TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

‘Words and dreams, the bounds to earth maintained.’
Una has my back as I wrestle with them words and such…
(landscape orientation)
A bunch of natural brown things, blonde-brown oak floors in the middle left. Caramel-brown desk (with a plain, white sheet of paper) in the upper middle left and to it’s left a row of drawers in a brown that seems to want be darker than it is.
The right half of the photo has a truncated upper half of an exclamation point. That is the back of the chair I’m sitting in. (I’m that pale checker board shape, my shoulders distinguishable by their practiced slope).
To my left, Una sits upright regarding the camera. She is a tall, black triangle with two smaller triangles at the top and the hint of red tongue. Her front paws are beige, the rug underneath her is a beige, light brown.

This writing thing is an odd affair. As with so many endeavors available to us as humans, putting thoughts in words and those words ‘on paper’, can be a very different experience from one person to another. The thing of it is, writing isn’t simply merely a skill. Driving a car, hitting a tennis ball, mowing the lawn, those are ‘merely’ a skill. As with most skills, writing requires a commitment of considerable amounts of time. However, if the goal of this practice is more than being able to write a better email at work or a coherent set of instructions for household chores, it demands an emotional investment. The returns (on this investment) are manifold; not always what one might hope, nearly always more than one expects.

Una and the blogosphere are Grat Items: 1&2

The song I stumbled across (below)… odd. It’s one that initially is intriguing but, with repeated listens, becomes quite enjoyable. I will claim two grat items, as permitted in SR 893.2[para H]* (i.e. finding the song and being willing to take the chance with such selection.) Grat Items 2.5 and 3

4) Grateful for the Wakefield Doctrine in its way of (aiding, assisting, pushing) and otherwise tricking me along the path of self-improvement. The danger referred to (above) is the danger of finding something, in this case, the song, appealing and assuming others will agree (not like approval has ever been much of a prerequisite for Doctrine post, lol.) For whatever reason, I’ve the feeling that this choice labels me as overly sentimental in my taste in music this week. Not the first time thats happened, but for whatever reason, the self-consciousness is a touch higher. ah well, with growth comes change and change is, be definition, the unfamiliar. Not like this is a public place that I be trying out things, right? lol.

5) Phyllis. The evening before Valentine’s Day, Phyllis says, “Tomorrows Valentine’s Day. Do we do anything for that anymore?” To which I replied, “I don’t think so.” I followed that with, “If you bought a card for Una, I’d sign it.” We both laughed and one of said, “And a new bone…she’d enjoy that.”**

6) That darn Doctrine! Referenced a couple of times above. It’s fun and its helpful for anyone working on self-improving themselves.

7) FREE GRAT ITEM (Space Available INQUIRE in COMMENTS Section)

From Friend of the Doctrine, Cynthia:

“I would like to propose that I’m grateful for Saturday nite call-ins. It’s the greatest Q & A “radio” show evah! Haha. And I’m grateful for the upcoming spring weather. The crocus are peeking out, our tulip leaves are poking out of the ground by several inches! It’s almost here, friends! Haha.”

8) Josie Two Shoes. Not only working hard so that the light is always on here, but now, preparing the html that allows us to have the icons of all participants at the bottom of our posts. Fun to see, easy to use. Now you can click on the others and comment while playing whatever music vid I am inspired to inflict on visitors.

9) Sunday Supplement

10) SR 1.3

(the song clips off at the end, if you hit the > again, it will continue to completion)

 

*  Secret Rule 893.2[para H]*  which states, in part: “…[w]hen the Title says Ten Things of Thankful, but the math works better if a single item might count as two or in alia manu (‘on the other hand’) you need two items to compress into one, then the requirements stated, (in) the Book of Secret Rules (aka the Secret Book of Rules) carry the day (‘die portray’); one is permitted to do that, provided the writer concludes with a sincere and convincing argumentum ad populum. that and a picture of like, books and stuff…

** A word about buying Una a card (and a bone) for Valentine’s Day. She’s a dog. Of course she doesn’t know about Valentine’s Day. I’ll go so far as to say, she doesn’t care about Valentine’s Day. It has zero significance. She is our dog and Phyllis and me laughing at the thought of buying a card for a dog does matter to her. Very much. The three of us are a pack. We don’t always share the same tastes in things. We always enjoy the company of each other.

 

Share

Sangfroid(al) Sentence Friday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

If you aren’t in a hurry and have read the line above the photo, you’ve all the warning you are going to be afforded. That’s not meant to be aggressive or adversarial or sound like I’m being a dick. It’s just that sometimes very often, in order for me to participate in a bloghop, particularly one in which the contributors are real people and possessed of considerable skills, well, I just have to give myself the slip.

Trust me, it’s better this way.

Where was I?

Finish The Sentence Friday. Kristi and Kenya and them are all over the Listicle thing. (jeez… I hope I have that right) I better cut ‘n paste the instructions and such.

Hi all! We’re on with the Listicle week of FTSF with “10 things that are better than anything except being in love.” The linkup will open up at 10pm tomorrow, Feb. 8 (eastern). Interpret as you see fit and join us! The party stays open through late Sunday evening so there’s plenty of time.
Write your listicle, and head over to Kenya‘s site at https://www.kenyagjohnson.com/ or mine at http://www.findingninee.com. Hope to see you there

1) ‘List formats’ because, if you don’t have any content to start off, they’re real simple to outline. In fact, simply writing out the numbers (with parenthesizes and not letting the auto-format editor force you into meaningless indents), goes a long way to start the process.

2) Getting the first line written in a post. Ernest Hemingway, (not to be confused with Doug Henning) is believed to have said, ‘The first draft of anything is shit‘. That’s got to make you wonder what the first draft of that advice looked like.

3) To get way serious for a minute, if pressed for time, I could, in fact, list a number of things in my life that are ‘better than anything except being in love‘. The problem is that I participate in a weekend bloghop called the ‘Ten Things of Thankful’. It is a grat ‘hop and in it we list the things in our lives that elicit a feeling of gratitude. The problem with that is, I’m a clark. It’s not that clarks don’t have emotions, (or are not emotional), it’s just that we’re kinda the Ikea of the three personality types. You know, cleverly designed with a great finished look, some assembly required. We (clarks) have as large a capacity for emotion as scotts and rogers, we just don’t always read instructions real good and, like a RTA bed, if you’re in a hurry to use it, you don’t always end up with what you see in the picture on the box. Though you can sleep in it (or on it).

4) Hey! you know what I like? A bloghop that I curate called ‘the Gravity Challenge’‘. (It is such a clarklike bloghop! lol) It’s a weight gain/loss ‘hop. It serves an accountability function (that can be helpful in one’s efforts to self-improve-oneself). Simplicity itself. We send on photos of the readout on our scale every morning except Sunday. The cool thing is Kristi’s Rule. (Kristi Brierley is one of the charter members and when I suggested the idea of simply taking a photo, she added the element that makes the ‘hop effective… the photo can be all or part of the readout, either side of the decimal.) The point being, the participation is about change, not a set goal or number. It’s fun.

5) I will resist the temptation to list my other bloghops… wait, there’s only one other, zoe’s Six Sentence Story. It’s a fun exercise and perfect for my efforts at remedial composition. (God, if only I paid attention in high school English instead of trying to learn the lead riff to ‘Sunshine of My Love’… hell, by now I’d be…)

6) The halfway point in any List-format bloghop is totally one of my favorite things. (Perhaps a far distant second to being in love… my definition of which, given the demographic ’round here, I’m totally loathe to reveal. It’s not just being a clark. It’s being from Y Chromia. A mystical land where all good efforts are rewarded with loud noises and un-conditional admiration.)

7) I should return to the issue of clarks and emotion.  Maybe not. clarks reading this know what I mean. scotts and rogers will also know, provided they have significant secondary clarklike aspects. (the Doctrine maintains that while we are the personality type that reflects one personal reality (that of the Outsider, the Predator or the Herd Member), we have the potential of secondary and tertiary aspects. As an example, I’m a clark which means I should not be hitting ‘Publish’ on this post. I have a secondary scottian aspect, and so I have known to, in certain circumstances, run up and get in people’s faces and shout, ‘Hey!’)

8) I suspect any number of people here will have listed ‘family’ (and individual family components) by now in their respective lists. And that is as it should be. I, for one, read Dana’s posts and think… ‘See, clark? A post can be organized and logical and coherent and still convey genuine heartfelt emotion.’ Or the great ‘look at the photos and I will tell you a tale that launches from there’ of Tamara, or the personal journal directness of Kenya (where you feel the elements of her life that she shares). Janine, well, Janine is probably the longest-standing commenter here at the Doctrine (don’t hold that against her).   No, don’t even get me started on Kristi Campbell... When I first snuck in the FTSF, she not only didn’t rat me out, she made me feel like I could relax. (Unfortunately she also wrote blogposts that, as I read, inspired visuals of my computer (trailing the keyboard) flying out my windows and crashing into a million pieces on the deck. But I somehow didn’t.)

9) For me, however, (with my clarklike appreciation for the ‘real’ world) when it comes to family, (Phyllis and Una), I go to the things, the features in the world that they have formed and created and even, remodeled. This photo is not simply of a woman, a dog and a treehouse. It is a representation of the part of my reality that is pretty damn amazing.

10) Speaking of pretty amazing. Here is a photo of Ola. She was the best thing that ever happen to me.

Share

Phinish the Photo Pfriday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

Today we join Kristi and Kenya at the newly revamped Finish the Sentence Friday bloghop. The primary change was to provide a different ‘theme’ or prompt, each week. There’s a chart out there that Kristi put on the group’s page on ‘the Facebook’. It tells one what needs to be done, wordistically-speaking.

So this week it’s… (hold on, let me do a copy paste)

Finish the Sentence Friday is a link-up where writers and bloggers come together to share their themselves with a particular prompt (different formats each week of the month). If you’d like to participate, join our Facebook group. Link up your prompts below! Please no “link dumping.” If you include a link, comment on other posts.

 

Photo Share Friday – share a photo and share the story behind it.

So.

The story behind the photo.

This photo is, in a very real, yet quite imaginary sense, my very own: Wardrobe (CS Lewis), Tornado (L Frank Baum) Rabbit Hole (Lewis Carroll). The people in the photo are the namesakes of the central idea that brought me to the virtual world: the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

The Wakefield Doctrine is a perspective on the world and the people around us. It is easy to learn, fun to use and available only to those with the kind of curiosity that welcomes new ideas and the intellect to permit major league suspension of disbelief.

The people in the photo? They are the people from which we derive the three personality types1 of the Wakefield Doctrine. Before we go any further, I will state un-equivocally: the Wakefield Doctrine is gender, age and culture neutral. As it happened, the people around which the concept of the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers took form were three guys by the name(s): clark, scott, roger.

As with any personality type schema, the names are markers, the characteristics of the three types is where the fun (and usefulness) are at.

I’m thinking, ‘OK, the instructions for this week are clear enough, ‘share a photo and share the story behind it’. Do they mean the story of how the photo came to exist or do they want to know what the photo represents, symbolizes or simply ‘why this photo’.

Gotta go with Door Number Three.

You know how all those personality type systems with their clever little surveys and tests and all are so much fun to take and even more fun to share? “”Honey? Come here, there’s this Quiz on the Facebook, it so has you down to a ‘T'”.  The Wakefield Doctrine is exactly like that, except different.

Being a perspective, rather than a thing, the purpose, use and value of the Wakefield Doctrine is aid us in our efforts to better understand the world and people around us. The Doctrine approaches this by challenging us to discover how a person is relating themselves to the world around them. It (does this) by proposing that we all experience the world, to a small but certain extent, on a personal basis. This is referred to as a ‘worldview’. The theory holds that we are, all of us, born with the potential to experience the world (and, very importantly), grow up and develop in one of three worldviews, that of the Outsider(clarks), the Predator(scotts) or the Herd Member(rogers). At a very early age we end up in one and develop our coping strategies appropriate to the character of that worldview.

“But! But what the heck does this have to do with CS Lewis or, for that matter, the blogosphere? What about that?”

Guess I should describe the path from a chance insight in 1981 and typing today’s post.
In the summer of 2009, I was driving around with a friend talking about life, reality and ‘the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers’. For whatever reason, I said, ‘This theory is so true and so much fun, I got to do something more with it’. My friend replied, ‘I agree and, in my work in counseling, I do in fact use the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers at times. But the name is not good, too college dorm. You need a better name.’ I then said, ‘Alright then. From now on it’s the Wakefield Doctrine.’ He laughed, ‘That’s an excellent name. What are you going to do with this Wakefield Doctrine?’ I replied, ‘Well, I guess I need to start a blog. Let the world know all about it.’

The weird part? Until that Saturday evening, my opinion of blogs and bloggers was the rather typical, ‘Sure, now what makes you think that you have anything to say on this blog that anyone would care to read? What you had for breakfast? Maybe your opinion on the state of the world! Yeah, right.’ The thing is, with the decision came a passion that I cannot recall experiencing before, at least not in public and in the daytime. I found that writing posts was the opposite of work. I couldn’t wait to start the next one.

Now the really weird part. I didn’t change. I was still a clark. (I will leave the fun of discovering the full implications of that statement to new Readers). Suffice to say, all of my insecurities, fear of scrutiny, fear of looking like an idiot, fear of meeting people, all stopped existing in the context of writing this here blog here. Seriously. I found a strength (I already used the ‘passion word’) that not only had me going beyond my lifetime-accepted limitations, I enjoyed doing everything and anything I could to get the story of the Wakefield Doctrine out to as many people and readers as I could. This ‘everything’, included joining my first bloghop. Yep! Finish the Sentence Friday (and the Facebook) was a threshold I crossed that brought me into contact with many I still value as friends.

…the actual photo? Taken in the mansion at Harkness Memorial State Park on the shores of Long Island Sound in the town of Waterford, Connecticut.

Guess that says it all. The photo I’m sharing this particular Friday explains how it is I’m here sharing this photo.

1) hey! I was down here getting ready to disclaimer whatever it was I thought I should, to head-off any criticism of ‘over-reaching’ or ‘being silly’ with the terms I use to describe the Doctrine. You know, something to the effect that ‘this is all based on anecdotal evidence and does not claim status as…’ then it struck me, ‘Well, duh, clark. Give the readers some credit, why don ‘cha?’ Ain’t a chi square, distribution analysis or bell curve within fifty metres* of your blog.’
I thank you, future Readers, for reminding me to stay with what makes this Wakefield Doctrine so unique and fun… the fun and uniqueness of it!

* lol, sorry, couldn’t resist

 

Share

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