of the late ’60s). Yes. we will wait.  “…ewww

hey, there’s a good reason most post writing happens in the morning.

(We interrupt our stem-winding for a Monday morning observation. Wait, no. Nothing.)

Lets go see if’n we can’t find a basic ‘this is the Wakefield Doctrine’ RePrint

Here ya go

‘why is a raven like a writing desk’? (and) what is the Wakefield Doctrine’s take on those other personality theories?

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

A frequently asked  question: ” What does the Wakefield Doctrine call this personality type? ( Always  one of some other personality theory’s type), i.e.  the Driver Type ( from the Merrill-Reid schema) or the ‘Type 2 ( of the 9 Enneagram Types ) or even the famous Axis 4 (from the rogerian geek school of personality typology). Sometimes answering this question is fun, other times it is frustrating but the outcome of this exchange is always less than is hoped for by the person posing the question.

Comparisons between mainstream personality types systems and the Wakefield Doctrine  hardly ever yields an answer that is satisfactory to the interlocutor or the listener. While the underlying motivation for these questions  is often well-meaning,  the goal behind asking them is misguided. (  “well, don’t you see?  The Wakefield Doctrine and (  well-known personality theory) are both talking about the same thing, so the Doctrineis not so unusual or odd or weird! Maybe if you describe clarks and scotts and rogers using some of the same  language, you will attract more people to the blog!
At this point the answer (from the Wakefield Doctrine is always the same: No.   (…for 2 reasons):

  1. The Wakefield Doctrine is not scientifically based on empirical data nor does it rely on test subjects providing statistically significant  and consistent reporting of identification with certain traits or behavior(s). The Wakefield Doctrine does not  approach the ‘classification of personality’  on the basis of traits and quirks, phobias and foibles gathered from a test subject. ‘Personality Typing by Chart’,  in which  check-marks are totalled/summed up and added up, with a score at the bottom of a column labeld:  ‘Your Personality Type!  A lot  like  a dinner party at a restaurant,  the host glances down to the bottom of the bill that the Waiter has brought to the table. Scanning the menu items and tallying the cost, the guests will hear:    “OK!  who had the FEAR OF HEIGHTS with the DISDAIN FOR AUTHORITY Combo?  no, scott!! I am sure you ordered the MECURIAL TEMPERMENT COMBINED WITH AN INGRAINED RESISTANCE TO LEARNING BY EXAMPLE! OK folks, the total  is: (2) Drivers with homophobic tendencies masked by an excessive interest in contact sports and (1) Passive-aggressive nurturing-type with  un-resolved oedipal conflict compensated by a need to demonstrate language skills un-supported by actual ability! Alright everyone!!  Ante up!”                                                                               
  2.  the Wakefield Doctrine is for you, not for them!
    For most of us, the attraction to ‘personality types’ and ‘personal profiles and assessment’ is founded in a genuine curiosity about ourselves and a sincere desire to help other people in our lives handle  their own problems and shortcomings better. Unfortunately, the focus all too often comes to rest on ‘the other person’.   We all know this person,  a caring friend/relative/co-worker who goes to great lengths to find answers so that they can ‘help you’!  With a magazine article in hand (or a book, or a CD or  DVD) that promises to describe personality types and how to identify them…whats the second thing you/they do after learning these well-researched, empirically based systems of understand the human psyche?  The second thing (and sometimes the first) is to say, “Hey! You know who is a real Driver personality? This personality system totally  got his/her number!! This is really helpful, I can’t wait to tell them how much I understand their personality!”
    …this is where the Wakefield Doctrine and all the better researched, better marketed, widely-accepted personality theories part ways.  No matter what you think you can do with the understanding that this Doctrine can help you get, it is for you,  it is not for the other person.

Are we saying that the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers ) is neither scientifically valid nor  an effective method for helping other people to solve their intractable mental and emotional problems?
Yes, yes we are saying that.

So why bother with this thing of ours? Well, for starters:

  • you will have an advantage over the people you meet in the course of your day today
  • the behavior of the people in your life will make more sense to you (because of your understanding of the Wakefield Doctrine)
  • you will be able to anticipate the actions and (re)actions of people to virtually any situation
  • you will see your own life, habits, behaviors in a different light
  • you will have fun with your friends spotting the clarks and the scotts and the rogers as you go about your day today

Sound like reason enough to figure out this blogsite?

I promised Molly, a short and concise definition of the Wakefield Doctrine:

…three personality types predicated on (three) characteristic ways to perceive the world at large.  All people are born with the potential to see the world as any of the three (types) that we call: clarks, scotts and rogers. (Further) the Doctrine maintains that at an early age we become predominately one (of the three) but we never lose the capacity to experience the world as do the other two. The personality types of the Wakefield Doctrine are gender and culture neutral and is predicated that the personality type is derived from understanding the reality in which a person lives, not by trying to identify specific traits, interests, drives or ideation. The Wakefield Doctrine is a tool meant to aid a person who would try to see the world as the other person does.

Works pretty damn well, too!

 

Share