Month: February 2013 | the Wakefield Doctrine Month: February 2013 | the Wakefield Doctrine

if ‘a picture is worth 1,000 words’ and ‘actions speak louder than words’, then today’s Post might best be read while sitting down…the Wakefield Doctrine

February 28, 2013 By

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

Lets get started!

A video Post for today.  The highlights are:

  • Readers are reading and some are even Commentationing
  • this blog could be better organized, a layout/structure that is geared to the First Time Reader
  • there is no such word as Commentationing
  • while the fact that:  ‘everyone has a predominant worldview but always retains the capability to see the world as the other two’ remains a core concept
  • of recent times, the role of (a person’s) secondary aspect is beginning to be better understood and subsequently is way useful to know when first learning about the three worldviews
  • (this ‘better understanding’) involves recognizing how (one’s) secondary aspect colors the  possible solutions to a given problem
  • yes, we are going on just a bit with these technical things
  • of course we still do
  • (if you were able to supply the question that is implied in the previous bullet point, we so want to hear from you!

Well, given that the Video is… minutes long, let’s wrap the silent portion of this here Post here up.

Here’s a fun thing to take away from this Post! Sometime in the course of your day today, the thought will pop into your head, “this is what those Wakefield people said might happen!  Holy: a) Moley b) shit c) Toledo! What was it they said to do next?!?”
If that happens, lets us know.

We’ll wait here.

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

“Diogenes, C.W. Post and Jean Lafitte are sitting at a bar…” the Wakefield Doctrine (‘…early Tuesday morning, lets see you write your way out of this one!’)

February 26, 2013 By

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

You know what’s weird?  (no, not that…that’s simply strange), it’s that I find myself being  drawn to trying to learn to write. By that, I suppose I mean I am increasingly dissatisfied with my skills and at the same time find myself wanting to do it more. (Yes, paradigmatic of the adolescent male outlook).  This is, no doubt, a direct result of my association with writing-people over at the BBG* and  (new Friends of the Doctrine).
Nevertheless, I find myself creating challenges (for myself) with each effort to write Wakefield Doctrine Posts that are not only informative and interesting, but entertaining. I suppose, given my seemingly relentless drive to make the Wakefield Doctrine a damn household name,  this is not the worst thing that can happen.
And so, today’s Post Title.
I’ve mentioned in previous Posts and/or Comments that there are times when the Post you read in the Doctrine blog comes about simply because I hear a song fragment or get stuck with a single thought and I just try to ‘write my way out of it’. Today’s Post is one of those Posts.

…first, a little backstory.*** the Diogenes in our Title is Melanie’s fault! I was rummaging around ‘the Facebook’ and came across a Comment she made to the effect that she was having trouble with her internet connection and had to go find a more reliable source… now I know we all made the jump to that old… ‘in search of an honest man’ thing we all read about in grade school. So I wrote that as a comment. Naturally the next thing I thought was the old joke setup up,  “….were sitting at a bar” (or alternately,  “…walk into a bar”**).

(The work began.) I knew there should be three people in the set up, and since I was suspecting that Diogenes was a clark, I had to find a scott and a roger. I got lucky with C.W., in that the phrase, ‘best to you each morning‘ somehow got into my head and then the words, ‘Post Toasties’ and then on to our C.W. Post, who from my brief reading of his life struck me as a roger.  2/3s done!
Now all I needed was a scott!  Now most of us are thinking, “oh! how easy! a scott, flamboyant and aggressive and funny and predatory. The line forms here…’
No! unfortunately for me this morning, it is all too obvious that history favors those with a talent for self-promotion over those who are simply out to have a: good/ravenous/seduce-’em-all/conquer the country,  time.
But I came across our Jean Lafitte and the following line quoted in the Wikipedia**** :

Many Americans believed that Lord Byron‘s poem “The Corsair” was based on the life of Lafitte; the work sold over 10,000 copies on its first day of publication.[96] By 1840, Lafitte was widely known “as a fatal Lothario with women, and a cold-blooded murderer of men who yet observed some forms of honor”

So we had our scott!

So they are standing at the bar and Diogenes says to C.W. “what’s with the glass of milk?” and Jean interrupts and says, “”mais d’abord! roo roo un peu”

I have to close now. I have a day job that I so cannot afford to give up!

 

*Cyndi and Janine and Rich and Michelle and Emily and Amy and them

** here’s one that I found on a site (http://www.schiesshouse.com/) probably public domain, but it can’t hurt to cite the source,
“A guy walks into a bar…. ok, he did not walk in, he was already there. One guy says, “I slept with my wife before we were married, did you?” The other guy says, “I don’t know; what was her maiden name?”

*** another excellent joke!! This is a reference to the joke about ‘roo roo’ which is noteworthy because it is a gender-tropic joke! Yes, I’m making that word up, but it’s true! Of the Readers reading this, I am willing to bet a Wakefield Doctrine DocTee that every guy will immediately recognize (and know and find hilarious, the joke that I am referring to)…the womenly Readers?  sorry. it’s to your credit and a sign of a higher state of evolution that you guys do not get the reference.

**** Wikipedia motto: ‘that’s right! like Cliff Notes, but with pictures and easy access to footnotes to make it look like you did the research‘

 

 

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

You can’t spell synergy without the ‘sin’ in scotts, ‘whyyyy’ in rogers and the clark in clarks, the Wakefield Doctrine Sunday Edition

February 24, 2013 By

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

Synergy: a) In the context of organizational behavior, following the view that a cohesive group is more than the sum of its parts, synergy is the ability of a group to outperform even its best individual member;  2) Group Polarisation is when individuals in a group begin by taking a moderate stance on an issue regarding a common value and, after having discussed it, end up taking a more extreme stance.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergy  …sort of)

Great Drive* last night.  In attendecito: Jennifer, Cyndi, Molly and Denise.  Topics flew like empty promises at a High School 5th Year Reunion.

Topic:  Cyndi brought up the rogerian resistance to decisiveness, particularly in the context of staff meetings, this lead to a discussion of the style of management as manifested by the rogerian worldview; Molly, asked about aggressiveness as manifested by rogerian males versus females… in a word we tooled around the Wakefield Doctrine (metaphorical) Campus, like it was the Thursday night before Spring Break.

But of particular interest was the matter of scotts, (and as a subset to this discussion), the techniques employed by clarklike females when managing scottian men, then it got interesting! I would tell you all about it, but you really should have been there, the synergy referenced in the Title of today’s Post was very much in evidence. It was fun. Not to leave our ‘non-calling-in-to-the-Drive-my-god-how-simple-can-it-be-?’ Readers without at least one insight into the ways of clarklike females and scottian males, I simply say: ‘rolled-up newspaper‘

There were questions about how to identify scotts (and the other two) from physical appearance and it got me to thinking to write something on the primary identifying characteristic of the three personality types. So… to the bullet-list machine!

  • clarks: posture-challenged (particularly the males), slow of movement and clearly relaxed when seated (whatever the antonym for fidgety is that would be clarks sitting); it is said that ‘the eyes are the window to the soul’, well with clarks simply look for the person with the ‘far away’ look in their eyes (very far away)
  • scotts: the eyes are totally the first thing to identify them, but if the saying above is true, then you might want to brace yourself before looking in that window;  scotts tend to be athletic and/or sexy, given to rapid and semi-graceful movement, (if they are male), languorous movements if they are not, the second most obvious thing about scotts is their self-confidence, very socially active, ( scottian men are funny, scottian women are sexy) and on the mercurial end of the emotional expression scale
  • rogers: they make up the majority of the population (both genders) so if you know a person is not a clark or a scott then they must be a  roger.

 

This is Sunday, so out in < 500 words!

Doctrine-favorite band, Halestorm to provide the closing tune.

* The Wakefield Doctrine Saturday Night Drive, of course!

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

come on, you watched Road Runner episodes over and over on Saturday Mornings as a kid…the Wakefield Doctrine, grab yer cereal bowls… it’s a re-run

February 23, 2013 By

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

 

 

 

This being Saturday, chances are it will end in a night-like state which can only mean one thing! The Wakefield Doctrine Saturday Night Drive!!  Call us, yo   (the number, she is: 218-339-0422  access code: 512103  you will find it interesting and (more than likely, you will enjoy it and be glad you called. It is a totally new-caller-friendly-environment, I personally guarantee it.)

So following is a re-run

So what good is a ‘theory of personality’ if it don’t tell you what job you ought to get? or the kind of person you should try to go out with? or at the very least, give you reasons why your family and friends, “just don’t get you”? huh? what good would that kind of theory be?  Kinda worthless don’t you think? I mean, we know that you are an intelligent and curious person and that you really got a lot more on the ball than your parents/teachers/friends/family give you credit for…what the hell! you:

  • work hard
  • mean well
  • would do a lot better but there are so many other factors to consider
  • don’t mean to come off so snooty
  • really? how can they say such mean things
  • will do much better once you get some breathing room
  • fuck them,  I like the way I am
  • get them to understand what you are going through

To you we will say, “hey!  the Wakefield Doctrine is your answer”! Not only does the Wakefield Doctrine understand (all of the above) but the Wakefield Doctrine can tell you which job would be such a natural fit for your unique and totally special talents. And…and… when it comes to ‘the perfect relationship’? we got your back, big time. We wouldn’t let you down. So today we will lay out which jobs you should get and who it is that will most appreciate you, forever and ever.

There are three categories into which all jobs and occupations, life-callings and careers fall into: teacher, salesman and machine operator. And these three categories correspond to the three types of personality; clarks, scotts and rogers. Now let’s combine this ‘easy guide to a fulfilling career’ with a Wakefield Doctrine Lesson of the Day by considering why each of the three are particularly suited to the three job classifications.

clark  teacher   examples: teacher….er  professor…counselor….( goddamn, there’s got to more examples….) actor!  (yeah them!)… nurse, lighthouse keeper (…wtf?!) veterinarian…locksmith (but not a clockmaker)…artist…(…better make that “unsuccessful/appreciated after death”  only…lol) …damn not a lot of choices…homemaker  (…homemaker!!?! you’re gonna sell a lot of books with that career advice), shit ….better move on…

scott  salesman   examples:  salesman, military leader, policeman/woman, bank robber (unsuccessful), owner of a diner (only a diner, it takes a roger to own a restaurant), handyman, (successful) builder/contractor, electrician (but not plumber), surgeon, stripper/exotic dancer (but not a hooker), TV newscaster (female scotts only), TV pitchman (male only), muscian (frontman only), junior and senior high school gym teacher

roger  machine operator   examples: lawyer (all but criminal defense), engineer, accountant, chemist, restauranteur (but not a diner), judge, teacher (7th grade and up only but not gym), carpenter (but not general contractor), firefighter, politician, muscian (technically astounding, but not the frontman),  owner of a bed and breakfast, physician (but not a surgeon),ballerina, plumber (but not an electrician)

Alright,  that gets us started with the careers best suited to the three types of people in the world. Now to the question: Why are those the proper occupations?

clarks: need to accommodate others in the world, need to share beyond means, need to place own requirements second to another, clarks believe that knowledge has a value in and of itself, clarks are the ultimate in ‘behind the scenes/limelight aversive/unselfish to a fault’  people.
scotts: need to act, to do, to change things for the sake of change, does not simply place own needs before others, rather does not particularly perceive any other person as having needs (not counting immediate dominant scott) scotts as predators will simply act with or without support or reinforcement of others, they make ideal leaders in that they are always certain in their plans to act
rogers: need to maintain and preserve the status quo, make excellent technicians, engineers, they consider the herd as support for themselves without there being an issue of dominance/submission, have very little curiosity and as such will be the most likely to succeed

There. Career Counseling, Wakefield style!  (yes and we are serious).

At this point, if there is anyone still reading and/or not yet muttering, “who the fuck do these people think they are? I am not selfish…! I do think about others!!!they have no right to say such untrue things!!’  then in our next section we will be happy to tell you the outcome of any effort at having a relationship with another person… on the other hand….let’s save that for the next Post!

We good? Fine it is cloudy and grey here, so I figure it’s only proper to share the sunshine with y’all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7h0dpiM9c0k&feature=share&list=PL42033819C98403F7
Share
Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , ,

the Wakefield Doctrine joins Janine and Kate and them for a FTSF!

February 22, 2013 By

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

Janine and Kate (FOTDs1) do this thing every Friday. They call it a blog hop and it is, in part, a way to let blog writers visit and read other blog writer’s blogs. Given how little extra time most of us active bloggers have in any given day, this is a very good way to help me ‘get out more’, to read people who I may not otherwise read. The ‘hook’  to their blog-hop is called, ‘Finish the Sentence Friday’ and as you probably are suspecting, it involves… completing a sentence in what one hopes is a clever, creative and entertaining manner!
We participated back in January, got snowed under (literally and figuratively), and did not do so again until now. Today I thought we would participate for two reasons:  a) we like Janine and Kate and them (Dawn and Stephanie), and 2) it would be an opportunity to see if I am capable of writing an interesting Post in under 500 words.2

Here are the ‘Rules’

 

(and)
Here is the ‘setup’

”Speaking from experience, I’m going to give you a little advice on…”  …personality theories in general, and the Wakefield Doctrine specifically.

The human urge/drive to understand why people act the way that they do, surely is at least the second thing Man experienced when he: evolved, was created, got out of the Flying Saucer, stopped hitting each other with femurs. The manifestation of a self-conscious mind, not just self-awareness, but the curiosity into the motive of others.
(scene: paleolithic cave, somewhere outside Les Eyzies about 25,000 years ago. Quentin Tarantino and Jessica Alba would not be arriving for at least 24,990 years)
Mrs. Magnon:  “Hey, stop with the wall already and come over and eat!”
Mr. Magnon: “Why doesn’t she understand how important this is?”

We all know the rest of the story.

As persistent, pervasive and fun the desire to understand why people act the way that they do may be, the drive to understand ourselves is even more …basic. And so it should come as no surprise that there are so, so many theories to explain your behavior and her behavior, the children’s behavior…. for that matter the dog’s behavior!
Simply put, personality theories are mirrors. And just as it is impossible to walk past a mirror without looking, understandably difficult  to put down the magazines with the article about Kirsten or Beyoncé,  ( the cover,  ‘Beyoncé reveals all! yes, I used a body-double for my Honeymoon‘), we understand that trying to read, while in a checkout line, about a test that will allow you to discover if you are compatible with your spouse of 20 years or the girl/boy who sits in front of you in History 101. We understand!
…and before anyone says, ‘I never look in the mirror as I walk by!’  No, of course you don’t.   …what mirror?
The thing is, we are all curious and we are all trying to make (our) relationships satisfying. That is why we have personality theories.

(Afraid I am approaching 500 words.)

real quick, the Wakefield Doctrine (specifically) is really useful and totally fun, for those people who have a certain kind of curiosity and intellectual self-confidence. The reason it is fun, is that it is based on the notion that personality theory must begin with how an individual relates (themselves) to the world around them and from there,  the real fun…. identifying the three personality types in the people in your own life, in other words, seeing the clarks and the scotts and the rogers around you.

I stop.

Don’t forget to go and read all the other Posts that are at the bottom of Janine’s Post, y’all

1) FOTD Friends of the Doctrine, which means they be on our blogroll and such

2)  We’ve been trying to find a word-diet that we can live with, our rogerian aspect has been manifesting of late and rather than buy a larger sized blog theme, we thought we would try to slim it on down, ya know what I mean?

 

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