Month: April 2010 | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 3 Month: April 2010 | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 3

that ought to hold the little bastards

April 13, 2010 By

Back by Self-Induced Demand! 

We did our first ‘Advice Column with Ms AKH’  back in January, it was an offshoot  of a Post  (that she wrote about couples).  Like nearly every other Post, it served as a way to present  the Wakefield Doctrine in an everyday context.  Following is the second in this series of Advice Columns,  which we have decided to title: ‘as if I care‘. 
As an added bonus,  we have asked some of our other Progenitors and Downsprings to participate. The advantage (of this) will be to offer the view point of other types (i.e. a clark and a roger).

   

Question:
Dear Ms. AKH,
I am a sophomore at Fillmore High School, get pretty good grades and am on the track team (high hurdles). There is a girl in my history class who was very nice, very pretty and she even laughed at my jokes. Anyway, I finally worked up my nerve to ask her out. I thought a football game would be the best safe first date. So I asked her on (a) Tuesday and she said yes! I was totally surprised. Anyway I told everyone and even my parents (who I needed to borrow the car from). Everything was perfect but then on Friday before the game Nancy (the girl I asked out) told me that her aunt was sick and that she could not make our date. :( I was very disappointed. But she said next game…Trouble was I did not what to tell my parents (not every day I get to borrow the car). So I went to the game anyway.  On the way from the parking lot, guess who I see? It was Nancy! (With some guy from the wrestling team). Here is my question: She came up to me and said hi and I got nervous that she would remember that she told me she couldn’t make it to the game. I was afraid she would be embarrassed. So I said ‘hi’ and made a couple of jokes and got out of there! Does that make me weird? Does the Wakefield Doctrine have anything to help? 
(PS. After the game I went to the McDonalds where everyone goes and bought 2 meals and sat in my car…I kinda laughed at that).  I really should ask: should I be:  a)worried;  b)scared or  c)planning on going to a monastery
signed: whats wrong with me?

Answer:
JOANNE:    That sounds like something I would do, or feel.  Why should I care how she feels, I’m the one who should be feeling bad, but that’s a roger for you.  It doesn’t make you weird, just a probable roger.

DOWNSPRING#1:    You need to be all three, Mr. “what’s wrong with me” – worried, scared and plan on going into a monastery. 
You are a young and as yet unaware clark and as such, not only do you have the typical life as a teen issues, you also have the fear typically carried around by clarks.  Here is your new homework assignment:  go to the Wakefield Doctrine and read each page on the 3 forms, clark, scott and roger.  Study, study.  Then read all the other stuff.  Conduct your own “test” and try and identify the object of your desire and her new boyfriend.  If you can start knowing how they “view the world”, how they act in it won’t be such a mystery.  If you had had all this information on that Friday before the game, you would not have been so shocked by seeing Nancy and her wrestling guy.
Now to my actual advice:  get over yourself and your self consciousness.  One day you will learn(hopefully soon) that clarks have an affinity with scotts.  What does this mean? It means that if you grow a set and stop the self indulgence you can confidently “get the girl”.  Ask yourself next time, “what would a scott do?”.

  

Question:
Dear Ms. AKH. My Husband says he wants a divorce!  He is a good man with a steady job (an engineer), this comes as a total shock.  He has always been quiet, works hard and his only hobby is one of those model airplane clubs.  He goes every Saturday and stands around and flies these scale model airplanes.  But that is all he does.  He is not telling me why he wants this, just says that he ‘needs more from life’.  I read the Wakefield Doctrine blog and I think he is a roger.  But I don’t care about that, I just want my family back (we have a dog but no children, he never wanted children). Help!
signed:  Quietly waiting at home. 

Answer:
MS. AKH: Your husband definitely sounds like a roger.  Especially being an engineer.  (Did you know that (rogers) are the engineers and accountants of the world?  Their perception of the world is one in which everything is ‘quantifiable’,  as if, lol)  They also exhibit “herd-like” tendencies.  That is to say, they do not venture away from others unlike themselves.  Not sure what to make of your spouse’s desire for a divorce.  Perhaps he is a restless roger (unusual but not unheard of) and his seemingly mundane flying of the airplanes is, in fact, not so mundane in his mind.  It may be symbolic of his desire to travel to exotic places.  Break away from the herd as it were.  Rather than being “quiet at home” you should try to ‘spice things up’.  Try asking him about where he thinks of going to when he’s flying his planes. Is he flying in circles or is he going somewhere. Hey if he answers the second, surprise him with tickets for a trip  somewhere.  It may just satisfy his desire for needing more from life.  Change the routine of everyday life.  Become more spontaneous.  Shake things up.  I hope this is helpful and remember, don’t sit quietly at home.  Get up off of the couch.  Buy something that will really attract his attention (if you know what I mean).  Put yourself out there girlfriend and re-ignite the flame!  

JOANNE: I’m pretty sure that I would have known something was wrong and would not have been shocked.  I probably would have already started asking him what’s going on.  I would ask him why he wants a divorce and I would probably feel devastated.

  

Question: 
OK, Ms. “like I care”, tell me how to handle this one.  I started a new job about a month ago.  I am a cashier in a retail environment.  No responsibility other than “checking ” people out.  Here’s the thing.  My previous work history involved some management experience and I can’t help but notice that there are several fellow employees in need of some “guidance” as to their professional comportment.  Do I talk to my immediate managers about the fact that there needs to be some training or rather re-training of some people?  Or, do I try and impart some wisdom to these people myself?  Do I go right to the top and talk to the Store Director?  It bugs the crap out of me to watch anyone embarrass themselves professionally when often all they really need are some “helpful” tips. 
Signed: tight lipped in Telluride. 

Answer:
Downspring#1:   Well, the answer depends. What do you want? Are you concerned with these employees or are you concerned with the store (how it looks to the public). Look at it from the perspective of a roger and a scott, (we will assume, from the tone of your letter that you are a clark).
A roger would do the following: ‘friend-up’ to the employees in question, get to know them, and eventually let them know that he (the roger) has their back.  He would then go to the management and tell then that the employees are letting the company down and kindly offer to help train the people.  As a deal closer he might then get specific as to what some of the employees think of the management.
A scott would go up to the employee (if the scott decided that it mattered) and tell the employee that they need to change their behavior.  Depending on the gender of either the scott or the roger, this advice might be followed by the suggestion: ‘you look like you need a hug’.

JOANNE:  I would first ask them if they want some helpful tips..if they say yes, i would give them.  If they say no, then I would say they don’t care about being embarrassed professionally.  Oops,  I think that’s the scott talking.

There you have it, Issue 2 of ‘..as if I care…’ If you have any questions or Comments, then click on the Title (of this Post) and look at the bottom where it says your Reply here. (Guess what you do next…)

No music… 

…well alright, but  a song that I like…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k816dPQyPAM

Hey, we love when you leave a Comment. But if you don’t see your (Comment) show right up after you write it, it might be getting caught as spam. Luckily I have so much time on my hands I read the spam…so if one of your Comments read as following, try again see you name in lights…win a hat (for your damn head):

“Great insights. I loved reading this article”  (from carpetcleaning shampoo.net …all walks of life we have fans.)
“I’m a huge fan! Appreciate your writing this” (from musicdivasite.com  sing, binyons, sing.)
“I must say that by and large I am really pleased with this website. After reading your post I can tell you are educated about your writing. Looking forward to future posts. Cheers!”  (tenlist.com/garage repair openers…a little …british?  Hey Studley-on-Cornmeal  dudes  you guys foolin with us?)

Share
Filed Under: the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , , ,

Part Two/Drugi del/Deuxième partie/भाग दो/第二部分

April 11, 2010 By

So we begin…the second half (of the beginning) of this thing of ours…

Expect significant changes in the layout of this blog in the coming weeks, changes that reflect function as well as form.  Posts will continue to be central to the blog, but we will be creating separate areas dedicated to on-going features, including but not limited to: ‘Case Studies’, activities at Millard Fillmore High, Interviews by and with Progenitors and Downsprings, and other fun activities.

The reason for the change is simply, it is time.

This will be the place to learn about, express, correct and add to the Wakefield Doctrine (aka theory of Clarks, Scotts and Rogers.)
This theory proposes that all people have (from the start of life) three distinct ways of relating to the world.  
It is a given that we are all  born with the qualities (of each form) as potential.  At some point a predominance/predilection for one (of the three) forms expresses itself.  A clark or a scott or a roger is born.  No one is simply a clark or a scott or a roger.  Just mostly.  As a clark, as a scott or as a roger. ( June 25 2009)

(That was from our very first Post.  Not that we are much clearer on what it is we are trying to do with the Doctrine, but we are having more fun trying.)

In the original ‘plan’ for this blog, the Pages were to contain the facts/information/knowledge of the Doctrine.  The Posts, on the other hand, were thought to simply provide a place for Commentary.  However, in the process of writing the Pages and the Posts…

…what’s that?…good question…What is the Objective of this blog?… What do you mean?  Haven’t we addressed this  yet?…we haven’t… shit.
……..I apologise.

Been so intent on writing Posts and trying to come up with different ways to talk about the Wakefield Doctrine, that I have not noticed that, for longer than I realise, I have been  ‘talking to strangers’.  Before this blog, the Wakefield Doctrine was simply the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers. (As in: ‘hey don’t get him started about his thing about how there are only three kinds of people in the world named after his friends, you won’t be able to get him to shut up).
The Objective, the goal, the reason and the point of effort is to get as many people as possible to understand and apply the Doctrineto their lives. So, not such an ambitious goal, is it? It comes down to seeing people benefit from knowing the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers.

You do know that this is not really a theory, at least not as commonly defined:
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena; 2. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment

Hey!, wait a minute now,  maybe I will hang my hat on #2:  ‘a belief…that guides action or assists comprehension’. 
Yeah, I can live with that definition, a belief that guides comprehension. If you know how a scott is experiencing the world, you will know how they will act in any situation; same is true for clarks and rogers.

 So, back to those changes.  Soon this blog will have 5 sections: (a) Post; (b) Principles of the Doctrine; (c) Examples of the Doctrine; (d) Application of the Wakefield Doctrine; and (e) Fun Stuff.

Not certain about how it will actually look, if anyone has any suggestions about the layout, feel free to leave a Comment.

You know,  this is all about you (the Reader) having the experience of hearing someone (in your life) that you have not mentioned the Wakefield Doctrine to, hearing them say, “jeez he is such a roger” or “that’s not too scottian is it?”
Think about how much fun that will be!  Until then we will keep coming up with new, different and fun ways to present the Wakefield Doctrine, (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers).

You know you’re right! What’s a Post without a contest?  …why a hat (for your damn head) what else would we be giving away?  Lets make that a 3 part contest!*

To win simply let us know:
A) Who (of the three)  you think you will hear an (unprompted) reference to the Doctrine from in your own world? (your clarklike friend, your scottian or rogerian friend);
B) What you would want to read (on a shirt). (Sorry I already have mine in: “I (heart) Janie Sullivan“);
C) Go over to (friend of the Doctrine) Mel’s Spatula in the Wilderness and get him to give you a free t-shirt/shamwow/emergency mop, document that to us and we will give you a hat (for your damn head).

So until the next Post… Hey what’s up with the visiting only on Wed/Thurs?
No!  We are not giving up on Janie and the kids at MillFill High…(I did say there would be a section called Fun Stuff)

And always with the videos….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yRdDnrB5kM

* Contest ends sometime Tuesday, limited to the first 10 entrants (as if…)

Share
Filed Under: the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , , , ,

the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers

April 7, 2010 By

‘Hey, you got a minute?’

(Now is it all cultures that imbue this totally innocuous phrase with such bad ju ju?
Or is it only this culture?  Not really sure.)

You know by now that the Wakefield Doctrine is a unique and fun and productive way to understand why people act the way that they do, right? And, you know that the Wakefield Doctrine (aka the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)  offers you  tools with which you can change how you interact with the world, so much so, that the very course of your life can be altered?

Well, it does, and you can.

Just wanted to get that out there.  Sometimes it seems that we are writing the same thing over and over.  Pressure to come up with Posts that are funny or amusing, provocative or at very least, holding your attention through one more Post; all this in the never-ending effort to build the Readership of the blog.  To this end we have come up with a fairly odd array of themes and characters, (literary devices) and Polls and quizzes.  And vidoes, my god, if it were not for youtube.

I think that we have reached the halfway point of the beginning phase of this blog.  The actual Doctrine is understood by our Readers, and a style of presenting the information that supports the WD,  has evolved to a point where we are reasonably comfortable (sort of) writing these Posts.

So, why the weird vibe?

Well, to begin with, this is the 108th or 107th Post of this blog.
In the course of writing these things, we have tried to not only illustrate and demonstrate the principles that comprise the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers, but to do so in ways that Readers will find interesting, amusing and most importantly engaging.  I have the advantage in that I speak to most of the people involved in (this) process of writing Posts.  I speak of the group refered to as Progenitors and Downsprings, an odd collection of friends, relatives and others who have been drawn to this thing of ours.  Some are active in the blog on a daily basis and others are included on the basis of name only, but there is a group, as it seemed (in the beginning) to be necessary for this to be a totally collaborative effort.  Finally, there are the Readers, between 25 and 30 people in the world who come to the Doctrine on a regular basis.  I mention this because I am constantly looking for this blog to ‘take off’.  Sometimes I think, if only I could get the people I talk to, to ‘talk’ to everyone else, through Comments or Replies or even writing Posts,  then there would be the energy that I know is there but often think is not coming across to our Readers.

When I say that I talk to everyone, I mean everyone.  Real people, friends, work associates and people that I would otherwise have never have met, were it not for this blog, people like Mel and Jason, Pixie and Kino. (These are people I have met online, they are writers of blogs and citizens of virtual worlds.)
And the only reason I am talking to them and getting to know them as people, is the Wakefield Doctrine.

Given that the most frequent ‘voice’ you hear on these pages is that of a clark, can there be any doubt that the Doctrine is ‘a useful and productive (and fun) way to understand those around us’?
(And did I say changing our lives?  I did, didn’t I?  Can I get a big amen).

At times when I question what we are (trying to) do with this blog and whether or not it is coming across, the answer I am left with still comes out the same: the Doctrine has legs.
A major part of the process of writing a blog, (at least for me),  is trying to keep the ‘pride thing’ at bay.  I read the site visit stats  and everytime I see ‘good numbers’, I get all humble, like “yes we must continue to serve humanity and carry the message of the Doctrine to people in all the lands”.
And then there are the days when there are a grand total of three vists by noon and I am all ‘wtf? why do they forsake me, maybe I am overdoing the Janie thing, maybe they all are getting bored and what will I do with my life now’.
(Am being totally serious here, I mean last week or whenever the change over to the self-hosting occurred, there was a lag of a few days when the Wakefield Doctrinewas effectively offline.  I still can’t believe how bad I felt, lol.  As the oddly quaint expression has it, ‘I was beside myself’.  Damn it was un-comfortable.)
But then I will force myself to ignore all that and write a Post, even when, especially when, I totally do not feel like it.  And then I remember why I do this thing. 

And the preceding, little parenthetically top-heavy paragraph is the ‘proof’ of the Wakefield Doctrine.  If the Doctrine can permit/allow/encourge/enable me to do this thing, then it can do anything  to improve your own damn lives.

So, come on down folks!  This way to the Wakefield Doctrine carnival of understanding.  ‘Doesn’t matter who you are as long as you are here.’

Soon to appear in a computer near you: an Interview with a rogerian Reader (MJM), the second installment of Downspring#1’s Case Study, another Advice Column from Ms AKH and, of course, more from everyone’s favorite, Janie Sullivan and her friends at ‘ol MillFill High.  We will now conclude this Post in the (approximately) usual fashion, with videos. (I really can’t explain vid #1, I have never been a fan of the Dead but the goddamn thing has been in my head since I started writing this Post.  Worse than usual, I had only a fragment of a lyric, ‘this long…something’.  So I had to go through a ton of clips, did I mention that I am not such a big fan? “The Pain, OH the Pain” (Dr. J Smith LIS).  Oh! and hats (for your damn head) there will be so many contests.

…and then there is George…

Share
Filed Under: clarkscottroger, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , , , ,

Deprived of meaningful work, men and women lose their reason for existence; they go stark, raving mad

April 5, 2010 By

Case Study 1
(being the practical application of the Wakefield Doctrine to the workplace)
(…this had better work…)

We often talk about presenting the Doctrine in a context that offers a practical application (of it’s principles).  Today we begin a series based on a ‘Case Study’ of the Wakefield Doctrine as it can be used to understand and change a real life situation.  First a definition, a ‘Case Study’  being:

‘Case study’ refers to the collection and presentation of detailed information about a particular participant or small group, frequently including the accounts of subjects themselves.  A form of qualitative descriptive research, (a) case study looks intensely at an individual… drawing conclusions only about that participant or group and only in that specific context….(CSU definition)

(As all our Readers know, the Wakefield Doctrine has a number of writers and contributors referred to as Progenitors and Downsprings, this little case study comes to us courtesy of one of our Downsprings).
Downspring#1 is the subject of this ‘Case Study’ and she will be sharing her experiences as she attempts to apply the Wakefield Doctrine the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers), to her (new) employment situation.  We will follow her adventures and will have commentary from (other) Progenitors and Downsprings.

Downspring#1:

“My employment odyssey began with a box of saltine crackers.  I was in need of Saltines, noticed that Groceryland had a very good sale on them and immediately drove to the store for my purchase.  Walking up to the store, I could not help but to notice a sign on the door stating that (Groceryland) was hiring “for all positions”.  After buying the Saltines, I went to the Customer Service Desk and asked for an (employment) application.  Somewhat uncharacteristically, I asked the woman behind the counter how the turnout was.  She appeared to be a bit at a loss for words, clearly wanting to use the word  “loser” to describe most applicants,  but settled for “not sensible”.  She told me that when I brought back my completed application, I was to ask for a Mr. Rogers.  I thanked her and returned an hour later, employment application in hand.   Mr. Rogers looked over my resume and asked what position I was seeking.  I gave him a list of what I thought I wanted to do, the last item (on my list) being ‘cashier’.  I was then informed that ‘everyone started as a cashier’.  Thinking to myself, ‘why did he even ask what position I would like?’ and refraining  from saying I could handle the District Manager position, I agreed.  He closed the interview by telling me that he would call me the next day.  (Turned out it was 2 days later), but he did call and told me I was hired provided that  I passed the background check and the drug test.   Five days of training later I was on my way to becoming a cashier.”

“I was hired at the end of February as a cashier,  to work at the local branch of Groceryland’s.  I am one of over 50,000 associates employed.  It has been an organization committed to”giving back” to the community since their first store opened in 1925.”

“Groceryland” corporate headquarters are located in Jacksonville, FL.  The store I am employed in is located further south on the east coast of FL.  The market we serve is somewhat diverse.  It is a beach town and although there is a small affluent population we primarily serve the blue collar demographic of town.  The store is open 7:00 am to 11:00 pm 363 days of the year.”

“As a part time employee, I was told my hours would be anywhere from 15 to 30 hours a week.  Hm.  My first week was about 35 hours. (and have been called to come in on my day off to fill in twice) I have never worked less than 29 hours/week so far.  The schedule is rather varied as I gave my availability as full range 7:00 am to 11:00 pm.  Yes, it does wreak havoc with sleep and life in general.  Consecutive days off are rarely given.”

“A full month plus has now passed since I entered the employ of “Groceryland” and I must ask myself several questions:
1) How can the Wakefield Doctrine benefit me/my interactions in this particular environment?
2) Or put more directly, What is the value of the Wakefield Doctrine to me in the situation described above? ”

There we have it,  a real person in a real-life situation asking if the Wakefield Doctrine has any damn practical value.
It is nice of Downspring#1 to ask us how the Doctrine can be used to help her situation, and to show how much we appreciate her interest, we will bring in a scott and a roger.  It is a basic tenet of the Doctrine that all people have the qualities of each type (clarks, scotts and rogers) and that it is only a predominance of one (of these three) that accounts for any of us being what we are, i.e.  clark or a scott or a roger.  Further, the Doctrine is based on the notion that each of these three types perceive the world differently.  It follows that getting a different perspective on a situation/problem is the only reasonable approach.

It has been said that the Wakefield Doctrine is a tool by which if we can identify a person as a clark, scott or roger we then know how they view the world and if we know how a person views the world we can know how they will act/react to that world. (“twew, its twew” Madelaine Kahn  Blazing Saddles)

So in the next installment, Downspring#1 will present us with a more detailed account of the workplace she finds herself in, with attention to (her) interactions with her co-workers as well as her managers and supervisors.  So stay tuned….

Also coming up this week, an Interview with a Reader that we have not heard from before!
MJM, a rogerian Reader who is an occasional contributer to the Comments section, will be talking with the Progenitor roger.  Being from the generation that grew up in the late ’50s, her ‘take’ on the Doctrine should be quite interesting.
Also in the works, more from Ms. AKH (possibly another edition of her Advice Column, ‘…like I care…’) which has been generating a good amount of commentation.

So tell a friend to read this thing!
If any of you Readers run into any of (our) Slovian friends, tell them we really want to do an Interview with them. (And the Doctrine now has a translation function for each Post so no reason not to share it with the whole village, or family, or collective or whatever the hell social unit you guys are dividing your culture into).

 

Share
Filed Under: the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , , , , ,
Newer Posts »