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

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

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

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

Cynthia then commented with the following:

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

Followed by Denise’s question/inference:

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You been told.

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

everything is personal with rogers

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

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

 

Share

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 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

-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?

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