Month: March 2012 | the Wakefield Doctrine Month: March 2012 | the Wakefield Doctrine

(a) Post Title in search of Content… the Wakefield Doctrine 3 personality types, a ‘Post-writing Contest’ with only one Rule….

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

 

The Contest: Write a Post with the phrase, ‘a dead balloon is a dead balloon‘ in the Title. ( No other limitations or requirements imposed.)

The Prize: a DVD of the movie Tin Man

The Author of the Post that is judged by the  Readers and (secret) Judge to be the best, most interesting, clever, funny and/or cool  will receive a DVD  ‘Tin Man’  (which is the totally excellent re-telling of the Wizard of Oz)

Posts can be submitted starting April 1, 2012 (yes, we know) and received no later than 04/13/2012… Final Decision on April the 17th!  Sent by email or comment or chat (at the Facebook) and we will Post your Post (ha, ha) to the Doctrine and/or ‘the Facebook’.

...(!!) You know how we talk about the DownSprings and Friends of the Doctrine?  They are what makes this thing move forward in an increasingly effect direction….anyway  Molly and Ms AKH have made the very constructive suggestion that maybe it would be better to have you send us a link to your Post instead of emailing the content. That way, we will do a Post with Entries  a little about the author and the Title of the entry and a link back to your own site.  sound like a (better) plan.   Want to thank Claire very also, she has been my initial advisor, but sometimes I don’t hear suggestions the first time. 
Anyway, stay tuned and send them links in, yo 

How much fun will that be?

A lot of damn fun, that is how much fun it will be!
The Wakefield Doctrine is not just about understanding why people behave the way they do…it is about understanding how we (our own-damn-selves)  behave.  And…and…  oh, yeah!   it’s about understanding the fun in life… appreciating the fun… having fun!

And who doesn’t enjoy a little contest?  ( I am so glad you asked that question!)

The three personality types of the Wakefield Doctrine and Contests:

Pie Eating:

  • Winner: scott
  • Loser: clark

Pie Baking ( and all other cooking contests, except for Barbecue):

  • Winner: roger (male or female1)
  • Loser: scott

Barbecue

  • Winner: scott ( for hottest sauces)
  • Loser: scott (for burning down the staging area when he uses a gallon of gasoline to ‘turn dat fire up a notch’ )

Three legged Race

  • Winner: scott and a roger
  • Loser: clark and either one

Count the Jelly Beans in the Jar

  • Winner: roger
  • Loser: scott

Scavenger Hunt

  • Winner: scott
  • Loser: clark

Arm Wrestling

  • Winner: clark 
  • Loser: roger

So send in your Posts for entry into the Contest!

 

 

1) so there’s a difference? 2

2) …come on…it’s a good natured joke… I can say that ’cause I have a rogerian aspect

Share

Episode Douze de la vidéo vendredi thé Wakefield Doctrine …have you heard the Rumours of a Post-Writing Contest??!

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

Well, it’s true. There is a big Contest coming from the phobia-philic folks at the Wakefield Doctrine! We don’t want to steal any of video-boy’s thunder today…and that there Contest there, that is all he is talking about on today’s Video.

But! There will, in fact, be a Contest. Starting around April Fool’s Day and ending around April 17th…there will be a Prize! yes…a real prize not a hat (for the Winner’s damn head) not even a Tee shirt (coming this Summer!!) but an actual, watch-your-mailbox Prize. (Details and Contest Rules to Follow!)

So listen today for more details. Watch ‘the FaceBook’ for further info.

 

Oh yeah…you people who like ‘the Facebook’?  2 things:  go to the Doctrine Wall and then go to the Doctrine Page  and hit that ‘LIKE’ thang!

Share

Senate Health Care Revision to include: “Participants will be required to make Medical Records available to FaceBook for efficient sharing of information among care-givers” the Wakefield Doctrine

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

Hello.  This is the blog about the Wakefield Doctrine, which is a way of looking at people, personality and behavior that is kinda unique, quite useful and totally fun!

Why spend time at this blog instead of any one of a thousand better-produced, professionally written websites that have charts and graphs and shit?  Simple. This ‘personality theory’ will make sense right away, it does not require a Harvard Dean to explain things to you and will allow you to see yourself in a whole new light!

But there is one catch*
This blog is being written as much for the fun and enjoyment of the people already involved in it as it is to attract new Readers. As a result of this approach, the Wakefield Doctrine is not a slick website, with a lot of flash and graphics, we have nothing to sell you,  there is not a section of celebrity endorsements and there is nothing resembling an  Easy 1-2-3 Steps to Enriching!! Your Life!!.

…this blog is simply the story of the Wakefield Doctrine, how it came to be…what the principles are and mostly….mostly this site gives you an insight into the conversations among the people who use the Doctrine in their lives and have fun with it as they ‘self-improve’ themselves’.

Just so no one thinks we are weird, we do like ‘bullet point lists’ so lets try that:

The Wakefield Doctrine blog will:

  • capture your interest if you can understand the basic concept of personal realities
  • immediately give you a totally new way of looking at the behavior of those people in your life
  • give you a tool to change the things about yourself that you have always wanted to change, but all the other systems failed at
The Wakefield Doctrine blog will not:
  • cost you money
  • make you feel stupid as you try to learn to use it ( and don’t those others always insist that ‘it didn’t work because you did not understand it properly”)
  • be replaced by the next new fad in self-improvement…there seems to always be something newer, shinier and more famous people attached to….( or something like that  lol )
Well, that’s all I have for you today.
Hey!  You want to know one more way the Wakefield Doctrine personality system is different and better?  We have these ‘call in’ times where people call and ask questions and argue and yell and laugh and stuff….and we are doing one today at 4:00 EDT  ( the number to call is:  218-339-0422  access code 512103 # )
Go ahead, surprise yourself…give us a call.

 

* yeah, ain’t there always a catch?

Share

the Wakefield Doctrine, accept one basic premise… and the rest is a ‘lead pipe cinch’: Topic A

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

Today’s Post is a bit on the technical/exploratory side…but we have a very enjoyable video at the end.

 

OK: First thing. Key to this blog making sense, working, holding together and otherwise being valuable, is this concept:

a) We all have individual realities, call them worldviews, frames of reference, but they are our realities. Nothing weird, the world at large is still the same and we all agree on all the big things, i.e. the law of gravity, the ocean is wet, yodeling sucks and there is room for improvement in all our individual lives.  But when we say worldview or individual realities we are talking about how the world looks from inside your head. Real as real. Not ‘pretend you think it is one thing, knowing it is something else.’ Real.
2) everyone’s personal reality/worldview is one of three characteristic types: the reality of the outsider, the clark, the aggressive/predator populated worldview of the scott and the definite and quantifiable social matrix of the rogerian personality type. We all have the potential for all three, are predominately one of the three and still retain the capacity to experience the reality of the other two personality types.

As long as you can accept the idea that we all have slightly different personal realities, everything else about the Wakefield Doctrine will be so terribly, completely easy.

And so on to the topic for this week’s Mid-Week  Wakefield Doctrine Discussion-ation of Practical Applications of the Doctrine.

rogers and clarks

The Progenitor roger (speaking for rogers) maintained in last week’s Mid-Week Discussion that when rogers ‘lash out’* at clarks, it is only because the roger is caught up in some matter within themselves that they cannot escape. Further, (the roger maintains) there is nothing a clark can do, other than to walk away. Unfortunately, the roger also seemed to be saying that there is no way to prevent the ‘surprise attack’ that most clarks experience when they interrupt a roger during one of these ‘self-absorbent’ episodes.

General Question:  do you accept this description? do you have any follow-up questions?

Specific Question: to the roger (or any other roger out there who would care to step out of the safety of the herd) if the person interrupting a roger were a scott, would the description of the ensuing interaction be any different?

Final Question: what have you found that is useful, and what have you tried that has been proven to be totally counter-productive in the above described life situation.

 

(You know what they say about today’s music video, don’t you?  Some of the best 80’s rock is being written for the Pop Country Music audience today!  lol

Share

Views on Life, Memories of Growing up and the Wakefield Doctrine

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

One thing has always been true, here at the Wakefield Doctrine.
It has consistently been true that our Readers are people of exceptional qualities. We have used the term, flexible intelligence and we frequently use the term FOTD* and most often we will simply refer to ‘the Readers’. Whether you Comment or not, ask for a hat (for your damn head) or not, or even send us a photo or not (Jasmine…the weather is nice now…send us your photo), this blog has grown because of the influence/input/suggestions and criticisms of you, the Reader.

We totally appreciate your coming here and reading these Posts over the course of the last few years.

We have tried very hard to find ways to illustrate the principles of the Doctrine, all in the effort to make it easy to apply this tool/personality theory to situations in your own life. Especially critical to the success of this effort, has been the increasing number of people who write Comments, join in discussions and otherwise provide fresh insights into the value and use of the Wakefield Doctrine; especially those we call Friends of the Doctrine (FOTD), and the people who call in on the Saturday Night Drive.

What we have not done so well is to share the voices, the vision (of how the Doctrine works in real life) their experiences…their perspectives on how the Wakefield Doctrine can be a very helpful tool to understanding ourselves and those people in our lives.

That is changing… we are now entering a phase where what you read here is not just one person’s vision, a single individual’s choice of words…a solitary viewpoint. Those of you who have been regular Readers of the Doctrine will see more opinions and views and ‘ways-to-say-it’ in the coming weeks and months. …and we hope that with this change you will also join in the Discussion.

Today’s Post is the beginning of that Discussion.

(For the group) the First Question is:

“Of all the jobs you have had in your life, which was the one that you were awful at…because of your predominant personality type?”

Downspring#1: I think I have to go back to the food waitress thing. Not feeling very confident and a little more self-conscious than usual. It was awful. At the time, I needed a job and I really wanted to try waitressing (I had a scottian female friend who made good money), which is why I showed up the first day even though I should have stayed in bed. The other thing I remember is not getting a comfortable “vibe” from the place or the people. As a clark, if I can “connect” (but not with another clark – history points to a scott) with one or two people at least, then initially there is a feeling of “alright, I guess I can try this out”. It did not take me more than one day to decide….”I’m outta here!”

Molly: The job that makes me cringe, when I think back to it, was working in a Dry Cleaner as a tailor. Tailor was the job description, but 90% of the work amounted to mending. I was good at the actual job and the favorite amongst the customers… but I didn’t get the work environment. All the bitching, moaning and backstabbing were beyond me. My co-workers complaining about their miserable lives also confused me… especially since most of them had been in their perspective situations for years. Good God — Do.Something.Already! As soon as we could, we moved from the area.

clark: possibly my first, (maybe second) real job was pumping gas at a gas station, this was the 1960′s when gas stations were both gas and auto repair/service. My job was to get out to the gas pumps as soon as the customers drove in and ask what I could do for them and be friendly…and outgoing… I think I lasted 2 weeks part-time after school and weekends. The reason that the owner of the station gave was that I didn’t seem to have any enthusiasm (an employer refrain that I would become all too familiar with)…apparently I was not a sufficiently eager beaver. lol

Clairepeek: Just like Downspring#1, I have to say that my first and only job in London as a semi-gourmet French restaurant waitress was pretty awful. I was hiding behind the bar, doing the dishes and hoping nobody would notice me; of course at the time, this was an opportunity well provided by my employer, who thought that my English was not good enough to be anywhere near the customers. As an outcast waitress, I had to go up in the street, in the evening, and entice customers to come and eat at that place. I was dressed with a mini black skirt, a white shirt and black flat shoes. It was September and already freezing outside, but I was not allowed a coat. For two weeks I said nothing, until a new waiter came in who did not want to take this “crap”. He urged me not to take it either and we both quit one week later. As a “facilitator”, I have always despised conflict – whatever its form – so I needed the push of someone else to put my foot down in order to “facilitate” my own sanity and therefore well-being.

Phyllis: Chairside assisting for my Dad, a dentist, before I had a rogerian expression. My expression was definitely not assisting. Too much blood and spit and I never learned the names of the instruments. Dad ended up having me do the bookkeeping – more up my alley.

 

(For the group) the Second Question is:

“When you look back at your childhood, with an understanding of the Wakefield Doctrine, when do you think you see the earliest, clearest example of being the type that you are?”

Molly: When I was three, my parents moved from Montana to the family farm. My grandparents were moving out of the house as we were moving into it… but I didn’t understand what was going on. I didn’t realize we had moved and that this was now my home. For years, I felt that the only place I could call my own was my bed. I lived as a guest in the home for three or four years, until I finally understood that we were not going back to Montana.

clark: when I was about 5 or 6 years I entered the ‘age phase’ when my contemporaries ‘discovered’ tickling…everyone would go around and get the weaker ones on the ground and torment tickle the person until they cried or got mad. One day I thought, “I need to not be ticklish anymore, then they won’t have me at their advantage (or words appropriate to a 5

year old clark*)” and I proceeded to make myself not be ticklish…on a physical level, not repress the reaction, not be able to hold out…just plain no more tickle reflex.

Downspring#1: this is proving a more difficult task than I thought. So, with the caveat that I may come back in and delete this, here goes. I cannot recall exact age, just that I was either first or second grade (6-8 range). There was a Navy family that lived across the street (their name is on the tip of my tongue!). My memory tells me there were about 4 kids in the family. They were somewhat of a “wild” family but I was friendly with them. The time of year is unclear but I remember getting into it with one of the older kids about the existence of Santa Claus. I did not back down even at his obnoxious insistence that he (Santa) did not, nor did he ever exist. The confrontation ended with me storming off to consult my Dad about this. I may or may not have told the kid I’d be back with my Dad to set the story straight. Or something like that. lol

Clairepeek: I have to say that I was not premature in starting showing my clark-like personality… I was probably around the teenage phase when it happened; the day I heard my teacher tell me that I should stop writing because I had no talent, no creativity and absolutely not the mind to become a writer. That day, although I first followed her advice and for a long time after that, on that day I knew I did not belong to the crowd; I knew I would swim against the current all my life and be quite solitary to the external eye, but my head was full of my own world already.

Phyllis: I guess it was when I started defining “my boxes”. I started trying to live within my means at the age 11. I did not want to be dependent on anyone. I started making log cabins (just in case my parents disappeared). I tried to be aware of all the purchases made on my behalf and be as minimalist as possible. I often wore hand-me-downs from my sister who was much shorter than I, even though my parents could afford new clothes.

(For the group) the Third Question is:

“(We know that we all have the capabilities of all three personality types, but only one is predominant) if you could switch with one of the other two, which would it be?”

clark: I would go with becoming a roger. Mostly because, as a clark I know there is a place, way deep inside where I keep a reserve of…aggressiveness, directness, which ever of the words that describe the scottian characteristics and I know that, under duress I can get to those qualities and bring them to the surface…for a specific purpose, usually a situation of extreme threat or duress. I cannot do that with the characteristics of my rogerian aspects…and when I come close to doing that, the ‘after effects’…how it feels after a moment of rogerian behavior is decidedly unpleasant. So, to step into the world of the roger (that capacity I know that I have) and act and feel and live as a roger would be interesting and then I could not constantly question everything… them rogers is so damn certain… lol

Clairepeek: Well, to follow in your footsteps Clark, I guess I would then chose to become a scott because it is the personality out of the three that I cannot summon at will. I’d love to see what happens when I finally get to act with such confidence that I become at last the boss of my own company. It would be interesting to see how, without any hesitation, I introduce myself to others without feeling my blood rushing to my ears and feeling my entire body screaming it wants to be elsewhere… ^_^.

Downspring#1: I’m with Clairepeek on this one. I also would choose to become a scott. As a clarklike female, well as a female, it seems there is at the least, a fundamental ability (culturally stimulated) to be “social”. I have found it easier to develop my rogerian characteristic due in part to my having worked in retail environments during part of my professional career. Claire has hit the nail on the head. My scottian characteristics are such that I cannot easily “summon them at will.” It seems that only under situations of duress or if I am too tired to care (and therefore not overly self-conscious) am I able to express/summon my scottian characteristic(s). As a clark, I am not intimidated by the typical stuff – scary, screaming people, or traveling to new places…..but more like things such as being the focus of attention. Again, like Clairepeek talks about:) Hey! has anyone noticed that so far only we like people are participating in this thing? lol Yeah, well fuck them, right?!! (see, got my scott on)

Molly: At this moment in time, I am very content being a clark.
There is a line by Savatage that says, “The person I am are the parts that I play.” I think this pretty much sums up what it is to be a clark. We live in a world that is full of situations, and each one has different parameters… We simply find out what our role is and fill that part, without really acting.
In regards to homemaking and making/keeping order, I am working on developing my rogerian aspect, while keeping the attitudes out of my relationships… I don’t find the attitude appropriate for raising children, since it is too easy to take their behavior personally. When they misbehave, it becomes, “Haven’t I taught you better than that?!?” With an underlying attitude of, “How dare you embarrass me like this?”
Likewise, if my job is to meet people and make them feel welcome, I’m sure it is my scottian side that is on display. Assign me the job of hostesses and I will greet every person and make them feel welcome… I am always amazed at how many people think of me as a friend, or someone they can confide in, after doing a job like that.

Phyllis: I am happy with being me – a female roger.

 

Well this has been fun and enjoyable…

 

Until we figure out the how to display the names of the people who created this Post, we’ll just get all crayons and construction paper on it. So in alpha-botanical order:

Claire Perez Ekman DS#1 Molly Phyllis

 

 

Share