TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine- (Ten Grats ala ‘wordless’ noir)

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

“The Sun’s trail from the earth to the sky.”
(Landscape format)
The bottom third of the scene is the beach. The middle third is the sea. The top third is sky. And above all these thirds, out of view but nevertheless dominant, is the sun. This is a photo taken standing on a small sand dune, looking out to the ocean. Technically, it’s looking out over Block Island Sound and the Atlantic Ocean beyond. To the right middle of the horizon is Long Island.

Well, you have Friend of the Doctrine, Pat B to blame for this week’s…pastiche (aka Doctrine writing-style train wreck lol). Granted, I was on the fence as to the approach to this week’s TToT. (New Readers/Participants? Each week Josie Two Shoes organizes and opens the door to the TToT bloghop. As the name implies, the theme is gratitude and the ambition is ten (items that serve as illustrations or examples of what ignites a feeling of gratitude). What Josie provides is that sense that it’s all about the good intent and not the rules or standards or format of presentation.

Good thing, too. As I was saying in my lead-in. I had a couple of ideas for this week, but they were starting to feel like they might be pushing the bounds. Then I got a Comment from Pat on this week’s Six Sentence Story that spoke to the idea that many of us use these bloghops as opportunities to practice our writing and try things out, writistically-speaking, “...If it were not for those in this blogging world who are so accepting of those who try.” And, of all the ‘hops I participate in, the TToT is the most refrigerator-magnet conducive to those of us who get a kick out of writing for the fun of it.

Hey! That not only should be Number one this week, but it’s totally a prompt for a photo!

1) refrigerators as: galeries d’art amateur et de littérature

Refrigerator Art.
(Landscape format)
A black refrigerator. The view is of the top quarter which is pretty much the freezer door. The angle of the photo is such that we see the right side of the refrigerator as well.
The black metal finish is reflective, and since we are looking at it from the right, the reflection is of the opposite wall to the left. Stuck to the front are two note pads (held in place by magnets). On the right side we see enough detail to realize that the collection on that wall is made up of photos.
A light-brown oak cabinet door is to the upper left of the photo.


Well, one of the things I thought I’d try this week was to write some Grat Items in the style of the pulp detective stories (a writing style I really want to learn).

2) Una. “The file said, ‘Chodský pes’ and if I’ve learned one thing from my years as a gumshoe, its that slashes over letters usually spell trouble. My client and I stood at the window as the black SUV ate it’s headlights off the gravel driveway and parked in front the house. We thought we could hear barking.

3) Phyllis “There’s a saying, ‘a person who needs people is luckiest person in the world’, well, in my line of work, those are clients. Lucky is not usually how they feel when they pay my fee. This one was different. The people in her life were the lucky one. I still cashed her check.”

4) Work The photo at the top of this week’s post is from yesterday. I have clients looking for something on the water and so… the pain of being a real estate broker. lol.

5) Treehouse: Although a legitimate ‘standalone’ grat, the treehouse serves as an example of Phyllis’s (Item 3) capacity for wonder and (her) immunity to the forces that insist we all grow up and leave the childhood world behind.

6) Houseguests

A football with feathers.
(Landscape format)
A turkey stands in the lower left quarter of the photo. It is facing left. It’s like, totally an Egyptian turkey, ’cause there seems to be no dimensionality to it. Both legs, (we’re guessing they’re legs, because they’re on the bottom and don’t appear to have feathers).
The main body is totally football-shaped. The color is shiny grey and black. And there are variations and gradations in the color that, given that we know what it is, we’re inclined to identify as the wings and tail feathers. The head is decidedly vulture-looking with a downward-hooked beak and a totally beady eye. The Egyptian motif does not extend to the head. Thank goodness. That would be way creepy.

Not the brightest of birds in the world. That said, we didn’t see a single turkey until yesterday, a full week after Thanksgiving.

7) the Book of Secret Rules (aka the Secret Book of Rules) (“I was still on the force, paid by the week to obey someone else’s rules, when an old flatfoot by the name of Shaughnessy gave me advice that I’ve never forgotten. “Kid, it ain’t the procedures that ya gotta worry about. It’s the secret rules. Thems the ones that get made up by the guys that don’t need procedures” I heard he lived all of a week after hanging up the uniform. Too much change can kill a guy.”)

8) the Guest Room/ Guest Grat.  (this space reserved for anyone who might have a Grat Item but not the time to do a full-on TToT. Send it in and you can be a guest of the Wakefield Doctrine this week. (… yeah, you might want to talk to some of the other writers, the less… outré  lol they’ll give ya the scoop)

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

10) Secret Rule 1.3

This way to the Ten Things of Thankful midway





-the Wakefield Doctrine- “…of time and effort and the secret toll of self-improvement.”

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

So we were talking on the Saturday Night Call-in this past weekend. ‘We’ being Denise and Cynthia and myself. And we got on the topic of writing blog posts and the ‘early days’. Cynthia was already ‘here’, I met her at ‘the Facebook’ (and the FTSF bloghop, I believe), and Denise showed up in the ‘sphere shortly thereafter.

The level of creative output, ‘then versus now’, is invariably a topic when bloggers reminisce about ‘the early days in the ‘sphere’. There’s never a dispute that we wrote more (or, at very least, posted more frequently), the interesting question, of course, is ‘Why (the slower/lesser)?’

The short answer: we were young. Which, in the true, underlying intent of this post and topic, raises the question: What does the Wakefield Doctrine say about youth, being young, acting your age and be careful what you wish for?*

(Quick reminder: we’re born with the potential to live in any of the three worldviews. Even though we settle into one at a very early age (like, 2 or 3 years old), we spend the childhood years learning the ropes. And this…this is at the heart of the difference between the Doctrine and all the other perfect-insight-into-a-total-stranger’s-inner-self, personality systems. The aggressiveness, impulsiveness, and tendency to act before thinking that are hallmarks of the scottian personality is exactly the correct way to act…provided you grew up in the reality of the Predator. The world of eat-or-be-eaten, run-or-get-caught, requires an entirely different set of skills than does the world of the Herd Member or the life of the Outsider. We don’t get all hung up about sufficient/insufficient, appropriate or maladaptive behavior here, it’s about ‘what did you have to learn, what was the style of coping with the world was required to get through childhood?‘ A scott lives in the reality of the Predator. Their strategies of interaction (with the world around them) is perfect. In the world of Predators. As it is with clarks and rogers. I’ve said too much already.)

the Wakefield Doctrine’s position on youth and childhood?:

  1. clarks are born old (and know it and try, unsuccessfully at first, to hide it)
  2. scotts are born late into adolescence  (and enjoy every minute of it and barely notice the difference between adults and children)
  3. rogers are born young and carefree (they are secure and not in a hurry as the world is clearly a reasonable and orderly place… all they have to do is learn the Rules)

So, what did we conclude from our shared insights discovered as we drove through the streets and avenues of Wakefield? While improving one’s skill, (in this context, writing) is certainly desirable, maintaining the enthusiasm, (see!?! what I just wrote?  that is the thought of an ‘old(er)’ person. ‘Why, yes. It’s certainly an admirable goal to make an effort to continue doing what you enjoy doing, provided it doesn’t get out of control.’  lol

No, we all need to nurture our inner scottian natures. Except for the scottsthey have to nurture their inner clarklike aspect. And rogers? oops outa time…. ask us in a comment! I promise to answer.


1) (I suspect that only Denise and Cynthia will get this abbreviated footnote, at least in the context of our discussion this weekend. Ed.) Oh man! I can’t end a sentence with ‘for’…. thats, like, against one of the Seven Cardinal Rules of Grammar! Or it’s the difference between a B- and C+*

* this may seem a minor and totally inconsequential difference in grades, unless you’re a clark…. or a roger (‘cept for totally different reasons)  for a clark, it’s the difference between a kiss and a handshake on the porch… both are in the realm of surprisingly successful, but the promise of the former creates an immeasurable gap between the two in terms of value. for a roger? Letters are elements of the Herd. Need I say more?


TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘…post-Thanksgiving gratitude list?! sounds a little dangerous to me, if you know what I mean.’1

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

“Sitting at my desk at two minutes past five on a Friday afternoon, deep in the season of darkness.”
(Landscape orientation) The perspective of a person sitting at a desk, closely enough that the nearest edge of the muted-toffee top does not show. Most of the lower half of the photo is of the desktop. Except… it is not a full and even right-to-left claim on the bottom of the photo. The desk’s left edge is up against a wall that has a pair of windows. The wall on the left (with those two windows) takes up most of the left side of the photo but in the middle (of the scene) the left wall becomes the opposite wall.
The result is: while nearly all the elements in the photo are of square/rectangular shapes, not are straight, at least from the perspective we are afforded in the photo.

In the spirit of the delicious and lovingly prepared, multi-vehicle, interstate highway pile-up of a dinner this Thursday past, I’ll continue the theme in this week’s TToT.

Thanks go out to: Josie, Una, Phyllis, clients, the Graviteers, Joules (and her human, zoe), the fabulous Hexaliterati at the Six Sentence Story, the Book of Secret Rules (aka the Secret Book of Rules), Sister Bernadine of St. Dominique’s…oh and the the inventors of camera phones, Kerry (SOC-extrodinairette and road-trip role model), whoever invented yellow lined-pads, Cynthia and other like-minded clarks with the skills and discipline to ‘take the message’ out to the clarks who still live in the shadows. the movie ‘Tin Man‘ and the oddly encouraging personality quirk of un-justifiable ambition and delusions of literary skills beyond any reasonable assessment.2

There, that was a quick and simple TToT

A few feet notes, photo descriptions and a music vid and we’re done!

Hey! remember the ’70s?  (“You don’t?  No, no need to bother your parents…sure, I realize it’s just a quick call …no, I’m quite aware that Wikipedia is a keystroke away…. well, here watch the video and try to imagine a time/culture/milieu when the special effects contributed to the listener’s enjoyment of the song…no, seriously, It did.)

1)  It is axiomatic that if a person revisits the Wakefield Doctrine more than twice, (once by accident, once again to be certain that the author of the blog wrote what they thought he wrote), that person is: a clark or a scott or roger with a significant secondary clarklike aspect. ya know?

2) So let’s try and organize this mess ‘o grats. There are People, Places and Things that, by being present in my timeline, provide a positive influence on the path of its continuation.

The ‘People’ (in the above citation) are self-explanatory. (Yes, I will wait for the clarks to stop laughing.)

For the benefit of those new to this blog, I will list Una separately (from the people). Here is a photo:

Older Readers are permitted to laugh at the incidental (however greatly appreciated in retrospect) resemblance to a wonderful cartoon series from the 1960s, ‘Mr. Peabody and Sherman’ The term side-long glance is totally appropriate.
A landscape orientation.
Una on the left sitting upright on her haunches (forelegs straight, supported by front paws), in a bad-choice green leather wingback chair. She is looking directly at the camera, with mouth open, pink tongue anchoring the rounded ‘V’ of her face and head.
Phyllis is sitting to the right (Una’s left). She is not sitting upright. She does not appear to even be sitting in a chair. We guess this because the top of Phyllis’ head and Una’s head on a level.
Phyllis is not looking at the camera. She is looking at Una. She (Phyllis) has her left arm on the arm of the leather chair and, as a result, is leaning out of upright, towards Una.
The sidelong glance is apparent, despite the fact that Phyllis is wearing glasses. Her torso and head are facing the camera. Her eyes are looking at Una.
To seal the deal, Phyllis is wearing a turquoise tee shirt.
Una, on the other hand, conveys a sense of being properly and formally dressed for the occasion.

The ‘Places’ include the office in the photo at the top of the post. (“Yeah, the rogers are sitting with totally over-loaded thought balloons with, like, ‘there’s something wrong in that picture, hey that clock on the wall…wait just a damn minute!’) Direct your questions, concerns, outrage and complaints to zoe, thank you very much.

And finally, the Things: the Wakefield Doctrine. The reason for my presence in this virtual funhouse, everyone’s favorite ‘sphere, the blogosphere.

Here… that’s right…go ahead, click and read the other writers participating in the TToT


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.



Finish the Sentence Friday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

Sometime in February/March of 2013, I worked up the nerve to participate in my first bloghop, Finish the Sentence Friday. Hosted at that time by Janine, Kate, Stephanie and Dawn, joining in marked a transition in my online life. Up until then, starting June 9th 2009, (come on, everyone remembers their first blog post…right?), I devoted my time in the ‘sphere to writing posts about the Wakefield Doctrine. For whatever reason, I worked up the nerve to go over to their blog (yeah, the high school metaphor’s been with me from, like, the minute I turned the computer back on.*) and I wrote my first Finish the Sentence Friday post.

Since that time, I’ve met some very remarkable people and have become friends with many of them. And that’s where the temptation to indulge in metaphor begins. Meeting new and interesting people, not something I’m naturally inclined to do.

“But it wasn’t a dream — it was a place.

         And you — and you — and you — and you were

         there.” (Dorothy Gale)

Kristi was gracious enough to invite me to co-host the Finish the Sentence Friday bloghop this week. In part, because I’d returned to joining in on Fridays and, one Friday, a few weeks ago, I threw out a sentence fragment in a comment and Kristi replied, ‘Hey, I like that! That might make a good sentence fragment.‘ So, here we are.

(Can’t say enough about Kristi other than, if I knew about her and wasn’t already a friend, I’d be too intimidated to introduce myself. But that’s getting ahead of the sentence fragment. Suffice it to say, Kristi Campbell is one of the most able women I know. I consider myself fortunate in being allowed to hang out here. So join Kristi and me at the best of all bloghops…. the Finish the Sentence Friday.

“A study released by the Department of HHS reports that most people consider their online relationships comparable to their social experiences in high school… this is true because….”

...For some of us, the virtual world is not simply a place drawn in phosphorescence and LEDs, binary yes(s) mating with stubborn no(s), a place of mathematical precision and statistical approximations of feelings and intuition. For some of us, its a reality of metaphor and stories. The world online is a place where the social contract has been stood on its head.

In our lives (in the real world), when we interact with others: visiting relative’s homes, running into our children’s teachers at the convenience store or meeting friends at the mall, our personal lives are subject to immediate validation. Your car sits in the parking lot, your children wear the clothes you pick out (or not,depending on age) and your life is a page in an increasingly public record.

In the virtual world, however, we are, in a very real sense, a story we tell those we meet. When we interact in the various locales such as Twitter or Facebook or on bloghops such as this one, we tell our story. The virtual world, at least the parts that I frequent, is very much a world of words and writing, stories and imagination, risk and rewards.

It’s a secret rule of life that the rate of meeting new people and making friends is inversely proportional to age. In the real world. there are only so many people who can fit into the: work places, schools, daycare, health clubs, churches, neighborhoods, supermarkets, doctor’s waiting rooms, therapists offices, barracks, bunkhouses, cells, wards and three-bedroom-colonials-on-a-quarter-acre-with-a-really-great-HOA. When limited opportunity butts heads with escalating demands on our personal time, is it any wonder that 80% of our real world friends are those we met back when we were still in school?

Then there is the virtual world. Available anywhere and anytime. And with more people (on the other side of the screen) than you could fly over in a plane on a four-hour flight.

And,(to try to establish the basis for my post….finally), just as it was in high school; when we arrive in the world-online, a social environment is waiting for us to negotiate, navigate and accommodate. There are people already here. They’ve been here long enough to establish their own little corners of the ‘sphere. Some of the people on the ‘net we meet because they on in our path. I mean, you have to get into line in order to get lunch, right? And, if you’re in line to get lunch, eventually you have to come out of the serving area and face a room (small or huge) of people eating lunch. Already seated. At their own tables. With their friends.

(lol  ok, so my own experiences with high school are not exactly 100% positive.) But I made it through those years. And now, a lifetime later, I find myself in a social environment that, with only a little imagination, looks a lot like high school. The difference is not that ‘I am older and mature and know better.’ That would be the easy and not-overly productive way out. The difference is that I choose to see the metaphor because it allows me to see myself in a slightly different perspective than might someone, (a roger, for example, who might say, ‘Dude! it’s the internet. You’re an adult. Stop with the make-believe, the trying to relive the past‘) who does not see the common points between past experiences and present reality. And the Wakefield Doctrine is about nothing, if it’s not about taking advantage of varying perspectives on the world in the service of becoming a better person.

Anyway… the value, (for me), of indulging in the conceptual metaphor of ‘the blogosphere as high school’ is that it allows me to make different choices and, by doing so, come to accept that ‘experience does not define the entire person’. My personal history, the social one inferred in this post, is not the summation of my potential. It is a description of choices I’ve made. The unfortunate thing about life is that, for some of us, when we look at the choices we’ve made (some consciously, others under duress, still others under the influence of others), we feel that they define us.

This time around, I’m finding it a little easier to be uncomfortable around others. I’m more willing to take risks, despite how foolish a part of me says I am. And, as a result, I have a bunch of friends that I might not otherwise had and, from that, I become a better person.

Thanks Kristi!


This has been a Finish the Sentence Friday bloghop post. Come on! Join in…. you’ll be glad ya did. Get on over to Finding Ninee and tell ’em the Doctrine sent ya.



* I remember writing my first post in large part because of what happened when I completed the process. So, I wrote and I edited and did all the things that we all do, Then came the moment… to hit ‘Publish’. I went through a number of clarklike changes and finally hit the button. I then reached down, turned off the computer, got up and went down to the garage, got in my car and drove away from my house.  Eventually I returned and turned on the computer and the rest has simple.

** Outsider (clarks), Predator (scotts) or Herd Member (roger)