Month: July 2013 | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 3 Month: July 2013 | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 3

‘…on the frontiers of understanding, the verge of action and the ecstasy of feeling!’ the Wakefield Doctrine (…don’t worry, we got your back)

July 18, 2013 By

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

anjana-the-chimpanzee-and-two-tigers-3

I was ‘talking’1 to Considerer last night.

me:  “Considerings (the blog) has been real busy…you’re getting good reviews”

Lizzie: “It has been indeed!  At some point I’m hoping to reach a tipping point and snag a few more members/followers/groupies…  I have been pleasantly surprised, because I am trying to take your advice and learn rogerian (see my new tab when you get a chance)”

me:  “damn, I hate to see you spending all your time re-inventing the axle! You have the Doctrine down to the point that you should be out there pushing the boundaries of (our) understanding.”

So I told our newest DownSpring, write me a question (about the Wakefield Doctrine) and I might use it as a launching point in an effort to present where the hot topics and current challenges are in our efforts to learn, use and have fun with the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers.

(here’s Lizzie’s Question):

‘How you came up with such a thorough Doctrine. And whether or not all the Doctrine views are ‘but only through the eyes of a clark‘, in which case,what might the other views think (or would they?)”

My Answer: ‘No’

The Wakefield Doctrine is predicated on the idea of personal reality. Simply put, the totality of your experience of the world around you is more than the aggravation2 of objective facts, (who, what, where, why and when). Reality involves interpretation of the external ‘objective’ world. Nothing earth-shaking there. The Doctrine is concerned with, ‘how we relate ourselves to the world around us’. No one should have a problem with that as a starting point. The Wakefield Doctrine holds that there are three characteristic worldviews (those personal realities we spoke of just now). Since the Wakefield Doctrine purports to be a personality theory, we have three personality types. The difference between us and the mainstream personality systems that immediately appears, is that the Wakefield Doctrine is not particularly concerned with the individual (as a source of information to determine personality types) per se. Rather, the primary goal of a person employing our Doctrine is to infer which of the three worldviews are being experienced. If we correctly infer that a person is living in, (and has grown up and developed in), the personal reality that we call, ‘that of the Outsider’ then we have what we call a clark. (and so with the respective worldviews of the Predator and the Herd).

Where the work of the Wakefield Doctrine currently lies, is in our efforts to develop a language that can be understood by an individual (from) the perspective of any of the three worldviews.4
The three worldviews are different. They are different in terms of how they require a successful ‘inhabitant’ to relate to them. This is a qualitatively, fundamentally, scrumptiously different difference (between the three worldviews). Lets go with the bullet points:

  • clarks live in a worldview (in which) the individual is an Outsider. if you are an Outsider, what is the first thing that occurs to you to do?  what quality/capability/capacity found in (a) human being is best suited to this task? And while you are engaged in this effort what would you fear and what would you hope for
  • scotts live in a worldview (in which) the individual is a Predator.  what is the first thing that occurs to you to do? (now to expand on the line of reasoning we followed with clarks), how you describe the world to another person is a function of how you relate yourself to the world (that) you find yourself in, (we call this ‘how the worldview manifests’), from the perspective of having the world of the Predator to relate yourself to and, given the range of human expression available how would you be inclined to express yourself to those around you?
  • rogers live in the world of the Herd, the nature of the world for the person who lives in this worldview is relatedness  what would it be like, to look around at the people and the places and the things and the activities and the past and the future in a context in which everything (and everyone) is connected in some way?

The challenge of creating a ‘common language’ lies in the fact that in languages there are sounds and there are concepts that are exclusively the domain of one’s context, environment …world and is not necessarily even possible in the other two worldviews. And it is surely these ‘exclusive/characteristic/native’ concepts, that are critical to understanding/acting in/feeling the true nature of the three personal realities. For better or worse, the Doctrine maintains that we are all heir to the three ways to experience the world, so our job is to learn, understand, identify with, feel and do something with each of these distinct, though somewhat in common worlds.

We talk about our initial efforts to understand/act/feel the three worldviews as acquiring fluency. Only reasonable, no? You have three cultures that have only the biology of their inhabitants in common and you want to create a language that allows productive interaction between the three…first thing you better do is become fluent in each native language. Then find common ground. Then…then! try and convince those stubborn bastards that not only is this a good idea, but they will be better off once they learn to save the lava-walking and the witch-burning for their once-a-year culture celebrations and stand acting like the evolved people that we want to hang out with (and we promise to stop mumbling and hoping to be forgiven).

Any questions? Outrageous acts? Overwhelming Feelings?

(oh yeah!! new Readers?  clarks think…scotts act and rogers feel.  If you have the kind of mind that enjoys playing with ideas and you have the sharpness of intellect that you will see when you look at Cyndi and Considerer and the others  you might just get something out of this!)

 

 

1) actually I was typing…not one of the more effective ways for me to communicate

2) a rogerian expression3

3)  look it up

4) We all have one predominant worldview but always retain the capability to experience the world as do ‘the other two. This is the source of the value of the Wakefield Doctrine as a self-development tool.

 

 

 

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

‘the Songs of the 90’s…the decade of clarks’ the Wakefield Doctrine (the songs tell the tale)

July 15, 2013 By

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

Stage-diving1

Twisted MixTape Tuesday 16

The Nineteen Nineties… what a great Decade. Seriously. I don’t have the formal understanding of the musicological developmentation but, for me the 1990s were a (return) to a less overblown, less gigantic approach to music. Not that there is anything wrong with gigantic and bombastic and such. That’s why god invented arenas!  But for me, somehow, the new music seemed like it was more at home coming out of speakers in my car (not 18″ liquid nitrogen cooled woofers, either)…rather there was a (for me) a sense of returning to a more human scale. Axel and Vince still had a place in my playlist… but that’s another thing. Playlists. Computers began to replace my record store (and with Napster, my free record store.) Variety was rampant. I listened to music I had never heard before and I listened to music that I didn’t like enough to spend 10 bucks for a CD.

…I liked the 90’s  It had a more personal feel, while at the same time expressing alienation from an increasingly structured and impersonal world.  (And! Country music started to come out of the corral)

(          clever little  sub-plot involving Jen and Kristi  temporarily down for editing, modifications and such… please check back when I have gotten an idea that is as amusing as the previous one was, that should be in…oh I don’t know 3 or 4  years!!! )  (thank you for your patience….)

Basket Case – Green Day

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Self Esteem – the Offspring

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Don’t Rock the Jukebox – Alan Jackson

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I Touch Myself – Divinyls

http://www.youtube.com/Watch?v=wv-34w8kGPM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Free Your Mind – En Vogue

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rocket Man – Jason Mraz

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) it’s Summer School at Wakefield Doctrine U.

July 15, 2013 By

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

images-21

In the manner of an idealized Summer School session, today we begin a series of Posts1 that is intended to teach the theory and practice of the Wakefield Doctrine to those who, although already familiar with it’s underlying principles,  might benefit from a more casual approach to the subject.  As such, these Posts while appearing to be somewhat extemporaneous, are meant more as ‘talking points’ as opposed to a straight out lecture on the Doctrine. And, since we appear determined to try the ‘Summer School’ theme, at least one of our Posts will be (the mythical) class outdoors.2

Lets get started.

(oh! wait!  one more thing. this will be a two part Post. This is the morning section and there will be an afternoon session. So read, learn, consider and have your questions ready for the mid afternoon Q&A)

the Wakefield Doctrine is a personality theory with a difference. Sure, we have three personality types (hell, every personality theory has three personality types) and we also maintain there is a degree of ‘commonality’ among the three personality types. Still nothing radical. If you want to apply and use (to your benefit) one of the many popular personality-type systems, the first step is usually a questionnaire or a survey in which you are asked to describe yourself, your likes and dislikes, interests and phobias, hopes and dreams, ideals and goals.

We don’t.

We don’t need to ask you about what you know about yourself. We do need to know how you would describe the world around you. See, the Wakefield Doctrine is not about how you relate to the world. the Wakefield Doctrine is about ‘how you relate yourself to the world around you’.  If you find this Doctrine interesting and want to use it to better understand yourself and the people in  your life, your first task in not to ask everyone what they think about themselves! No. No it is not! The first thing to do is read about the Doctrine, then read about the three personality types: clarks, scotts and rogers.  You need to do this because the first step to using the Wakefield Doctrine to better understand yourself and the people in your life is to infer their worldview.  See, we don’t care about questionnaires and favorite likes and secret dislikes! We do care about whether they are relating themselves to the world around them as would (an) Outsider (clark) or a Predator (scott) or as would a Herd Member (roger). Correctly infer which of the three worldviews the person is experiencing and you are on your way to not only know why they do the things that they do, but how they are likely to react to a situation that has not even occurred.

Afternoon Session: Considerer  she say, ‘yeah, but do the three types have different sense of humor, or wot?”

************* Lunch Break is so Over!! Back to your seats!! *************

OK  everyone back to your desks… except our Mz. Considerer, you may make yourself comfortable anywhere, seeing how you appear to be walking around 6 inches off the ground! lol
Congratulations are in order for Ms. Rogers, she has seen her hard work and focused efforts become a reality with an Offer of Employment. We will ask her for the details, but for now a round of applause is in order.

Jak? we see you sitting back there… you had a question? more of a ‘concern’?  Certainly we would like you to share it with the class.

I think you are right about it being a great self-improvement tool. If the offer is open-ended (is that the term?) meaning available once I get a better grasp, I’d be interested. In the meantime, I feel like I would be prone to “mucking” things up.

I’ve been known to break the internet

Thank you for that…  I believe my response in my Reply was words to the effect:

I am also fond of saying to people learning about the Doctrine, ‘hey! look try it out.. you not only can’t break it, but you can’t get it wrong’ (you know that last is totally asterixeded lol)

The reason I say this and why I would encourage you to be comfortable with experimentation is twofold: a) no one is judging anyone’s rate of learning to use this thing, I can say that with assurance… and 2) we have a saying, ‘the Wakefield Doctrine is for you and not for them’

Lets put it this way:  try out the three worldviews,  see which one seems to to be the better fit, the most resonant with the world as you see it. . If you ‘make a mistake’ picking the wrong one as your predominant worldview… well, it won’t change what your worldview is, you’ll just notice that (the descriptions don’t feel right).  And you try and switch things around, eventually you will arrive at the correct worldview. The thing about this personality theory is that, provided you have an understanding of the basic principles, you will learn something useful about yourself everytime you try to use it. Even if you don’t do it right! you still will learn something. The reason is simple. The Wakefield Doctrine is not an Answer. The Wakefield Doctrine is a perspective.

 

 

(ok, for anyone sneaking into class without the prerequisites… yeah, clarks, we know you’re back there!  here’s the deal: we’re all born with the potential to experience the world as clarks, scotts and rogers. At a very early age we find one of the three is our predominant worldview…where we live. We never lose the capacity to see the world as do ‘the other two’. So if you feel you are a roger, but could swear you acted like a scott one time there, you’re a roger with a secondary scottian aspect. That’s all you get! You want to keep up, then you better hope that one of the DownSprings will let you cheat off their papers…yeah there will be a Test. You did get the Summer School metaphor we’re doing here, didn’t you?)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDEHZNirvF0

1) by series, we mean once, maybe twice a week you’ll see a Summer School… for extra help, ask one of the DownSprings: Denise, Cyndi, Considerer, Molly,  Steve or Jennifer

2) as in, ‘hey everyone, it’s such a beautiful day, lets go outside and have class outdoors!  This one class will be a Video conference call through google+ hangouts  check your syllabus for date and time.

 

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

‘Welcome to the Weekend, binyons, it’s time for’, the Wakefield Doctrine: Ten Things of Thankful (vol. #6)

July 13, 2013 By

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

2nd-date-take-the-train-0610-mdn

The creation of Considerer (aka Lizzie), Ten Things of Thankful is a bloghop with a difference. This is a bloghop that runs throughout the weekend and, by doing so, manages to accomplish what most bloghops hope in vain, i.e. to create a ‘conversation’,  a sense  of being able to go from one contributor to another, taking from one idea and adding to another…across the rich variety of Comment threads that show up over the next two days. Very cool.

Readers probably sense the tendency of this blog’s contribution to the blgohop to …not follow the normal path. I must insist that we do not ‘get our clark on‘ just to be different, rather it is simply the way that we find most enjoyable as we participate in this bloghop  and the other two (FTSF)1 and (TMTT)2.

That being said, there clearly is the factor of being a clark. And, for a clark, writing a Post telling Readers the things that I feel grateful for is, well that is challenging. Challenging on 2 counts: a) clarks are not known for being open (at least among strangers) and 2) clarks and emotion are…well, we’re sort of like the second date. We know that there is something there, we both know we could be compatible, one of us really just wants to get the other in bed and (the other of us) hopes that we can really make a go of it in a mature long term sense, but wouldn’t mind just getting in bed, but doesn’t want to risk it all.

you know, like anyone would!

So here’s my List of 10 Things of Thankful (in bullet-point, no less)(sorry…I felt the bullet pointedness, but clearly this is a numbered list):

  1. …when DownSpring Considerer was having a problem with her blog, I was able offer her this blog to write a Guest Post. (Not such a magnanimous gesture, as I had been thinking about trying to get her to do so for a while)
  2. I got a chance to to have some fun with Wakefield Doctrine approved clothing items…details as the weekend develops
  3. I enjoyed the privilege of persistent and patient friends around me last Saturday, when the Video Midnight Snack kinda didn’t quite work as planned, but thanks to Considerer and Michelle and Cyndi and Denise, I had the opportunity to learn a little bit more about google hangouts
  4. … damn!  this might work, it might not… I am: click here
  5. lol  it frickin worked!  I so am glad of that (cha-ching!)
  6. I could say that I am grateful for being among… tolerant co-bloggers, as there are times when I try things that the part of my brain that represents the ‘don’t get carried away with it, clark’ is screaming: “stop that, and get in this house! this instant!” and so far I have not been blocked from any blogs
  7. Friend of the Doctrine Christine would understand, for which I am totally…. hold on got a call
  8. You know, it is probably a little late to worry about it, but this jumping around is either going to get me 439 visits or get us sent to the secret blog jail that Considerer has managed to spring herself from; I would be grateful for the former, not so much for the latter
  9. I was thinking about completing a hopefully subtle double entendre joke that is contained in the section above the list, but I don’t see Kristi around yet, and she would be my ‘go-to’ for something like that, she so has the kind of sense of humor for that kind of thing (no, not just that she would appreciate it, but she would understand all of what goes into the trying of it, at least from the perspective of a clark… she that kind of cool)
  10. I’m grateful for being at the end of my List. out

here is the place where you put your link and such

 

Ten Things of Thankful
 Your hosts


 

 

 

 

1)  the work of Janine and Kate and Stephanie and Dawn

2) the god-I-wish-I-knew-them-back-in-the-day3 bloggerini Jen and Kristi

3) and had the nerve to talk to them, they both would have been too hot for the ‘you’re not from around here, are you’ clark that I was back then

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

‘Finish The Future Friday’ the Wakefield Doctrine … well, there are at least three that I know of!

July 12, 2013 By

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

DSC08164

Readers of the Doctrine know that on Friday, we  participate in a ‘blog hop’ called ‘Finish the Sentence Friday’. The handiwork of  Janine, Kate, Stephanie and Dawn, each week, participant bloggers are challenged to answer a simple question, presented in the form of an incomplete sentence. Seems simple enough, right? Wrong! …for two reasons. a) bloggers are, at heart, a competitive bunch and in a large group setting like FTSF, they will, to a (wo)man, pull out all the stops1 and 2) the questions (the fragment needing ‘completion’) have a disturbing propensity for causing you to follow paths (in your mind, in your past, in your life), that you will find at times find surprising, at other times kind of scary.

“If I could go back and do something over it would be…”

nothing…

That is my answer. There is nothing I would change in my past. And the reason why I would (not) change anything in my past is obvious to most clarks, eventually makes sense to the rogers and the scotts?  no so much caring.

Which makes me realize that I am not giving this weeks’ FTSF the effort that it deserves. To remedy that:

the Wakefield Doctrine maintains that all people are born with the potential to experience life from one of three characteristic worldviews, that of the Outsider (clarks), the Predator (scotts) and the Herd (rogers). At an early age, one of these three becomes our predominant worldview and we grow up and develop as appropriate to this reality. With the Wakefield Doctrine, we are concerned with ‘how a person relates themselves to the world around them‘2.  Understanding the character of an individual’s personal reality and correctly inferring which of the three (worldviews) they are experiencing, allows a person to not only know more about the other person than they know about themselves, but it allows a level of prediction that most none of the popular personality theories permit. It is also part of the Wakefield Doctrine that, while we all have a predominant worldview, we still retain the potential to experience the world as do ‘the other two’. This is the key to the self-improvement use of this personality theory and the answer to the question, ‘hey I think I am a clark, but sometimes I think I must be a scott!’ (you’re a clark). So that’s the Doctrine, in a nutshell. (One bit of advice, ‘the Doctrine is for you, it’s not for them’  …ask anyone).

So to rephrase our little Sentence (for) completion:

“If I could go back and do something over it would be…”

I already told you…nothing. I would not change a thing in my post, because, (it is the belief common among), clarks that all acts have results/consequences/outcomes, and that everything we do creates a chain of events that continues on into the future. To many clarks, our lives as we experience it, is only one of a number of possible lives, each created by a single decision. An endless branching of futures. But the important branch is the one that I am writing from and that is the one that I would not risk being undone. Be it a change in a decision that I made: 13 years ago or the day in the first grade when I was called on or the night that Hazel was drunk and stopped by unexpectedly or the day before Ola got sick or yesterday when I thought I would show off with the Doctrine to Kristi.  Nope. I don’t believe you can tell which of a zillion decisions is critical to the existence you are existing in right now…so I would not change not a goddamn thing. lol

“If I could go back and do something over it would be…”

What? Theres nothing I wouldn’t do again, but if I could I would do more. More than what I managed to do, faster and maybe, if I could make it so there is less drag on me by the people and the things who believe that they have time to waste. Each day is the day to live. To live is to do stuff to act…to:  laugh alot/get into the fight sooner/ love him or her more/ worry less  just live. So what would I change? I would do more

“If I could go back and do something over it would be…”

The question is silly. The past is the past, it is important that we have a past. If everyone changed how their lives went, then how would we know what to do, the very things that make all of our lives comfortable and secure and reliable are based on having a past… a reliable and consistent past. Engineering, accounting, all the sciences, most of the medicine, the entire legal system and your better cooking shows. If you allowed people to change their pasts then you could not have any of the Cable TV shows that everyone enjoys.. if people could improve, how could they scheme and trick the other team and be the only Survivor, the Biggest Loser, the Most Talented, the Winner?   see? you can’t have people changing their Past it wouldn’t be Right.

Well, that certainly was….different!

(you know, looking back on this Post… if I could change one thing I wrote….)

 

 

1) An allusion to organ stops, which control the loudness and tones of a pipe organ. When all are pulled out, the organ can play all tones simultaneously. (wikipedia.org)

2)  note: we did not say, ‘how a person relates to the world’ the difference in the wording matters, yo

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