the Wakefield Doctrine’s three personality types….” I know I have seen them somewhere…I’ve got it! Fairy Tales!”

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

Lets have some fun with this here Doctrine here.

You all are familiar with the characteristics of clarks, scotts and rogers, at least enough to recognize them in your close personal friends and/or family units, correct?1 (And), you have read here that the Doctrine is a unique and productive system of understanding the behavior of the people in our lives, right? The Wakefield Doctrine takes a unique approach to personality in that we say, “It is not the list of habits and self-descriptions that define and establish your personality ‘type’, no frickin way! Around here we say: “We all exist in one of three characteristic realities, and it is our appropriate and effective responses and reactions to the world, as we are perceiving and experiencing it, that determines if you are a clark or a scott or a roger. That lets you know which of the three personality types you are, then when you turn your attention (and the Doctrine) upon the people in your life you will learn so much about why they do the things that they do, that you will laugh and hurry to write us and tell everyone how useful this thing of ours can be; how you learn about the other person is as simple (but not easy) as the rest of the Wakefield Doctrine. What you want to do is observe the other person’s behavior and  infer the nature of the world they are experiencing“. That is what makes the Wakefield Doctrine unique and useful! This is true simply because if you allow that, say a clark exists in a world in which they are ‘natural outsiders’, then everything about the behavior of your clarklike friends makes so much more sense. You will not necessarily change how you feel about their lifestyle choices, but you will have a better understanding of the why to their behavior. The same applies to your scottian friends and your rogerian friends, of course.

For the purposes of today’s Post, we will think of Fairy Tales simply as Myths and Legends written for the masses. We do not lay claim, nor do we need to assert the requirement for an advanced understanding of the sociological, anthropological or any another -ogical in order to derive some understanding of the Wakefield Doctrine in the context of the tales that most children in most cultures at most times in the history of mankind are…exposed to. Lets just say, hey we all know about Little Red Riding Hood! Was she a scott or a roger or a clark? You know, like that!  ( Quick reminder! the Wakefield Doctrine is also culture neutral2, which simply means that despite the range of expression afforded individuals in any given culture, you can distinguish a clark from a scott from a roger. )

( ‘Hood’,  you’re up, yo)

The story revolves around a girl called Little Red Riding Hood, after the red hooded cape/cloak (in Perrault‘s fairytale) or simple cap (in the Grimms’ fairytale) she wears. The girl walks through the woods to deliver food to her sick grandmother.

A wolf wants to eat the girl but is afraid to do so in public. He approaches Little Red Riding Hood and she naïvely tells him where she is going. He suggests the girl pick some flowers, which she does. In the meantime, he goes to the grandmother’s house and gains entry by pretending to be the girl. He swallows the grandmother whole, and waits for the girl, disguised as the grandma.

When the girl arrives, she notices that her grandmother looks very strange. Little Red Riding Hood then says, “What big hands you have!” In most retellings, this colloquy eventually culminates with Little Red Riding Hood saying, “My, what big teeth you have!” to which the wolf replies, “The better to eat you with” and swallows her whole, too.

A hunter, however, comes to the rescue and cuts the wolf open. Little Red Riding Hood and her grandmother emerge unharmed. They fill the wolf’s body with heavy stones. The wolf awakens and tries to flee, but the stones cause him to collapse and die. (Sanitized versions of the story have the grandmother shut in the closet instead of eaten, and some have Little Red Riding Hood saved by the hunter as the wolf advances on her, rather than after she is eaten)

The tale makes the clearest contrast between the safe world of the village and the dangers of the forest, conventional antitheses that are essentially medieval, though no written versions are as old as that. The original was supposed to be a warning to young women about the sexual appetites of men (and the wolf-like qualities that they possess).  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Red_Riding_Hood )

Damn! topic complexity exceeding of credible scholastic credential for treating subject manner!! “Warning! Warning!! Danger, Will Robinson!! Danger!!”***

(Quick reference to one of the other popular Fairy Tales, as found in Western culture, at any rate… Ms. White!! take it home!)

The English translation of the definitive edition of the Grimms’ Kinder- und Hausmärchen (Berlin 1857), tale number 53, is the basis for the English translation by D. L. Ashliman.

Once upon a time as a queen sits sewing at her window, she pricks her finger on her needle and three drops of blood fall on the snow that had fallen on her ebony window frame. As she looks at the blood on the snow, she says to herself, “Oh, how I wish that I had a daughter that had skin white as snow, lips red as blood, and hair black as ebony”. Soon after that, the queen gives birth to a baby girl who has skin white as snow, lips red as blood, and hair black as ebony. They name her Princess Snow White. As soon as the child is born, the queen dies.

Soon after, the king takes a new wife, who is beautiful but also very vain. The new queen possesses a magical mirror, an animate object that answers any question, to whom she often asks: “Mirror, mirror on the wall / Who is the fairest of them all?” (in German “Spieglein, Spieglein, an der Wand / Wer ist die Schönste im ganzen Land?”; in Italian “Specchio, servo delle mie brame, chi è la più bella di tutto il reame?” ) to which the mirror always replies “You, my queen, are fairest of all.” But when Snow White reaches the age of seven, she becomes as beautiful as the day, and when the queen asks her mirror, it responds: “Queen, you are full fair, ’tis true, but Snow White is fairer than you.” Though in another version, the mirror simply replies: “Snow White is the fairest of them all.”

The queen becomes jealous, and orders a huntsman to take Snow White into the woods to be killed. She demands that the huntsman, as proof of killing Snow White, return with her lungs and her liver. The huntsman takes Snow White into the forest, but after raising his knife to stab her, he finds himself unable to kill her as he has fallen deeply in love with her. Instead, he lets her go, telling her to flee and hide from the Queen. He then brings the queen the lungs and the liver of a boar, which is prepared by the cook and eaten by the queen.

In the forest, Snow White discovers a tiny cottage belonging to a group of seven dwarves, where she rests. There, the dwarves take pity on her, saying “If you will keep house for us, and cook, make beds, wash, sew, and knit, and keep everything clean and orderly, then you can stay with us, and you shall have everything that you want.” They warn her to take care and let no one in when they are away delving in the mountains. Meanwhile, the Queen asks her mirror once again “Who’s the fairest of them all?”, and is horrified to learn that Snow White is not only alive and well and living with the dwarves, but is still the fairest of them all.

Three times the Queen disguises herself and visits the dwarves’ cottage while they are away during the day, trying to kill Snow White. First, disguised as a peddler, the Queen offers colorful stay-laces and laces Snow White up so tight that she faints, causing the Queen to leave her dead on the floor. However, Snow White is revived by the dwarves when they loosen the laces. Next, the Queen dresses as a different old woman and brushes Snow White’s hair with a poisoned comb. Snow White again collapses, but again is saved by the dwarves. Finally, the Queen makes a poisoned apple, and in the disguise of a farmer’s wife, offers it to Snow White. When she is hesitant to accept it, the Queen cuts the apple in half, eats the white part and gives the poisoned red part to Snow White. She eats the apple eagerly and immediately falls into a deep stupor. When the dwarves find her, they cannot revive her, and they place her in a glass coffin, assuming that she is dead.

Time passes, and a prince traveling through the land sees Snow White. He strides to her coffin. The prince is enchanted by her beauty and instantly falls in love with her. He begs the dwarves to let him have the coffin. The prince’s servants carry the coffin away. While doing so, they stumble on some roots and the movement causes the piece of poisoned apple to dislodge from Snow White’s throat, awakening her (in later adaptations of the tale, the prince kisses Snow White, which brings her back to life). The prince then declares his love for her and soon a wedding is planned.

The vain Queen, still believing that Snow White is dead, once again asks her mirror who is the fairest in the land, and yet again the mirror disappoints her by responding that “You, my queen, are fair; it is true. But the young queen is a thousand times fairer than you.”

Not knowing that this new queen was indeed her stepdaughter, she arrives at the wedding, and her heart fills with the deepest of dread when she realizes the truth. As punishment for her wicked ways, a pair of heated iron shoes are brought forth with tongs and placed before the Queen. She is then forced to step into the iron shoes and dance until she drops dead. (Other versions imply that she dies of a heart attack.)(?!  OMG! Lol) (  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White  )

Lets apply the Wakefield Doctrine, aka the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers to these two popular myths/fables/cautionary tales/Emily Post Guides

The scotts?

The clarks?

Any rogers?

I think, given the late hour, rather than try for a full-on analysis, we will just give a hint: the Hunter Figure (in the LRRH…?)  I’m getting a pretty strong rogerian vibe…
Also, don’t forget as you pore over these tales, that there in nothing wrong with finding more than one of each of the three personality types within the same Fairy Tale. There may be 2 scotts or 3 rogers…that sort of thing.
We consider it to be part of the strength of the Wakefield Doctrine,  that we can infer personality types from various perspectives.
For example, we may see the obvious predatory nature of the Wolf (again in LRRH), but what about Riding Hood, her ownself? Is that innocence genuine or is is contrived? If the former, then maybe a clarklike female, if the latter, then you have to consider scottian female or (even) rogerian girl. But the real value in this exercise in applying the ‘lens’ of the Wakefield Doctrine to get comfortable with the concept of attempting to infer the world that another ‘person’ inhabits, on the basis of their actions and reactions and manner of dealing with a situation.

So have fun! Write us your Comments. Don’t be concerned if it seems that the topic is too big and/or unwieldy for the scope of this Post. This is just practice ‘spotting the clarks and the scotts and the rogers‘ out there!

 

YouTube Preview Image

 

1) If you are willing to say that you cannot, then we applaud your honesty and say, “Good Reader! Now get your ass over to this Page and read up on the Wakefield Doctrine and then go to the Page on clarks, and then the Page on scotts and finally stop at the Page on rogers. It won’t take long, 5 minutes per will do it. Then hurry back to the Post’”

2) the ‘also’ alludes to the fact that the Doctrine is also gender neutral

3) Lost in Space, of course! Probably should stick to TV shows and recent movies…more …within my ken, as they say.  (They do? Who the hell says, within your ken? What the hell does that even mean?)

Video Friday! Episode 2!! the Wakefield Doctrine (wherein we reflect upon the significance and importance of the new Readers and participants in this) personality-theory!

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

Lets just go right to the Video!

YouTube Preview Image

That was fun! Hey, you know what the hardest part about writing these Posts is, at least lately?  Writing from a rogerian point of view.1 We know what it should ‘look like’, we know how the words should ‘read’, we have even had discussions on Saturday Night Drives about the ‘shape and tone’ of the rogerian style. But it is a lot like learning a new language. At first you memorize the words and common phrases and practice pronunciation. Then you begin to form whole thoughts and complete sentences (in this new language), finally you either get everyone in your language class to agree to speak only this language, or (better yet) you go to the country where they speak the language and try to get through a day.2

In any event, we will not be going into a long discussion of the challenge of writing in the rogerian language. For now we will direct your attention to Comments from the Progenitor roger, and DownSpring Phyllis (in the previous Post) and anything you will find on the Secessionist Rag, or mostly teachable. Those are written in the rogerian style. We bring this up as we are going to be making a concerted effort to bring in some (new) rogerian readers, or better I say, we will try to get the rogerian Readers out there to get more active with this Doctrine thing.

To that end, let me ask the question: Is there any interest to either: a) modifying the times of the Wakefield Doctrine Saturday Night Drive or 2) adding another ‘time slot’ doing an additional ‘call in’ show? We could do a Sunday morning or afternoon (which might be useful to our more time-zone challenged Readers). Just wanted to get the idea out there! Let us know your thoughts/impulses/feelings.

 

(cool, vintage music video:  only Hendrix could do a line like “…carnival traffic noise” and get away with it!)

 

YouTube Preview Image

 

1)  not as concerned with the language of scotts, mostly Hey! Fuck! come over here and ‘hey, pull my finger’ Mostly the written language of the scott is as the spoken language, very direct: noun-verb-object.  Pretty simple, isn’t it?

2)  people who actually do learn or teach foreign languages are invited to add to modify this description (of the learning process) apologies to any Rosette Stoners who may take offence at my simplification of an arduous and complex process.  (danke)

hey! my Day is Starting here….gimme something from the Wakefield Doctrine that will actually make a difference!!

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

Out “there”,  where you the Reader exists, chances are that at this present moment, you are going to work or waiting for the bus to school (or leaving the dorm for breakfast before your first class) or having coffee before starting the day keeping the household healthy and happy for babies and children.
Today’s Post,  we offer one single bit of advice (technically three single bits of advice) to you that will make a difference to you at some point in your day today. Your day will be better because of it.

 

 

clarks: make one List of the things you need to do today, (spend no more than 10 minutes on that list) and then….  put the List away. Put it in a place where it will sit until the end of the day. Do not put it among the things you will carry with you throughout the day, do not save a copy (if you are using a computer either print the list and put away or if not printing the list save it to the desktop on the computer.) Now go out and do everything you think you need to do just as if it were  the only thing on your List.
(At the end of the day you may look at the list and write us a Comment).

scotts: make one List of the things you think that other people ( your family, your boss, your workers) would be happy to see you do today. Take that List with you today. Check it constantly. When you see the opportunity to do anything on that List, do it. And (this is important) do not tell anyone about your List or about the things you do.
(At the end of the day you may tear up the List and write us a Comment).

rogers: make one List today of the things that you know you have to do, but really hate the thought of doing. Give this List to whoever is the ‘most’ Significant Other in your life at the present time. In the course of the day, contact this person and ask them to read you the List. Try to do at least one of the things that this person reads to you. Keep the List to yourself (and your significant other) do not tell anyone else.
(At the end of the day, ask your Significant Other if there is anything left on the list….and write us a Comment).

 

OK people!!  There it is  from the Wakefield Doctrine to you. A better day….

…don’t forget to write that damn Comment at the end of the day.

 

YouTube Preview Image

 

this Wakefield Doctrine, it will help me live a more satisfying life? It offers (me) a better way to relate to people? What do I do first?

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

The answers to the questions posed in the Title of today’s Post (in reverse order):

  1. …read as much of this blog as you need in order to understand the Wakefield Doctrine, read the Posts and Comment on at least one of the Posts
  2. …It most certainly does!
  3. yep!
While the three, conveniently numbered answers above are all the information that the clarks in the audience will require, lets take a moment to address the needs of our rogerian and scottian Readers. In their case, we will use (a) bullet point/numbered list format, mostly because it makes the information appear to be organized in a concise and direct fashion (for our scottian readers) while, at the same time,  making everything look all neat and orderly and deliberate ( you know, rogerian!)
First up, to our scottian Readers:
  • Hey! you’re not frickin gonna believe the ‘edge’ that this Doctrine thing will give you out there in the real world
  • Thats right!! an edge…an advantage that no one…no one else but you will have at work or at play or (especially) at home
  • this is really easy!  you’re right you do have it down pretty much already  just a couple of quick pointers
  • you’re the cool action-oriented one of the three
  • the rogers, the ones you love to make fun of?  they are so easy now it’s not funny ( just joking!  still funny but better!)
  • that third type? these ‘clarks‘? you still can get them to laugh, ‘cept now with the Doctrine, they’ll get all “hey scott you really understand the Doctrine now! thats great lets talk about the theory…blah…blah…blah
The rogerian Readers will find the Wakefield Doctrine interesting for the following, well-thought out reasons:
  1. there are numbered reasons and (they) are nicely indented
  2. obviously this Wakefield Doctrine was not developed by those scottian personality types, there is not a single crayon-drawn ‘FUCK’ anywhere to be seen (…on this page)
  3. it all seems to make sense and they do appear to be quite sincere in their appreciation of the necessity of maintaining traditions
  4. those clarks, hmmm …a little…wild-eyed and impractical, but they seem to be appreciating the necessity of maintaining traditions
  5. this all does seem to form a very neat and tidy box, too bad that I don’t recall ever having thought of it myself
  6. …wait a minute, this is all beginning to look a little bit familiar, I believe I thought of this in 1975…
Well, that should take care of all our New Readers.
Everyone else? Have fun! Seriously! (lol) after all is said and done, the Wakefield Doctrine is a fun, and useful and unique way of understanding the behavior of the people in our damn lives. If you know the characteristics of the three personality types, you are totally all set.
Boyfriend a scott? Forget the long involved appeals to his intellect:  go for the BRIGHT SHINY SEXY…when you have his attention (for however brief a time) you have all of him! As much as you are going to get, at any rate.
Wife looking like a roger? Fine, not the worst thing in the world! Need to get something done? Never surprise a roger, never present a new idea to a roger in public…always in private first get their attention” REFLECT SHINY SEXY/HOME IMPROVEMENT* If you manage to get her to believe that what you want is something that she already knew and wanted, you are all set.
clark for a friend?…how in luck are you! just don’t take their ideas and efforts at figuring our their own lives personally, there is nothing you can do to help…other than point them to this blog and hope for the best.
(Hey, do you think I should do that last section as bullet points too?…it really is some useful, practical Doctrine advice…now that I read it, it might be the whole point of today’s Post)

 

YouTube Preview Image

new blogs, old friends, three personality types all in search of a Title: the Wakefield Doctrine

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

Hey!  Look who’s back in town*!

Mel Thompson creator of 'the Spautula in the Wilderness' and 'Mostly Teachable' wearing his Wakefield Doctrine hat (on his damn head)

I was out one day a few weeks ago,  surfing through certain areas of the internet,  I think I was  ’following-back’  a twitter or a tweet or whatever the hell you call it and I came to a blogsite with an unusual name:  Mostly Teachable.
This was a little site with a very simple layout, consisting of a Title (with comic icon) a  Post and a ‘byline’. Intrigued I read the Post and thought to myself, ‘good stuff’.  After reading the Post, I glanced at the byline by  Mel Thompson!
As Readers of the Wakefield Doctrine may recall, Mel retired ‘the Spatula’ last Spring in order to pursue other priorities (mostly involving running through the streets of “Michigan” and otherwise focusing efforts on job/career concerns).  While we all applauded Mel’s running ambitions ( in particular the 22,880 yard dash!) we all hated to see  the Spatula close down.

Well, good news to start the New Year!

We welcome Mel (and Mostly Teachable ) back to the Wakefield Doctrine blogroll. This new blog is definitely a good place to go for a relaxing read after a long day of swatting misbehaving scotts with a rolled-up newspaper or after getting out the broom to chase those annoying  rogers off the back lawn!

Speaking of this weekend’s Wakefield Doctrine Saturday Night Drive, another good one! In attendance: DS#1, DownSpring glenn and Molly ( Ms. AKH was unable to attend…something about an issue of…better just go read her latest Post).
For you new Readers, the fun about the Saturday Drive starts with the weather! Since DS#1 and Molly were calling in from widely divergent geographical locations ( from somewhere warm and from one of those big square States out West , respectively). We covered the very wide range of topics that we usually do, of note this Saturday was a telling discussion on dreams, dream interpretation and the Wakefield Doctrine. From there we went to an argument over the question of musicals as a form of entertainment (and whether or not glenn should be embarrassed by his total enthusiasm for the genre.) Finally we talked about several side projects of DS1′s and Molly’s.

In the course of the Drive, the topic of scott-clark relationships briefly rose to topic-level. So to make this a totally, well-rounded Monday Morning Post, following is a brief, talking-point-ish discussion of one of (the many) interesting aspects of the clark-scott relationship.

It is well established that clarks and scotts get along very well, the clark-scott relationship has a dynamic and an excitement level that is very satisfying to both (clark and scott). There is, however, an interesting phenomenon that often shows up (in this particular pairing) that is illustrative of both the nature of clarks and the nature of scotts.  Most of the time and for the most part, clarks tend to be a pretty passive bunch. As ‘Outsiders’, clarks look to get along with everyone, avoiding conflict and confrontation at all costs. The clark is looking to simply blend into the crowd, not stand out.  The problem with (this approach) is twofold: a) there is always conflict and 2) clarks, despite outward appearances, are really very aggressive people. It is just that clarks, for the most part, don’t see sufficient reason in day to day life to go to the trouble of being aggressive.

One of the reasons that the clark scott relationship works so well is that while scotts are naturally aggressive and will always seek to establish dominance/ranking with everyone they meet, clarks basically don’t care. They don’t care about ranking, in that clarks are comfortable being passive most of the time which works out because scotts do care (about ranking). The problem arises when the clark encounters something that rouses their aggressive side. It may be a person or an an idea or a project, but it will make a clark care and therefore become protective and possessive. The scott (in the relationship of this example) usually does not see the difference until something causes the clark to exert themselves. The clark will stop being passive and become aggressive, usually having the effect of forcing the scott to see that the ranking that they thought existed, no longer applies. This is a problem more for the scott than for the clark. Ranking is everything to the scott, and it is not sufficient to know that they are dominant over another pack member, they (the scott) must know that there is someone dominant/superior to them in the pack. While clarks can be very dominant/aggressive, they do not have an instinct to establish a ranking position in a pack structure, and so the scott is left in the position of knowing they should be aggressive but not knowing where the boundaries are, relative to their relationships.

So stop by and see Mel…be sure to say Hidy!

 

YouTube Preview Image

 

* not literally town**

** more a place***

*** a place in the sense of a location in the blogsphere

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

© 2009-2012 the Wakefield Doctrine All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright