Month: May 2010 | the Wakefield Doctrine Month: May 2010 | the Wakefield Doctrine

what is it? Timmy has fallen into a well? take us to him, boy

May 31, 2010 By

 

Hello.  Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers).  This blog is about presenting and discussing, discovering and applying the principles that comprise this little “theory” of personality.  Based only, totally and entirely on anecdotal evidence and (constant) observation, the Wakefield Doctrine is proving itself to be a unique and fun and (actually) quite effective way to view the behavior of the other people in our lives.  With the perspective provided by the Doctrine, why the people act the way that they do finally begins to make sense.  What a relief!  It isn’t that you were not capable of understanding them, it was never your lack of intelligence in being able to apply “proven” theories of personality and most of all, it has not been your fault for how your loved ones have acted towards to you.

You just needed the perspective of the Wakefield Doctrine.  You just needed to know that personality is not hard-wired into people, causing them to act certain ways.  You just needed to see that everyone experiences the world in one of three, slightly different ways.  You only needed to be able to understand and see the world from the bias/premise/reality of the other person and how they acted made perfect sense.

With the Wakefield Doctrine you can: recognise the three types of people; by recognising them you can appreciate the world that they are experiencing and not be caught off-guard or otherwise be surprised by their behavior.

Hey, it’s got it all.

But first we should address one of our DownSprings concerns that appears in the Comment to the last Post.
glenn writes: A)  Who the fuck is Speedy West? (Should I apologize for “crudeness”?) and he goes on to write:
                           B)   Studley still in the house. Cheerio Stud fella. Please verify this for me–you being British and all. The origin of the word soccer….The word is derived from the British penchant for shortening longer words and re-arranging them. There used to be a Football Association–or something like that–in Merry Olde. The brits took the 2nd syllable of the word association and stretched it to form the word soccer. You Brits are always fucking around like that. One of the things I like about you Limey bastards. So, tell me Studley…Is it true? Talk to me Studley. The doctrine cries out for international input. Say something here. Are you guys still mad about The War of 1812?

As primary author and moderator of this here blog here (and with thanks to the author of the Screenplay of Pulp Fiction), “Allow me to retort”

glenn is a scott, hence the penchant for “shocking” language.  If I had the time, we could go on for pages about why that is and what he gets from saying ‘fuck’ a lot, but I want to save that for a time when I am even more bereft of ideas than I am at this moment*.  The shortest explanation is provided by the tee shirt that will soon be available here at the Doctrine Fashion Center, it will say: “scott!!!: I scream, therefore I am“. (Damn, how totally true is this Doctrine !) That should clear up Point A, now for Point 2
glenn appears to be trying to draw out and engage one of the Readers of the Doctrine. (As can be seen on the home page, there is a ‘widget’ that indicates the geographical location of visitors to the Doctrine). Studley, United Kingdom is a regular Reader of the Wakefield Doctrine, we know that much but nothing else.  As a scott, glenn is offering the appearance of knowing about the background of Studley, UK as part of his effort to draw them into a conversation.  He (glenn) has done a little  research into the etymology of the word soccer in the hopes of convincing ‘Studley’ that his intentions are totally benign, but he is, of course, a scott.  Benign is not the correct word.  It is not that scotts are in any ways negative, bad, whatever, it is simply that they are acquisitory.

(We interrupt this exposition to bring you the mandatory Lesson in the Wakefield Doctrine found in every Post.  We’ll make it short).  scotts: live in a reality of predator/prey.  They are always and constantly testing their environments for threats and for a food supply.  In social terms, they are very gregarious and they are very aggressive, they will approach everyone they encounter with the sole/initial purpose of establishing dominance/submission.  At a party, the scottian male is the center of attention and will have an endless supply of jokes to tell (each joke told to a group is increasingly offensive, the better to maintain dominance).  The scottian female, is also very aggressive, consistent with cultural norms, (sort of).  She will be followed by, surrounded by rogers. rogers loves they scottian females and will do anything for them.

(OK, done.  Back to our little glenn).  So glenn is trying to draw out Studly, UK but to no avail.  We have nothing back from them and that is just fine with the author.  The rate of Comments from a given number of Readers is very low across the board.  We have patience.
Anyway, have you ever played with a puppy?  You make the hand-gestures, like a small animal approaching and retreating.  The dog loves that!  They will advance and retreat themselves playing a hunting game (in this case with your hand), however if you make too sudden a motion, they will begin to bark, no longer so sure that this is a game with a lesser animal.  Back and forth, predator and prey.  If you do not get the point by now, then maybe the Crocheting with Emily blog would be a bit more appropriate.

So.  That should serve for today’s Post.
I want to thank Studley, United Kingdom and DownSpring glenn for providing us with a topic, a subject, a premise, whatever the hell you call it when you write about something as a starting point to go into another subject.

Oh yeah, Speedy West.  (You know I get kind of pissed off at times…well a lot of times….now that I think of it…all the time when I read something that forces me to see the shortcomings of my own type.  And, given my own type, what forces me to see is not what I am, but what others are not.  My type always looks to others for the good things and as an example of what we are not, but the thing about glenn…a scott and scotts are fairly intelligent…and has an interest in music and does not know who Speedy West is…and he should, but (here is where my type gets mad at our selves) he doesn’t and apparently sees no need to find out what he doesn’t know…he is quite comfortable not knowing…because he is a scott…and my type is not.  So since this Doctrine is also about learning to be “better” people, I must learn from this and set an example to all Readers…so I do take the lesson from glenn and so my penultimate response to his Comment is:

Fuck you…

And since I enjoyed that so much here’s another one (without the live video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M_XES449-M



 

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

rats! one of the serious, thoughtful Posts

May 30, 2010 By

 

Yeah, one of the non:clever/catchy/interesting/where-did-that-come-from Posts. Still under the impression that it is better to crank out one of these each day than it is to not. At least until it becomes apparent to me what I need to do next to continue on my effort to bring the Wakefield Doctrine to the werld (that spelling, inside joke referencing ‘the Lady’, want to know more, ya gotta ask).

In any event, I thought given it is a Sunday morning, this might be a good time to take a look at how things are going here at the Doctrine. Speaking of ‘going’, Saturday night is the “traditional drive around Wakefield” night,  when DownSpring glenn and I drive around Wakefield.  We do this thing and in the course of (this) hour long drive we review recent Posts, discuss and argue reactions to them, elucidate and discover and generally try to advance the body of knowledge that comprises the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers. Last night’s conversation began with the notion of how limited the sample base is for the Wakefield Doctrine, i.e. that everything we ‘can prove’ about the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers  is based on a statistical sample that might be short the number (of test subjects) usually required by institutions of higher learning.
As glenn put it, “hey this thing is un-deniable but the sample is a max 25 people, ain’t nowhere near enough”, to which I replied, “yeah, this is true, fuck ’em”. I went on further to clarify my point, “…glenn, lil buddy, we know this is Doctrine thang be true, we see it everywhere we look, fortunately we are not trying to convince a publisher or a Phd thesis review panel that the Wakefield Doctrine is valid and efficacious, so for now it does not matter”. (To which glenn replied, “yeah, you’re right, fuck ’em”.)

Allow me to apologise for the crudeness of the language, but I feel that benefit of a verbatim accounting of the conversation far outweighs the cost of a few offended Readers (sorry MJM). If you are going to hang with the Progenitors and DownSprings and witness the creation of a “unique, productive and fun way to understand the behavior of those around us”, then it will get a little rough at times. (insert the really obvious joke here). It is just that this is how the Wakefield Doctrine is developing, at least in the context of the work I do with a scottian DownSpring. Of couse, the conversations I may have with a roger will be of a different tone, entirely. More words, less swearing. Its all good, to use the totally over-used expression. (…where was I?)
So we moved from the discussion of the too small test subject pool on to practical application of the Doctrine. This is where it got genuinely exciting. As often happens during these drives, the discussion will meander, much as does the car we are in, but an interesting topic will appear and we are all over it. ( Authors note: My problem has been recording (these conversations) so that they can be shared with the rest of the group. But am doing the best I can, if there is a writer in the house who knows how to take this alarmingly fast fast growing pile of words and organise them in a way that a normal person can benefit by, let me know. Heck, there might be a hat (for your damn head) in it for you). 
But I was about to relate the cool thing. The practical app. Anyway, we were talking about how what seems reasonable to one person appears insane to another, yet both people are otherwise very much alike. The example glenn used was himself and another person in his industry (i.e. snake oil sales and marketing), glenn said, “my friend steve is always starting new ventures and businesses. He sees an opportunity and without hesitation will leave an established position just for the chance to create a new business. I could no more leave my salaried position for a startup than I could jump out of the car at this moment”. (glenn went on), “people I work with will act puzzled about this and ask why I can’t take a chance when I have so much going for me in the business”. The question resonated, the notion that you can have two people similar in all regards but one will risk everything for a future benefit and the other cannot bring themselves to go outside the security of what they have worked for in their careers. (The Doctrine provided the answer.)
I replied to glenn, “hey the Doctrine has the answer, it can explain, in a way that has not occurred to anyone, the difference between you and Steve” (I stopped talking, going for the ‘close’, you know  the first person who talks buys it’)…a moment went by, we drove on through Wakefield… finally glenn capitulated. (Actually what he said was, “fuck you”)….more silence…”alright what does the Doctrine have to offer in this situation?”

The answer was this: the comparison between glenn and Steve and their relative tolerance for risk taking was reduced to the question to glenn, “why can’t you imagine taking a chance on such a reward” to which glenn would have responded, “I can’t because….” The Wakefield Doctrine view would substitue the “I don’t take those chances”  for  “I can’t take those chances”. The difference is huge. I will leave it to our Readers to reflect upon the implication of the difference between the two ways of expressing the question. Any questions, comments or contributions to the discussion will be welcome. (I am getting bored, and I’m the one writing this stuff!!)

So, that completes the serious portion of our little Sunday Post. There will be music at the close of this thing and (hopefully a clever and/or funny photo on the front).

Thanks for coming by…..

(jeez, I thought that would never end!…. ( lol  and you were saying…something about the virtual high school student “being contrived” and getting old?…tell us all at Mill Fill High about how to keep the Reader captivated…hey Britney! you can’t dress like that!!! this is a GP rated blog!…) alright…I apologise for saying that…damn doing that apology thing way too much today…holiday weekend? oh man…this wis going to last foreever…)

Hey, excellent vid!  have not heard Zepplin that good (at least live) and it is just fun to watch Jimmy Page. Hey glenn, you will have to read tomorrow’s Post cause I came across some Speedy West videos that I think I will use,  if I remember.

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

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves

May 29, 2010 By

 

Alright.  This is the topic for today: ” OK Mr/Ms. Wakefield Doctrine, I get the premise, so what do I do next?”

I’m glad you asked…

The first and most important thing to do is take what you know and look around you.  Don’t worry so much about which of the three (clark or scott or roger) you are, rather look at the people in your life and see which they are.  There are two good reasons for this approach; 1) first you will realise (after the second or third ‘identification’) that, “holy smoke! there are such things as clarks, scotts and rogers” , and b) seeing others exhibit the characteristics of the types will make it easier to know which of the three you are!
(It totally bears repeating one of the most basic of the premiseses…we are all born with the capacity to experience the world as a clark or a scott or a roger. The idea is that we get into the habit of seeing it (the world) as one (type as opposed to the other two) that we become either a clark or a scott or a roger.  It is quite normal at this point of learning the Wakefield Doctrine to say : “Hey! Mr/Ms Doctrine person/thingie, sometimes I am a roger and sometimes I am a scott…(I don’t think I am a clark…at least I hope not), what’s up with that?” )
The answer is, “don’t worry about it at this stage, you cannot do this Doctrine thing wrong.  As long as you look for the characteristic view of the world of the others, eventually your own predilection will become undeniable”.  And besides, you are all three (..roger…), haven’t you been paying attention to all of this? (“But then you know how animals with ears like yours…”) Oh sorry, wandered off for a second.  That quote?  Ask me another time, you are so not ready for the Lady, someday when the time is right I will tell you about her.
So the point is, you can’t break anything and the chances are at this stage you are the only person you know that is aware of the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers.  Take your time, get comfortable with identifying others and  your own nature will eventually become obvious.  Actually your own nature is already obvious, the scottian reader will have already looked around and if in the right situation will be braying to all around them “hey you are such scottish person, this guy says you are and he so funny…” OK, calm down. I promise you that if you defer immediate gratification and really learn the Doctrine (yeah, right scott) it will be much more useful to you…. (ok, how about this: HEY!! HEy! hey scott, hold off for a while and not only will you get more rogers than you can eat, but you will also learn how to handle those weird clarks…you know the people who act like food most of the time, they don’t fight back…most of the time, kinda interesting but  you never really know where you stand with them…stay with us here at the Wakefield Doctrine and you will be the biggest, baddest scott theys ever seen.)
…I promise…now…sit……goood scott.

Sorry, back on topic now. (Those scotts do demand attention, lol). As I was saying, “don’t worry, no rush, you will understand this Doctrine thing all in good time. We have all been where you are and will be here when you are ready to take the next step.

So a quick review of primary characteristics of clarks and scotts and rogers.

clarks: quiet, tend to mumble and are on the “brainy” side (not geeks who tend to be rogers) but clarks are the ones who are living in their own heads.  If you want to know about anything that normal people don’t have the time to learn about, clarks are the people you will go to… there is one in your life, close but you just haven’t noticed them.  clarklike females will dress from the “androgyny fashion collection” mix and mix, especially shoes… the clarklike males will be grey(with a splash of beige)  and have virtually no eye contact when speaking to you, which if they do, will consist of strings of incomplete sentences.

scotts: never stop moving, never stop talking, never fuckin stop…sports fans to a person…your scott is the one who introduces themselves whether they are entering a situation where they are the stranger or there is a stranger entering the setting where the scott  already is…when you move to a new place, the neighbor who comes to “welcome you to the neighborhood” that’s your scott…always helpful as long as “completing the task” is not the priority…scottian females…always attractive/seductive/commanding/demanding depending on the context, scottian males…always in charge…the person best described as “not always right but never uncertain…”

rogers: the most social and accommodating person you know, the roger is, in fact, most likely your family doctor, your family lawyer, your family accountant, emphasis on family…the person who knows the family history and insists that you come to the family reunion that’s your roger, the one who knows how many forks should be on which side of the plate…there’s your rogerian female…want to have a long conversation?…talk to a roger, they make it so easy to talk about yourself…the rogerian male will be well dressed and if you want to know if ascots and large briarwood pipes are still worn and/or smoked you will find the roger when you see either of them and if you want to imagine settling down and raising a family with a beautifully decorated home and be a member in all the right clubs and organisations…then a rogerian female will be near by.

There you have it, our  pocket guide to “Spotting the clarks, scotts and rogers“.  Have fun with this, and don’t worry so much.  They will demonstrate their characteristics, totally un-necessary to ask and probing, “are you a…”/”what would you do in…”/”If you could be…” kinds of questions.
Don’t  get me started on all the other fancy-schmansy personality schemes, the ones where you have to ask questions and add scores and triangulate the lexus nexus, screw that!  The Wakefield Doctrine is, as we say, unique and productive and most of all…it is fun!

Damn!  I really am excited for you (…lol yeah…excited…lol ) no seriously…I know that it will/may be a while, but  later today or tomorrow someone in your life will do something or say something and the proverbial light bulb will appear above your head and then a thought balloon…”Holy shit that is what they mean by a clark!”, listen to him, “how rogerian!” or man, “what a scott!“…and things will never quite be the same.

Welcome to the Doctrine.

(…ewww…fictional high school student to writer claiming to be real….omg there are too many places to start…never mind…just one question: WHY?…)

Sorry, folks. You know how sometimes a song sticks in your head and the only way to get rid of it…

(…so to help the rest of us get that out of our minds…fictional and otherwise…? )

Don’t forget, there are no stupid questions….only your questions…(borrowed from a famous advertising guy from the ’50s)

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

You’re searching for good times, but just wait and see

May 28, 2010 By
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXvKRZRofDE

Mr. B we thank you for your efforts, even though this little experimental writing effort will totally confuse our Readers.

No, I think that this being a Friday, our Readers are accustomed to Posts that seem to have no perceivable rationale, make no sense and just seems to act as a filler to keep a Post-a-Day streak alive.  Funny though how the process works, looking for a topic, raking over things that float to the top of the brain and then browsing images (for Google we thank god), and just hope enough words coming out to comprise a Post.  The seeds of this particular ‘pearl’ seems to be conversation with the Progenitor roger and his new little experiment of a blog, (yes Janie, I am aware that a pearl is a clams way to deal with an irritant…”solidified clam puke”?…lol no I have not heard that one…back to the end of the Post where you can be introduced).  That conversation and a Comment made by DownSpring glenn about old and time.

Which concludes our Doctrine less for this Post.  It is easy, no make that it is impossible not to see that clarks are the creative ones of the three.  After all the saying is: clarks are the scientists, scotts are the salesmen and rogers are the machine operators.  This categorization holds and is consistent with the nature of the three.  Another way of saying that rogers are the accountants, engineers, lawyers and doctors (who all believe in a quantifiable universe) and scotts are the salesmen, leaders (both political and religious) and the person who screams “get in the hole” at golf tournaments and finally clarks are the creative ones, creative in the pure sense of the word, they bring forth the genuinely new, think the Christopher Lloyd character, Doc in ” Back to the Future”.

No, this is going to end up being one of the shorter Posts in recent time.  I really don’t think we are pulling off the “backwards writing of the Post”.  Nah, don’t really care.  I think that as long as there is a music video, a catchy photo and….( alright, and a charming high school student with clever asides) then it is ok to hit publish.  No, not really cheating, you have to stop trying to do this literally backwards, the only way to pull that off would be to write it forwards and copy it backwards.  I agree not the point just go with what feels right.

Hah, like a clark ever gets that spontaneous.  That is not gonna happen.  At least there will be a Doctrine lesson in this and a music video and I think I will use one of the Alice photos and maybe hope for something random as the front will be the back in all this.  So everyone bear with me, this will be over sooner than you realise and there will be the music video to reward your efforts. (No fair jumping forward, scott) or is that jumping backwards.

Sorry am/was stuck with some notion of time running backwards or the sequence being backwards un-folding.  I seem to remember something about the story of Merlin or Arthur or one of those fuckin half-hearted rogerian over-blown semi-epics describing the character as living his life in reverse.
As all too often happens, especially whan I do not have a genuinely good idea, I latch onto an odd idea (…as if…lol… ) and try to shape it enough to hit Publish.

So, why not let’s do a Post as Alice might see all running in reverse.  Yes, I know there is nothing about Alice in Wonderland that has anything to do with living in reverse time, but there is also nothing to do with glenns Comment on yesterday’s Post and (my) response alluding to “Of Mice and Men”   go figure.

YEah, why not this would then be the punchline…in front.

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

You’re a blog writer, there’s a topic. That’s an order

May 27, 2010 By

 

 A) I’m really hungry, just not sure for what…
                                             B) …nah, you decide….
                                             C)…yeah except not red but more fun…

The Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) is a unique, productive and fun approach to understanding those around us.  Whether at home or at work or at play, finally the actions and behaviors of the people in our lives will be understandable and possibly begin to make sense.

Back to basics to start today, as we seem to be getting Readers from new locations and possibly even totally “new to the Doctrine’ Readers.  So a  welcome, like we do here at the Wakefield Doctrine:  Welcome!  Bine ati venit la Doctrina Wakefield!  Добро пожаловать на Wakefield доктрины! Wakefield सिद्धांत आपका स्वागत है!

(Unfortunately, the blog may not support the cyrillic or Indo-Aryan characters that are required to display our welcome message above, if not Wlecome to the Wakefield Doctrine (in romanian, russian and hindi).

It is good to review.  This blog is all about the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers, which maintains that all people experience the world in one of three ways and it is their experience (of the world) that produces characteristic behavior (i.e.personality types) not the other way around.  We are not ‘drivers’ or ‘Type A’ or ‘Axis C’ or Cerebrotonic’ or INTJ’ or ‘True Colors’ (no, really there is such a system!), whatever such damn nonsense.  These idiots (mostly rogers but if it is really out-there then a clarks or if it is kinda catchy but stupid then scotts) are trying to convince you that there is inherent in all of us a pre-dispostion to act a certain way.  And they, of course have sorted and organised and very conveniently named this collection of behaviors, which will be explained to you so you can recognise a INTJ type personality and feel so very erudite. (Hey, come on, its called the Wakefield Doctrine because thats where we drive around at…and it called clarks, scotts and rogers ’cause, well.. (can I get a big, “No! Keep the Name!! We all think its Great!!) thank you… (…lol…)

We know better, don’t we? (this is where you say, “yeah! damn straight!”) I thought so.  And not only do we know all those knuckleheads are totally deluded (unless they are scotts) but we happen to know the  truth.  (Can I get a  “Why yes! I concur!!). 

So here it is new Readers ( …”Yeah! New Readers!!!”  ok, sit down)  the simple truth to what has bothered you for most of your life ( …”Life!!! Yeah!  Bring that On Over!!!) (scott, go back to your seat or you will have to go to the quiet place…) (…”YEah!  quie…”)…what the Wakefield Doctrine maintains is people experience reality in one of three characteristic ways, and that it is the reality that creates the (behavior) and if we understand the reality that a person is experiencing then we will know how they will behave in any situation.

Forgive the poor sound quality on the clip that follows, but the truth is I could not bear to watch senior citizens trying to play a song that was never, ever meant for seniors…even if they did write it once in a time long ago…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1C2GVOLkxAc

Show of hands now:
A)  Did anyone listen to this in it’s entirety? (no, clarks don’t count in this little survey)
B)  Did anyone not think of Spinal Tap?

You know how I feel, this is not a nostalgia-themed blog, it just happens that most of my cultural markers are 50 fuckin years old.    (“YEah!! 50 Fuckin!!”  timeout scott…go ahead go to the corner now.)

But while the Wakefield Doctrine is not limited to an age or cultural mileu or anything like that, I cannot avoid referencing those events that comprise…blah, blah, blah)

(…that thing is still playing!! lol did you people in the 60s ever think that less is more?… )

…hey the song is over!  (…well that was only Part 1 lol the really interesting music is in Part(s) 1…5 )

So welcome to our new Readers, stay with us and this will all fall into place.  Ask questions, write Comments ( can I get a big  “Yeah, right” )

Share
Filed Under: Featured, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , , ,
« Older Posts