Month: January 2012 | the Wakefield Doctrine

the Wakefield Doctrine, three personality types, self-improvement and questions, questions, questions!

January 21, 2012 By clarkscottroger

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

Yes, we do ‘have the weekend off’ but you know how it is… a self-improvement system as unique and effective and fun as the Wakefield Doctrine, this stuff is not gonna type itself!
Speaking of ‘typing itself‘, most of the reason for today’s Post is the interesting effects on the Wakefield Doctrine being exerted by our newest FOTDs Molly and Claire. Both people who came to us just last year, (and as predicted) they are people with an exceptional level of flexible intelligence‘ so they grasped the basic principles (of our little Doctrine), straight off and have been making trouble ever since! But good trouble! By this we mean that they have questions, good questions, fun questions, aggravating questions, insightful questions and most of all, questions about aspects of the Wakefield Doctrine that we have not paid much attention to, at least up to now. To give you a better sense of what we mean by asking good, productive questions, consider the two topics raised, in the form of a well-intended question ( …”oh clark, you know how you wrote that the Doctrine indicates…welll I was just wondering”) …eeiyyeee!

Molly: ( during last week’s Saturday Night Drive ) …“Is is possible for a person to decide to change from one (predominant) type to another? Let’s say a person was a clark until they were about 12 or 13 and then decided to become a roger?”

Claire: (chatting on ‘the FaceBrick’) “..A quick – really quick – note on my part: this is probably the reason I bring my mini laptop at school when I know I have an hour recess and then write of what I observe (mostly the youngsters) and perhaps this might give us (at the doctrine) a thread to follow when it comes to these youngsters and others all over the world ”

Damn good questions! Fortunately for us DS#1 and Ms AKH and the roger are around to see that these questions are converted from, “What? What do you need to know that for?!” to “that would be a totally interesting aspect of the Wakefield Doctrine to (further) explore and develop, when can you start?”

…so look for Posts over at the girlie and Three Personalities (‘KH’s place) as well as at Claire and Molly’s sites.

In the meantime, the briefest of Overviews on the aforementioned Questions:

the main line of inquiry for this Question was simply: what were the circumstances of the persons life surrounding the point of ‘switching’? The conversation (during the Drive) seemed to focus on trying to determine if this person was ‘a clark successfully acting like a roger’ or was this (now) ‘a roger who had spent their life up to that point as a clark?’ This question is central to one of the primary benefits of the Wakefield Doctrine, i.e. it’s use as a tool for self-development. Since we all retain the ‘capability’ to experience the world of the ‘other two’ personality types, the current thinking is that one should be able to have access to all of the strengths (and weaknesses!) of the two non-dominant personality types. This is, of course, the premier advantage of the Doctrine over most other systems for self development, i.e. to augment one’s personality as opposed to replacing one characteristic with another
in the realm of identifying the three personality types of the Wakefield Doctrine, Claire’s concern is quite useful in developing a higher level of skill (at this identification) than is required in day-to-day Doctrine uses. The ‘short list’ of characteristics by which you can infer the personality type of another person still applies: clarks: posture scotts: eyes and rogers: pronouns

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEL6_SuQCu8

Video Friday #3 (did you realize that if you take the date: 01/13/2012 and add 7 days you get….Today’s Date!!!) the Wakefield Doctrine 3 personality types

January 20, 2012 By clarkscottroger

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

Video Friday, when we let our talking do the talking! (…Or our speaking do the speechifying), ( or our oral do the oration…)

Now, don’t get me wrong here, I really love the theory and the background and the implicatorial inferences of the meta-truistic principles of the Wakefield Doctrine, but I think it is time to get a pocket of kibble and a couple of carrots and go find some scotts and rogers to play with, don’t you?
Not ‘polagizin or nothing, I totally am enjoying the development of the Wakefield Doctrine, but even clarks gots to let loose every now and then!

So to everyone who has been working so hard on this thing of ours recently? you know, writing Comments and Posts and ‘the FaceBrick’ and such? …take the weekend off, yo. You have all totally earned it.
But before you bust out the doors, do me a favor… before you take off? Stop by the blogs and sites and such of the following people and subscribe or RSS or ESP or SMD… whatever it is they want you to do to follow them. These guys not only give a whole bunch to the Doctrine, but they write some pretty good stuff they-own-selfs.

(In no particular order): Molly wrote a new Post this week over at ‘Journey‘… the Progenitor roger did this thing on Lionel Hampton at the Secessionist Rag… Mel, well you know Mel! (the frickin guy’s a machine!) head over to the ‘Teachable… hey we heard from Bobbi Stoker this week, she has this blog you should go to , in a sense a lot like Ronin, ridiculous amount of useful content, oh, yeah go over to Alx’s hangout at the EWN ( if you see him around, tell him to call us Saturday)…and as along as you are over there, stop by Jasmine’s FB page, she has some rather good stuff …. and speaking of ‘people who write the way you should’, say hello to Nell Rose for us… DS#1 has been pushin them electrons and given her all to the Doctrine at the girlie and the star of the week totally has to go to Our Ms Peek… huskar du, yo I dare you to go to her blogs and not be glad you did… and …of course, we have you know who… go, bring something nice, you will leave there with a sense of…”hey! there are real people at the Doctrine too!!”

OK you rascals, get outta here!! Have fun….and call in Saturday Night and let us know how you managed to use the Wakefield Doctrine to have extra fun this weekend….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X15-kYgpLwo

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: clarkscottroger, personality types, relationships, the Wakefield Doctrine

Clarence and Immanuel and Sigmund walk into a bar… the Wakefield Doctrine ( “hey, this thing is for you, not for them!”)

January 19, 2012 By clarkscottroger

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

Given the hour of the day this is being written, we will do our best to kept the font small and punctuation slight.

Of the late, it seems the subject of these Posts is being drawn to a very fundamental, yet not clearly stated question; the answer to which speaks directly to the foundation upon which the Doctrine is built. The question is, “is the Wakefield Doctrine a psychology¹ or is it a philosophy²?”

This is not as daunting a question as first it may seem. As we often encounter around here, the “correct” answer has a certain quality of ‘ambiguety‘ ( as a scott, sufficiently provoked might be heard to say). The difficulty answering this question is grounded in the fact that the Wakefield Doctrine is not an empirical, data-supported system of psychological premises nor is it a multi-sylabic, hyper-hypenated thought-cave of philosophical notions.

The Wakefield Doctrine is a unique, productive and fun approach to understanding the behavior of the people in our lives.
And it is pretty safe to say…the Harvard Deans³ with their psycho-analyzin’ and dramatize’ of rigorous systems would not be inclined to use the word “unique” in the Introduction of their books and you would be hard-pressed to find a Philosophy Professor, writing a Graduate Level Course description thinking, “…in this Course the class will be exploring the intricate skein of thought and intentions, it’s fun too!”

So why the question in the first place?

Well, the thing of it is, the Wakefield Doctrine is based on the notion that, while we are all born with the potential, the capacity, the capability to live as a clark or a scott or a roger… it is not what we are, but where we are! (Stay with me, not as bad as it sounds).

For reasons not yet understood, we all exist in one of three ‘personal realities’, the characteristics of (these realities) correspond to the world of the clark and the world of a scott and the world of a roger:

in the first, an individual will find themselves cast in the role of the outsider, they observe the world and assume how things are meant to be, they live with others and try to understand and they act like clarks
in the second, we find ourselves in a landscape that is both incredibly full of life and yet is based on the ‘kill and/or be killed’ existence of the predator and prey, days are spent hunting food, avoiding being eaten and living as much as possible…the scotts
last of the three realities is the most plain and yet intricate; if you wake up in the world of a roger, you know that there are Rules and Guides, there is a place for everything and everything has it’s place

So what? The thing the Doctrine says is this:

If you watch how a person behaves, you can infer which of the three ‘personal realities’ that person is living in and acting in and from this, you will know if they are a clark or a scott or a roger. You will know how this person will respond to virtually any situation. It is this understanding of the ‘worldview’ that the other person is responding to, that is the key to understanding their personality, not a list of adjectives attempting to describe their behavior and traits. Lets restate, just once more…
We are not clarks acting like ‘outsiders’, we are people who exist in a world in which our relationship to the world is that of the outsider. We are not scotts because we are sexy and obnoxious in front of a crowd, we are normal people in an abnormal world. As rogers go through their day counting and cataloging, they do not say to themselves, “I am so good at this organizing thing’, they are simply doing what is natural for a person living in a reality that is based on the worldview of a herd”.

I hope this helps you get more from the Wakefield Doctrine. Mr. Gatemouth? …if you please!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU1vJ94XPO0

1) Psychology is the study of the mind, partly via the study of behavior, grounded in science. Its immediate goal is to understand individuals and groups by both establishing general principles and researching specific cases. For many, the ultimate goal of psychology is to benefit society. In this field, a professional practitioner or researcher is called a psychologist, and can be classified as a social scientist, behavioral scientist, or cognitive scientist. Psychologists attempt to understand the role of mental functions in individual and social behavior, while also exploring the physiological and neurobiological processes that underlie certain functions and behaviors. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology )

2) Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. The word “philosophy” comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means “love of wisdom” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy )

3) ‘the Lady’…better ask a Progenitor (or DS#1) but if you attend the First Wakefield Doctrine Global Pic-a-Nic you would be allowed to hear her very words!

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: clarkscottroger, personality types, self-development, self-improvement, the Wakefield Doctrine, three personality types

the Wakefield Doctrine, (the) best self-improvement system ever and one re-fried Post damn! what won’t these people do?

January 18, 2012 By clarkscottroger

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

HEY! For some reason the following Post keeps turning up, as the ‘Landing Page’ when a fair number of people come to the Wakefield Doctrine.
Originally titled: “if you vote for me, all your wildest dreams will come true (Pedro)” and published about a year ago, it seems to never go away. Now, the explanation might be that this be the Post that most people came to, the last time they visited the Doctrine !(….lol).
Or it might be the excellent video from Mr. Loaf and Ms. Foley. Whatever.
The Post Title is a reference to a movie, Napoleon Dynamite that came out in 2004 and apparently became something of a cult classic… I have tried to watch it, sort of enjoyed it…never really became a fan. Doesn’t really matter.
In any event,² presented in it’s entirety, the Post that made the whole world….

…..Readers!! and Lookers…an Encore Presentation¹

“At the very real risk of compounding a series of bad (editorial) choices, I am leaving the following to “run” as today’s Post. There were a number of technical difficulties associated with it that normally would have had me throwing the whole thing on the ground and starting over, but I liked the video and couldn’t stand to part with it (Post-wise).
In any event, if you are a New Reader? better get used to it. There is a universe full of entertaining, informative, well written blogs available at the mere click of a mouse, and there is the Wakefield Doctrine.

Now that I see the words in ‘print’ I just had another satoristic moment, a new appreciation of this thing of ours!
I’ll bet you that on a good percentage of the Posts that get published, this place looks like a scott’s house/apt. Bear with me here, I know what I mean to say, not sure how to put it. I’m talking about the ‘tone’ or style, maybe of these Posts; I am thinking that some of them will be kinda scottian. No one element that I can point to, a certain frenetic quality, impulsive un-orderly way of attempting to make a point. That is not to say that scotts are not good housekeepers, (they are not, rogers are the good housekeepers), and not that scotts aren’t the most likely to be taken by curiosity, (they do have a streak of curiosity but it is clarks that are the eclectic of the three). But if you were to go into a scott’s house/room/workshop/library, you would find a really odd bunch of things. Nothing that would betray a need to be orderly, a lot of broken instruments, tons of magazines and not a few half-eaten sandwiches on plates at work benches (… you know a scott was working and eating and then something else caught their attention and BAM out the door). This is the den of a scott, eclectic without a need to preserve, variety without the drive to catalogue.

But I was starting to say, it just struck me that taken as a collection, these Posts are beginning to reflect, at varying times a clarklike consideration, a scottian impulsiveness and a rogerian formality!

Damn, maybe this frickin Doctrine is starting to work!
In any event, below is the ‘original’ Post for today. ……see ya

Everyone knows the story of how the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers came to be known as the Wakefield Doctrine, right? ( your monitor gets wavy, you come back into focus in…in Hollywood?)

INT. LATE MODEL LUXURY CAR – NIGHT

Clark and Glenn are in animated discussion, it is clear that the topic is one they are both very, very familiar with and they are covering old ground

CLARK

Blah, blah blah…I know and you know and I know that the theory is valid and way, way more useful than most of the crap that you use for your trainings. When are you gonna incorporate it into one of your modules?

GLENN

Hey, I know its useful I been in this car listening to you for the last 15 years, haven’t I?

CLARK

So what’s it gonna take to do something with this thing…what do you need to take it on the road? Hell, I know you are already stealing parts of it in your presentations

GLENN

Credibility. Thats what it needs…If I go out there in front of my Board of Directors and say, ‘this new module is based on ‘the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers’ they will laugh…

CLARK

Yeah, but…it works… it is useful…

GLENN

…And it sounds like it came out of a dorm room…from the 70s. I work in a corporate environment…credibility, empirical…metrics…you hearin this?

CLARK

I get it, I get it…fine! then I’ll change the name…you want credibility?…from now on the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers is…the…Doctrine, the Wakefield Doctrine!

GLENN

Fuckin yeah!

Did you happen to notice that we had a (fairly un-common) pairing here of a scott/scott? Ellen Foley is pretty obviously a scott, but Meatloaf not immediately so; but if you are not convinced watch the end (7:44) of the song.

1) Encore Presentation: too tired/lazy/busy to go to the effort to create something new, but one must never admit that! How rogerian is that?

2) ‘in any event’ thats ‘old people‘ for ‘whatever’³

3) which is, in turn, ‘somewhat older people‘ for….

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: personality types, relationships, self-development, self-improvement, the Wakefield Doctrine

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

January 17, 2012 By clarkscottroger

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!

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?)