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

re-print…print Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘…famous moments in Doctrine History*’

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

I was going to use the old come-on that the networks employed a few years ago to pedal their re-runs, ‘if you haven’t seen it, it’s new to you’. I think that’s down right insulting. It’s as if they believe that the viewer a) will not watch any program unless it’s brand new and 2) is not ontologically sophisticated enough to appreciate the quality of enduring permanence of un-viewed episodes of ‘Here Comes Honey Boo Boo’. The nerve of them!

In any event. What follows is not only an informative, useful and straight-up Doctrine post, it’s also is a marker of significance in the development of our little personality theory. I speak of the ‘discovery’ of ‘Referential Authority’, an artifact found deep within the predominant worldview of rogers. What makes this discovery important is that while the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine are so robust as to allow us to experience the world as do the three types, there is a limit to how far in we can get.

How did this come to pass? The response of rogers to Option 3 in the scenario. When I asked a roger for their opinion of one of the possible responses, i.e. ‘go ahead and be helpful and clear tables’, the reaction was one of outraged disbelief that anyone could even consider taking such action. Seriously upset. All of them. The rogers, to a man/woman, said (actually, kinda yelled) ‘No way is that appropriate.’

The response was so powerful and consistent among rogers that that famous light bulb totally showed up over my head. (Alas, I weep for the young. What are they going to have appear over their heads when they experience an inspired breakthrough? …one of those sideways donut-shaped light things…. “oh, it’s so efficient!” So what if, by the time it gets bright enough to be able to count the fingers on your hand, you’re done with whatever your were trying to see. Oh, that’s right  your generation reads off your little cell phones. Your book or movie or imaginary friend is 4.5 inches (on the diagonal) and is all you need to see where you are going in life.)

In any event with a little more talking and exploring it was discovered that in the reality of the Herd Member, there is no higher authority than Referential Authority. (If you’d like further clarification on the practical application of this insight, you have but to ask).

On with the Reprint!

 

from May 9, 2014:

‘close your books, and we will begin the Test’ the Wakefield Doctrine’

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

("no, scott I don't think that…clark!! stop encouraging scott….roger, at least you seem to be serious about this!)

(“no, scott I don’t think that…clark!! stop encouraging scott….roger, at least you seem to be serious about this!)

Congratulations! You have completed Neutronium Week (at the Wakefield Doctrine).

very well done

***Warm up Question: The personality type that is the best at giving Compliments:

  1. clarks… not! sorry, they are great at a lot of things but (see?! see!?!! right there!!! he’s making up the fricken Question and he can’t give a compliment without holding back…. jeez!!!)
  2. scotts  totally direct and enthusiastic and you will know that you have been recognized by the (local) pack Leader ( no! under no circumstances should you ‘join him/her up there in front of everyone and let everyone see what the fuss is all about!’)
  3. roger  yeah, pretty good at conveying a compliment… famous, in fact, (where is that wikipedia?…)  “…and Brutus is an honorable man.”   see?  rogers are great at eulogies and even bar mitzvahs !

OK  Everyone ready?

…begin

You totally need a job. You see an ad in the local paper. ‘Hopper’s All-Nite Eats’ needs help to cope with increasing business, call 212-666-1234 for an Interview‘.  You’re a little early for your appointment with the owner. The place is quite busy for 10:30 on a weekday morning, all but 2 tables are occupied.  The Owner is at the grill cooking, (this is an open kitchen design), he looks up as you walk in the door, waves a spatula in the direction of the empty table near the door and goes back to cooking. There is a woman standing at the cash register, ringing out a customer.  She looks up, frowns then smiles and says, “You must be Emily! To be honest with you, I’m really kind of busy right now, but I left an application on that table over there. If you want to get started I’ll try to get over to you in a minute. We’re really kinda swamped right now“. Looking over to the table, you see a single sheet of paper marked Application for Employment.

Do you:

  1. Sit at the table, (not before taking out a tissue and wiping off the table top) and begin to read the Application for Employment?
  2. Decide that the Owner should have paused at least for a moment, and come over to properly introduce himself and even though the woman at the cash register seems nice,  they are both being rude, so you turn around and walk out of the restaurant?
  3. Pick up the dishes from a recently empty table and take them to what appears to be the kitchen…?

OK

If you haven’t already done so, go to the  Pre-dominant Worldview Assessment and take the Test, come back and tell us how you did, ok?

* Yes! As a matter of fact I did capitalize the word ‘History’ to draw in our rogers…very good!

here, a little mind worm to get you started on the day… don’t say the Doctrine never gave you anything

Share

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

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

TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

‘Una standing watch over the house and home’.
Landscape format.
Una is sitting in the picture window that looks out over the driveway and the neighbors backyard.
Nicely apportioned elements make up this photo.
All though the entire field of view is the picture window, Una dominates the right half of the scene. (The window continues behind her but of limited detail.)
Una is presenting her left profile and is looking towards something out of frame to the left. She is focused on whatever it is that has her attention. Her ears are up, two small black triangles that are titled slightly forward which brings our attention to her eyes more than it does to whatever it is she is looking at.
Una is almost entirely black. Fortunately for us, what is not black is both an intimately familiar hue and is associated with those parts that we all know are important. Above her eyes at the inside edge are two beige commas of light coloring. These spots draw our attention to her eye, her lower eye lid, not having fur, reflects the light coming in through the window. The pupils of her are a peanut brittle brown and there is the tiniest of glints of light above the very dark center of her eye.
From the sharp points of her ears, soft-curves take over the definition of Una’s profile. Curving down past her eyes is a straight edge of her snout (un-measurable variations in the black conveys the round curves of her nose down towards her upper lip) to the end of her nose. No surprise that the end of her nose, being free of external hair and fur is marked with a shiny reflection of the outdoor light. Entirely appropriate similarity to the markings of her eyes. Scent rivaling sight as her connection to the world around her.
On the reverse curve her mouth shows as slightly open. Enough to see pale red tongue between ivory white teeth.
Beyond the glass and dominating the entire left half of the photo is the view of the front yard of our house and the backyard of one of our neighbors. The land upon which our house sits (and Una guards) is mostly the land behind the houses that line the street. Our driveway is long and narrow and runs between two of our multiple neighbors. Picture a row of squares, their tops all aligned on the horizontal plane, they present a unified shape. Abutting each other is no problem because they are all square in shape and, in the simplest of terms, when your boundaries are connected by ninety degree angles and your next door neighbor’s boundaries are connected by ninety degree angles, there really is little to argue about.
Until, that is, someone pushes one of the square lots ten feet to the right and the adjoining property is pushed almost ten feet to the left, predictability takes a holiday. When you great a space between two equal squares you force their back boundaries to become more important than they needed to be, Think: upside down T

 

 

This week, on the TToT:  wild turkeys! (the kind with actual feathers, not the ones that convince you that you can catch one and have your very own, all natural Thanksgiving), getting dark way too early, Halloween, a Quinquennial Visit from Vinny the Junkman (and the corresponding archeo-cleaning of the basement), work and the quandary of caring too much, Una, Phyllis, finding a photo of a letter on a mountain side, car chases and much, much more!

(Continuing with the ‘theme’) Brought to you by Josie Two Shoes and the fine, fine, folks at the Ten Things of Thankful (made possible by the dogged determination of an English Gentlewoman who is, most assuredly, by all reckoning, no (direct) relation of CS Lewis.

On with the show!

1)  Una and Phyllis

2) We had a major clean-out of stuff. Interesting process given that Phyllis is a roger and I’m a clark. clarks are not known for seeing the preservation of the past in the form of mementoes, keepsakes, knitted rugs, household expense ledgers, and most text books from school days. rogers, being the force behind continuity and tradition will tend to see things as needing to be saved. clarks are less… concrete. We do have a sentimental streak but it is not usually on display (at least as far as we can tell) and it is not aggressively acquisitive. In any event, we have these clearing of the house (and garage and shed) events every few years and it is a manifestation of the consultative process as most couples experience it.

3) A few years ago I went to Salt Lake City for business. This is a photo from my room in the Grand America hotel. The reason for this being here is that I’m grateful I found the photo. The reason I’m grateful I found it was that when Kristi moved out to Utah recently, she posted a photo of a mountain side with a big letter ‘Y’ on it. My brain said to me, it said, ‘hey clark! that letter is different. what are those Utohians up to?’ Ya gotta open the photo and then zoom in on the upper left quarter where you’ll see a big, white, letter ‘U’

4) Driving on a semi-rural road on a pleasant-enough day:

5) Difficult Clients. Odd Grat Item, fer sure. But, the thing of it, most of the time when there is stress, I can trace the source back within myself to fear. Fear’s a funny thing. “ja ja” (as Friend of the Doctrine, ClairePeek might comment). Common fear is (usually) big and obvious and obnoxious, that kid in the 6th grade of the one in the 10th grade. And, thank god for the good intentions of those of us who populate the virtual world, there is no shortage of advice and strategy when it comes to contending with Fear (the bully). But he has a sister, who is quiet and charming and, (to some of us, irresistible), when first we meet. She’s all, ‘you are this’ and ‘you are that’ and ‘everyone doesn’t understand you the way that I do’. This lower case fear tends to shape our opinions and perceptions of the world and its people, (mostly, it’s people). Her brother Fear pretty much has laid claim to the objective world. Her’s is the voice that says, ‘if you do that, they won’t like you.’ and ‘suppose you’re wrong, can we just talk for a second how bad it might turn out?’ That is the fear causes me more trouble than the, “Hey! Look at how far up we are!!” The lower case, (and way more alluring), fear will touch my arm in a way both exciting and reassuring and say, “Now everyone will read the post, be careful, you don’t want to get to weird.

Thats why I claim ‘Difficult Clients’ as a Grat Item. They provide me with an opportunity to look within and see how I make decisions regarding the world around me. (aka ‘how I relate myself to the world around me’ which is a totally slick segue to the next Grat!

6) The Wakefield Doctrine (well, duh!)

7) Did I say there was a lot of wildlife in our area this year? (no, not that wild life… lol) This is a combined Grat Item. Work and interesting events and technology

8) Sunday Supplement Photo Insert!

‘Phyllis and Una walk up from the pond and pass the treehouse as they head towards the house.’

‘The rock rests on a perch. It’s separation from the earth an indulgence to the ephemeral life-forms that, with the conceit of conscious self-awareness, have raised it on a pedestal nearly as fleeting in permanence as they are; the rock does not wait, it endures.’

 

Phyllis and Una, nearly home, pass the mailboxes that have been drafted into bird feeder duty. They surely are not amused.’

9) This SPACE AVAILABLE (To any almost-ready-to-participate-but-still-would-rather-see-what-it-looks-like-to-put-thoughts-into-words-and-then-put-them-up-there-in-lights Reader. Send in your Grat Item as a Comment.)

10) Secret Rule 1.3

Click here!

This week’s music vid is an old cover of an older song. Given our demographic, the cover will be more familiar than the original. And, as sometimes happens, the cover is, imo, superior to the original (even allowing for musical tastes).

Share