Tee Hee o T -the Wakefield Doctrine- “and a side of arrrts”

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

‘A street sign taken to heart. Car and canine pause, the world waits.’
(Landscape Orientation)
A photo of Una ‘riding shotgun’ as we begin our walk.
Una is in close profile, the left side of her face illuminated from the sunlight coming through the car’s windshield that makes up the entire left half (from top to bottom) of the photo.
In the center top of the windshield (or, perhaps it would be better to say, ‘through the windshield ‘) there is a ‘Stop’ sign, every bit the municipal lollipop that you might imagine, were we all to end up in a good-natured Bosch painting (or perhaps an updated version of the animated movie, ‘Yellow Submarine’ (which, for the record, you couldn’t not love, at least not while claiming to still be young))
The Stop sign is all octagonal officialdom and the street that passes perpendicular to the street we are on is visible as a smooth, grey-blue patch against the winter browns of the hay in a field on the far side of the street. To the right of the ‘Stop’ sign there is a square stone column. Not quite a tower or battlement, it’s the kind of decorative structure that used to be popular at the entrance of residential developments. There would be a pair, one on each side of the street. Perhaps it gave the residents a feeling of security that, should the need arise, a tall gate might be closed, the two stone structures providing a secure anchor point. Or something. For all of the popularity of gates on a residential neighborhood, an actual gated community in this part of the country is more the exception than the rule. As well it should be, what can keep strangers out serves just as well to keep people in. A prison is that which separates some from the others. The relative numbers determine the virtue.
Yes, Una is sitting in the front passenger seat and we can see her face for a change. As luck would have it, we are driving into the setting sun. The light provides the opportunity to see her face. The light causes her to rest (and protect) her eyes. They are nearly completely closed.
One can be forgiven for venturing, ‘A dog, do they ever completely close their eyes?’ And, (as) one, I might say, “a lot less frequently than you might think.” Even lying on the couch (or the bed or the floor) dreaming of slow-running rabbits, the activity in the eyes of a dog is surprisingly consistent.

Humor is a funny thing. (Remember in college, the discovery of new music and art was like that second step into the waves at the beach, the one that just preceded throwing yourself in to the water, knowing that the fun had to do with coping and not doing? In that case, the waves were there already and the fun was, (hopefully), to do what makes swimming in the ocean fun. Finding new music was, at that time, much the same… “hey! you gotta listen to this band, this song..wait  wait  this part coming up.” And you look at your friend with hope, as they get to the part you found so amazing and they’d get a look on your face that, in the alchemy of the friendships of the young, was a look of gratitude and brother/sisterhood as they discovered that you share one more thing in life.)

…yeah like that.

Stephen Wright

Woody Allen

(Sunday morning… 10:58 am)  ‘Hey I was just watching this with Phyllis and saw something that I never noticed. Diane Keaton (and her character Annie Hall) are the epitome of clarklike females. I won’t go into a long discussion other than to say, “Watch the scene (1:09 turn up the volume) where her parents suggest that Dwayne drive them to the airport. Annie leaves the scene but you can still hear her talking…” This Doctrine is truly a wonderful thing.

 

Jim Gaffigan

One Two Three

arrts

Thanks especially to Val. In one of her recent posts did some excellent poetry which reminded me that poetry is not necessarily distantly inaccessible. Shout-out to Carin who can actually do a whole TToT in verse. (damn!)

this guy

Over the wintry

forest, winds howl in  rage

with no leaves to blow.

(Soseki (1275-1351)

and maybe a painting or two.

oh man! A(nother) chance to illegally reproduce one of my favorite paintings!

Nighthawks is a 1942 oil on canvas painting by Edward Hopper that portrays people in a downtown diner late at night. (Wikipedia)

We better stop and take a count!

lets see… five plus Una and Phyllis minus the Sunday Supplement minus the Free Grat Item and minus SR 1.3 Holy Smoke!

6) Phyllis

7) Una

8) Sunday Supplement (check back tomorrow)

9) ‘Your Grat Here’  (anyone in a position of really wanting to participate but are not able to do a whole TTOT post…. you can borrow one of ours! No, serially, send it in and we’ll go right ahead and post it. We’re the Wakefield Doctrine where you can never be 100% of a lot of things. ya know?)

10) Secret Rule 1.3

We’re done!

Wait…. gotta shout out to Josie Two Shoes  hey! Josie! thanks for puttin on the ‘hop this weekend.

So you know how I keep saying, ‘learn the basic characteristics of the three worldviews and then look at the people around you?’ And, of course, by ‘people around you’ I mean anywhere, including music videos. And by characteristics, I mean, ‘by their posture and attitude, actions and reactions, from which of the three realities (that of the Outsider, the Predator or the Herd Member) would they seem to be relating themselves to the world around them?’

I submit this video. Good song, great illustration of the three worldviews. In the three lead guitar players you will see a clark, a scott and a roger.

The roger and the scott might at first be a little tricky. The clark? lol

 

hey! this is the TToT


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

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘the truly user-friendly day of the week

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

There is a post (or two) somewhere in the archives that look at the ‘Days of the Week’ from the perspective of the Wakefield Doctrine and seek to identify the days that are ‘good days’ for people of each of the three personality types. Some are megaphone-obvious, like Saturday and scotts or Mondays and rogers or Tuesday and …everyone! But, especially clarks.

Why is that? Why does the sub-title use the slightly arrhythmic phrase ‘truly user-friendly’? Unfortunately the word ‘mild’, is nearly harmless, there’s absolutely nothing in what it implies that anyone could take issue with, “…and temperatures will be mild today.”  “Don’t worry, your child is exhibiting the normal signs of the flu which includes running a mild fever.” It does, at least on the surface, seem to be a complimentary assertion (of the character or quality of a person or a worldview).

So what’s wrong with ‘mild’? What would cause a blog writer to begin a post with an apologia?

I don’t know. Nothing I guess. Don’t give it a second thought. Sorry I brought it up.

(Interruption for a Wakefield Doctrine insight. You know how we have descriptions (metaphoric and otherwise) of the world as it is experienced by those of the three personality types?

  • scotts ranging across the savannah hungry and impatient, take a moment to play with young pack members or sleep in the shade with one eye half-open;
  • clarks standing in the shadows, moving carefully, watching and, like self-animated marionettes, encircle their arms, hugging empty space in practice embraces, seeing more detail in the actions and plans of the others, the shadow-light allowing a closer insight and
  • rogers moving through the day, across the world, in unison of spirit, competing with the other Members of the Herd, not for supremacy, rather for positioning and increased centrality to the others in their local part of life.

To further our insight into ‘the other two’ worldviews we strive to infer from the actions, reactions, distractions and attractions exhibited by the person we are trying to better understand. It would seem that I’m implying that there is something about the quality of ‘mildness’, as it exists in the reality of a clark, that they (the clarks) feel is nothing to be overly proud of. But I’m getting off track. Back to the post.)

So Tuesday is the Mildest Day of the Week. Sure. I get that. Monday is over, Friday is a lifetime away and Wednesday, (‘hump day’ to rogers, they love to have almost-clever labels in their world. Know someone who insists their car has a name? roger…. unless she’s a girl…and it’s her first car…. and even then, she won’t really mean it.  rogers will.  lol (Go ahead, put your ‘You don’t know what you’re talking about and besides…and this whole Doctrine things isn’t anything but…’ in a comment, please.)

Anyway.

I did want to get in one other concept that carries weight, especially in the worldview of clarks:  expectations and pre-expectations.

As we know from ‘the Everything Rule’, these two conditions exist for all three personality types. However, when considered in the context of clarks, they provide excellent illustrations of the unifying principle of the Doctrine, which is: ‘we use the perspectives of the Wakefield Doctrine to allow us to better understand how we relate ourselves to the world around us.’

That’s all we have time for this morning. Be sure to write in your un-answered questions!

Share

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-‘the Everything Rule’

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

The ‘Everything Rule’ states that, ‘everyone does everything, at one time or another’.

While it might be tempting to think, “oh ho! Your rule there allows for exceptions to your three personality types schema. And, unless the Herd disagrees, your Rule supports my contention that I am not a clark or a scott or a roger, I am something that is all three. So much for your ‘live in one characteristic reality’.”

The Wakefield Doctrine maintains that despite living in only one of the three worldviews, we retain the potential of all three personality types. The value in the Doctrine in the arena of self-improvement rests quite solidly on this premise. The reason being, a lifetime of practice notwithstanding, we all have the necessary ‘range of response’ (to the world and the people around us) that is at the foundation of the three personality types.

The thing is, when we talk about personality types here, what we really are referring to is our (individual) efforts to develop strategies and skills to successfully navigate the world (physical and social) we find ourselves waking up to every morning.

Damn! too many words. Too roundabout and vague. Better access my scottian aspect.

We all need to interact with the world and the people around us. At a very early age we discover (and develop) ways of behaving that secure us what we desire and learn (and refine) strategies that help us avoid what we do not. As we mature, our world expands, our knowledge and abilities grow and our behavior and interpersonal strategies become more sophisticated. Up to a point. Most of the time.

Bottom line is that for the Wakefield Doctrine, ‘personality type’ is not a list or schedule of traits, impulses, desires and guesses on a long survey with multiple choice answers. It is the style of interaction what works for us in the world, as we experience it. The nature and character of the personal reality in which we grow and mature, drives the development and our ‘personality types’ are merely mirrors of the conditions of that reality.

If we grow up in the personal reality of the Predator, then we damn well better be quick to respond and slow to reflect. If we find ourselves in the world of the Outsider then we surely will learn to keep a low profile and learn as much as possible as fast as possible, the better to understand how to act like the real people that surround us.

Pretty simply, isn’t it?

So, back to the ‘Everything Rule’. It’s not that there are scottian jobs or rogerian interests or movies that only a clark would watch. Actually there are…all three. But although some (of ‘the Everything’) is more in sync, harmony, complimentary (and complementary) to individuals of each of the three types, the fact is, everyone does everything. The very useful and productive use of the ‘Everything Rule’ is as a reminder to take advantage of the perspective that the Doctrine makes available.

We use the term ‘manifest’, i.e. how does that job manifest to that person. This is nothing less than trying to see the world as the other person is experiencing it. Huge ambition. Incredible rewards.

It’s not, ‘seeing through the eyes of another‘, that’s too prone to seeing what we’re experiencing. What this exercise entails is to imagine what being a…. cook in a restaurant is in the world of the Herd Member, or working as a physician when you’re a Predator or being on stage in front of the entire school when you grew up an Outsider. Put yourself in their world and you will have a sense of how things manifest for that person.

Sure, most cops are scotts. Well, duh, the job description: put shiny metal objects on your body, have the right to drive as fast as possible while making a lot of noise, chase people with impunity and when you catch them put them in restraints…oh yeah, shoot off a gun …whenever.

Sound like any personality type you know? However, there are rogers and clarks who end up in uniform, one of the boys (or girls) in blue. Of course, their worlds, their personal realities cast the fun parts of the job in entirely different light. As a result, the rogerian police officer ends up being an administrator and Chief or Sergeant and the clark tries for Detective and ends up teaching Law Enforcement in the local Community College.

You get the idea.

If you have any questions about the ‘Everything Rule’ be sure to write a Comment.

Share

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘..of occupations, avocations and worldviews’

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

(Refresher: the Wakefield Doctrine maintains that we, all of us, are born with the potential to experience reality, (and the world). in one of three characteristic manners: as does (an) Outsider (clarks) or a Predator (scotts) or the Herd Member (rogers). At a certain early age, (the Doctrine tells us), we settle into one of these three ‘worldviews’; we become clarks or scotts or rogers. We do not lose the potential to relate to the world as do ‘the other two’, they are available if we but find ways to access them.

The Wakefield Doctrine wears the label of ‘personality theory’, but it really isn’t. What it really is, is a perspective on the world, the people in our lives and our ownselfs. The Doctrine is a tool for adding to, enhancing our understanding (of the world and the people and ourselves), but has little interest in any whys or wherefores. The goal is to add to our understanding and appreciation of ‘how we relate ourselves to the world around us‘. (Not, ‘how we relate to the world around us’, rather ‘how we relate ourselves to the world around us’. Big difference.)

And so, since it, (the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) is nothing more than an additional perspective, what good is it?*

The cool thing about self-improvement and the Wakefield Doctrine is that we don’t have to acquire anything that we don’t already possess. Thinking that you need to learn to be more demonstrative, more accessible on an emotional level? No problem, your rogerian aspect will totally help. Need to temper your temper, pre-empt your impulsiveness? You have a clarklike aspect. Feel like you want to task risks, leave behind the caution and conservativeness? Just check in with your scottian aspect.

So it’s all there, provided you can let it out. And that will be the topic of our next post.

 

 

*  The extent to which a new idea is accepted and embraced by others is very much influenced by the claims made by the originator (of such ideas). It is not about providing the answer to the ‘what’, as it is about making the answer to the challenging question of ‘what’s in it for me?’ immediately clear. Even more so, it depends upon providing this information cloaked in the appearance of being widely accepted and incontrovertibly true and certain. (Which, for one of the three worldviews, is a totally redundant description).  If this is a valid observation1, my own predominant worldview is very much a factor. Not in a good way. Let me explain2.

It will help to consider this: there are three jobs/occupations/avocations/hobbies/styles-of-effort-to-influence-those-around-us. (Yes, just three).

The three jobs are: scientist, salesman and machine operator.

The scientist is concerned with a world of ideas, reveling in explanations and laboring to refine proofs of principles that underlie the workings of the world and (especially) the people in it. The salesman lives for the people they encounter each day, it is not simply about getting them to buy his/her product (or service or convictions or willingly-submit-to-whatever-it-is-the-salesman-wants…at that particular moment), it is about the interaction/negotiation/the ‘Close’. The machine operator lives for the precise execution of rules and laws, relationships and ideals, they find joy (and frustration) in learning the correct way to do job/cook a meal/build a society/live life.

As you’ve probably guessed, each of our three ‘personality types’ is more appropriate to one of these jobs than the others3.

  1. clarks (Outsiders): scientists. if you think hard and observe the world around you, the rules that people follow to feel a part of the group will become knowable. (Career recommendations: school teacher (elementary or college), nurse (pediatric or geriatric) sheepherder, librarian, counselor (effective but not successful), one-term politician)
  2. scotts (Predators): salesmen… I don’t really need to give examples here, do I? The guy on TV, the politician, the early developer in school doesn’t care if you buy or not (well, sorta) that they get to try to get you to (buy what they have/believe what they want you to/do what they feel like doing is what life is all about. (Career suggestions and ideas: cop (or robber), surgeon (but not physician and totally not an oncologist), nurse (charge nurse) teacher (High School industrial Arts, Gym or French…)
  3. rogers (Members of the Herd): machine operator.. precision is the result of following the rules and precise application of the rules is how you get to that point, there is a right way to do everything (add and subtract/machine aircraft parts/play in a symphony/treat cancer/live life… being the best among many is its own reward. (Careers: Accountant, attorney (prosecuting) physician (oncologist), chemist, scientist, philatelist, chef (but not cook), firefighter politician (successful, multi-term)

That’s about all we have time for today. Thanks for coming by.

….the point? My misgivings about how I present the Wakefield Doctrine? Wellll I guess to learn the answer, you’ll just have to keep reading the posts.

1)  see!?!?! damn!

2) enough with the explanation!! tell ’em what it’ll do for them!

3) the Wakefield Doctrine has something called ‘the Everything Rule’. It states, somewhat obviously, that ‘everyone does everything, at one time or another’. What that means is even though the most effective police (in the present culture) are scotts, that does not mean that there are no clarklike or rogerian police men and women. And, chemists are more likely to be rogers, yet you can find scotts and clarks in that profession. (look for the exploding laboratories). The point is, how well one does in a profession or job is very much related to how (that) job or profession manifests to them. One of the reasons that rogers make excellent accountants is that, for them, the world is quantifiable and knowable. So working with numbers is a joy, in and of itself.

 

Share