Month: January 2015 | the Wakefield Doctrine

re-print phriday -the Wakefield Doctrine- hey! it’s Friday! (Friday motto: everything that that fricken Monday …isn’t!)

January 23, 2015 By clarkscottroger

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

Early day today… want to put some content up, thought that, other than ivy (tbfkaz)* who arguably is the Margaret Meade of the Wakefield Doctrine sub-culture-to-be, most people have not read the following Post. I’ve been writing this blog for nearly 5 years or so, and when I came across the Post that is today’s content, as I read it yesterday, (admittedly with a little ‘oh-shit-!-a-Post-from-the-first-year!’, I was relieved to find that it’s a surprisingly fun and minimally embarrassing example of early Doctrine Post. (To put it in a historical context, today’s reprint-Post was written at a time when the only comments on a Post came from a person I knew in real life.) My driving ambition was to present the principles and convey the simple fun of our little personality theory. (Seeing how old most Readers these days are not… the woman on the lower left is Diane Keaton, from her Annie Hall days (she was nothing less than the Patron Saintessa of all clarklike female women… ), I often use clips from that particular movie because she is such a clark.

Enjoy yourselfs.

Wakefield Doctrine Field Guide

October 27, 2010 By clarkscottroger 2 Comments

( …”so if we establish the outward more obvious characteristics”… )Oh, hello! Did not see you come on line…be right with you ( …but the “fun factor” got to find a way to present the damn fun of this thing… ) just one more aside and we can get today’s Post started ( …good frickin job there, you just telegraphed your last remaining hook… goddamn it… ) Let me just try and put this little journal down. There.Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)!. This week we are starting to present the whole Doctrine in a simple, logical and easy to understand manner. ( …sure keep up with the asides…is there nothing you won’t resort to in order to get through one of these Posts?…they know what you are doing, they ‘get’ it, dude…this is so over done…)  Yesterday we started with a clark, as subject of discussion. But let’s keep with the topic a little longer… ( … ’cause clarks are sooo interesting. ) clarks are the creative ones and as such…( …Hola Miguel, ¿qué pasa con el director Clark? No se ve tan bien, y creo que él está hablando a sí mismo … vamos que el hallazgo señorita Sullivan y Britney… ) ( …man! are you so totally shameless!   roll out the ‘Spanish exchange students’, just to keep this Post limping alone?)I believe I was suggesting that we continue to look at the personality of clarks. Hell, since this Post insists on slouching towards ( …Yeates, I can’t frickin believe that you are so desperate to get done that you will pad this thing with a literary allusion that a sophomore high school student would be too embarrassed to use… but hey, who am I to criticize… ) Well, let’s get the words on the page, put in some pictures and get the hell out. ( …the way this thing is going you are likely to pander to the scotts and put some frickin childishly exuberant music just to draw a reaction. )

Ahem! as we have said before, the clarklike females are fairly easy to identify. Outlandishly dressed, creative with the make-up (with special attention to the face/eyes) and, to a woman, something fairly strange on their feet. If you are trying to identify which of the three types a person is and you are thinking, possible clark, then concentrate on their eyes. (The eyes) of the female clarks are quite distinctive, mostly in an un-mistakeable ’not-of-this-world’ intensity. Often (and unfairly) characterized as either the ‘ditsy broad’ or ‘snooty/aloof/what-does-she-think-she-is-too-good-for-us?’, the clarklike female projects this image simply because they are distracted. A state common to all clarks, there is simply so much going on inside their heads that they barely have time to keep track of what is going on in front of their noses. If you find yourself talking to a clark, watch their eyes. If you pay attention, you will see as (mentally) they go from topic to idea to implication to ramification (back to the conversation taking place) to how to conclude the interaction to implication…etc

In the spirit of turning this trainwreck into a valid Post about identifying clarks, let’s cut and paste some of the characteristics (found on the clarks page) and get some music and get out… after all there is a real world out there and it is totally full of clarks, scotts and rogers. And there is nothing more fun than going out there and seeing the Wakefield Doctrine “demonstrate itself”.
New Readers? It might seem difficult to figure who is which today, but take our word for it, this Doctrinething is a lot of fun.

Just to get you started, here are some photos of known clarks

or  or maybe       …ok, we’re sure you get the idea, now get out there and find ‘em!

(DS#1 says we should stick with the ‘topic’ of female clarks) because they are out there in the everyday world and you can spot them with only a little practice. And who are we to disagree with the DownSprings? (the DownSprings are the life of this Doctrine, whatever they want they will always get), so let’s try to come up with a “Field Guide”:

Wakefield Doctrine Field Guide

scott(male):   picture that Tasmanian devil on the cartoons……or Joe Pesci in all of his movies
roger(male):  they’re frickin everywhere, watercooler? check…Fireman? check…look for the easy-going comfortable smile, inviting conversation…
scott(female): Ginger on Gilligan’s Island, the green chick on Star Trek (the 60′s version)
clark(female): read the damn Post! you can find the clarklike females
clark(male): the office geek except without the marketable technical skills, probably under-employed, very funny, usually interesting, (in small doses), cannot do enough for any person who merely recognises their existence, never mind actually be nice to them
roger(female): tough call under the best of circumstances, examples Kathy Bates, most wholesomely attractive women (with an agenda), think Carrie Nation in SUV…

There you have it, the Wakefield Doctrine Field Guide (to spotting) clarks, scotts and rogers..

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: personality types, predicting human behavior, relationships, the Wakefield Doctrine

Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘Lady Godiva, her scottian husband and….a clark’

January 21, 2015 By clarkscottroger

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

Seeing how, of late, we’ve been all studious and learning the use of the Wakefield Doctrine to self-improve our own selfs, lets kick back and have a mid-week break! You all deserve it*.

Lady Godiva took pity on the people of Coventry, who were suffering grievously under her husband’s oppressive taxation. Lady Godiva appealed again and again to her husband, who obstinately refused to remit the tolls. At last, weary of her entreaties, he said he would grant her request if she would strip naked and ride on a horse through the streets of the town. Lady Godiva took him at his word and, after issuing a proclamation that all persons should stay indoors and shut their windows, she rode through the town, clothed only in her long hair. Just one person in the town, a tailor ever afterwards known as Peeping Tom, disobeyed her proclamation in one of the most famous instances of voyeurism. In the story, Tom bores a hole in his shutters so that he might see Godiva pass, and is struck blind. In the end, Godiva’s husband keeps his word and abolishes the onerous taxes.

Most of you will not need me to tell you whats going on with this most…. civic of fairy tales (cautionary tale?… fable? morality play?… whatever). I will, however, address the New Reader.

New Reader? The fun (and real value) to be found in the Wakefield Doctrine lies not in being able to immediately identify Lady Godvia as a roger, her, kind-of-a-jerk, husband as a scott and …and poor Tom as a clark. It does not. The real fun (and value to ourselves, as people trying to better understand the people in our lives), lies in accepting that we have the qualities of all three of the characters in this story. ( One would represent our predominant worldview, and ‘the other two’ as our secondary and tertiary aspects, which, of course, our potential to be better (or worse) people.)

(While the more experienced Readers giggle in the back of the class and compose their smart-assed, but nevertheless perceptive interpretations of this Tale, lets review the three personality types of the Wakefield Doctrine):

clarks are the ‘personality type’ that results from growing up as ‘the Outsider’. Through no fault of their own (though, they will go through life suspecting that there was something that was their fault…but that’s a whole ‘nother Post), clarks seek to learn how to live the best life possible, they place their stock in understanding the world, and believe that what they think is missing (in their lives) is knowable and rational. They are very creative, funny and (they) see the rules of social order as just another interesting thing about all the real people around them
scotts are identified by the coping strategies that have allowed wolves, lions, dogs and other predators to thrive through history. scotts are impulsive and decisive, mercurial and sentimental, for them the world is very simple: wake up… eat, protect the pack, be alert to threats and opportunity in the day, reproduce (of course! metaphorically as well as literal! knucklehead!) and sleep. scotts are the first pick for captain …of the other team (lol…. no, think about it a little….) (if you’re reading this you were in the other team… not the first team) they are great best friends and scary adversaries
rogers are the people who grow up and develop their coping skills knowing that they are ‘a part of’, they belong. rogers live (and thrive) in a world that is quantifiable, understandable, predictable ( in an unpredictable way) and above all has Rules…. rogers live searching for the Right Way (to do things) and will go all out to help others engaged in this task… the Yearbook Committee? pretty much all rogers (with one clark or so to do the stupid work)

ok.

You now know what is necessary in order to understand why we are identifying our three main characters as we are….lets open the Post for Comments.

(New Readers? the real fun lies in what is really required to successfully identify another’s worldview, i.e. you need to see the world as the other person is experiencing it. So…. Lady Godiva’s husband? so he says, ‘sure, I’ll lower taxes if you ride naked through the streets of town’…. bet that guy had a supply of banana peels, seltzer bottles and whoopee cushions around the palace and, that naked part? And Godiva? issue a proclamation (aka a Law)… that she would ride naked (implying that she would be exposed to all) but then say…. ‘you can’t look’ god! how many times in high school did we have to deal with that kind of behavior! … Tom? clark…clark…clark oh man, dude! you don’t have to make things so difficult for yourself… she doesn’t care!)

* did we mention how the Doctrine is predicated on reality being personal? that last sentence is the perfect example of what we mean by personal reality.

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: Personal, personality types, predicting human behavior, psychology of personality, relationships, self-development, self-improvement, the Wakefield Doctrine

mondae -the Wakefield Doctrine- (to continue with our lesson… ‘what good does it do to know this stuff?’)

January 19, 2015 By clarkscottroger

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

Friend of the Doctrine Mel, with a hat in ‘Michigan’
(from our series: ‘Didn’t I see the Doctrine in…’)

(Towards the end of last week’s Posts, we began to look at a ‘problem’ reported by our friend, Cynthia:

“Outsider. This could be my motto for life. I’m surrounded by rogers and um…ya know…have figured out that the office environment…well…let’s just hope the rogers don’t gang up on me and kick my ass.”

this ‘problem’ serves us well, both as an illustration of the Doctrine as a tool of understanding and as a tool for self-helping ourselfs. By this I mean, (that) when we feel uncomfortable in a social context, the source (of the feeling) is ‘without’. We are charged by the Doctrine* to never forget that the responsibility (for the feeling) is ‘within’.

… the answer to the question posed in our subtitle?

( Here’s a funny thing. In answer to my rhetorical question, I started to write: ‘it depends on a person’s predominant worldview..’ Which, of course, would have been a followed by an explanation of how, of the three personality types of the Wakefield Doctrine, clarks are the only ones who need the insight that is available. But then, I stopped. And I thought to myself, I thought, “Wait a minute!! You’re about to be wrong!! The benefits of the use of the Wakefield Doctrine, as a perspective on the behavior of those around us, is not limited, constrained, defined or otherwise affected by a person’s worldview! It’s the same for scotts and rogers as it is for clarks.)

the Wakefield Doctrine is one more way to perceive the world we live in. It is not the Answer. It is not (even) an Answer. It is way that allows a person to come closer to seeing the world as the other person is experiencing it.

If you are inclined to feel apart from the world, wonder if there is something that everyone knows that you do not, then the you might be living in the personal reality of the Outsider (clarks);
If you are impulsive and emotional (without taking people….personally) and yet are surprised (but not overly concerned) when people get exasperated with your suggestions to ‘do something/anything’, then you might be living in the personal reality of the Predator (scotts) and
If you are living and, the odd thing is that you’re curious about this Doctrine thing, in a world that, while challenging is and can be quite satisfying, even with the seeming reluctance (and, at times it seems, stubbornness ) of those around you to do it the Right Way, then you may very well be in the worldview of the Herd Member (rogers)…

all three of these perspectives are the ways that people relate themselves to the world around them. Consider that, ‘the other person’, today is dealing with the same situation (as you are), however, they are experiencing it from one of these three perspectives. But remember, although knowing this does not change them, knowing this might change you.

* the Wakefield Doctrine is for you, not them

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: Personal, personality types, predicting human behavior, self-improvement, the Wakefield Doctrine

TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine- what an odd, little Post! (Part 1) … Part 2 (yes, even odder…but not littler)

January 17, 2015 By clarkscottroger

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

…there’s a ton of birds in this photo…. you might need to hold your computer up to the light to see them.

1) To be able to type up this here List here by voice dictation

2) To be able go out into the world today and work and find items (for the rest of this list)

3) To be able to record via the technology available the following items:

(your weekly rustic)

4) To be willing to accept that this weekend bloghop is just that, a weekend bloghop. Nothing that I’ve read in the Book of Secret Rules (aka the Secret Book of Rules) says that a post need to be complete in order to join in, (it just needs to be complete before the end of the weekend).

5) To be willing

6) To be willing

7) To be ready to

8) To be ready (totally recommend the movie, ‘Predestination’… it’s got Ethan Hawk in it (and I suspect he’s a clark with a secondary roger)…anyway, it’s based a short story by one of the giants of science fiction, Robert Heinlein (Robert is, hands down, the total, time travel story master… I won’t try to cite an example, cause either it would a) give away the fun or 2) not make any damn sense, seeing how I am not the ‘describe the time travel Master’s story’ ….master. ya know?

9) To be ready

10)… I would say this: from time to time we see a person write, ‘I just can’t see that I have anything to include on list of 10 Items’. My response is always (in my head, or typed as a reply): one of the reasons this TToT is the cool thing that it is, is that it is the involvement of the person that earns, creates and/or garners the benefits. (yes, I really do think like that… you know those ‘thought ballons’ in comic strips? they’d be way, way to big to fit in one of those little panels…. anyway… I suspect that you will be reading a somewhat incomplete (no, not inchoate lol) TToT Post this week.

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

courtesy…(we hope!) of Bill Watterson

And, yes, it would have been simpler to a) filled in the missing Items from yesterday’s Post, thereby making good on my promise to come back and complete the Post or 2) just write a whole new Post for today, seeing how only one is necessary for participation in the TToT. (well, apparently that is not overly true, since I am nesting this Post into the Item in yesterday’s Post). Be that as it may, If I may….

10) I’m trying this ‘graphic experiment’ within Item 10 of the original Post for the very good reason that the thing I am most grateful for is the sense of community that has been created here at the TToT Weekend bloghop ( TToT Weekend bloghop motto: ‘what? sure! really? why not!!’ )

9) I will always be grateful to my co-hostinae for being included in their tiny army. ( the ‘TToT tiny army’ motto: ‘teach a person to eat and they’ll ask for desert, teach them to write a blog and you’ll never hear the end of it.’)

8) I can’t say that I quite understand the numbering logic this week, except it has something to do with: that movie I saw, time travel stories in general, MC Escher ( MC Escher Poster motto: ‘helping clarklike college students get semi-lucky since 1969‘)

7) Since I ‘still’ have to experiment with font size in this Post, I had better move down one more level…

5) I am grateful that this block quote within a block quote actually seems to work! Maybe there’s hope for developing my rogerian aspect, as this effort required I focus my attention on learning and following an established procedure…very, exactly as it must be done. Not that clarks have any trouble with following directions…. ha ha

4) sure…why not try a graphic!

3) of course I had to try for one more level… even if it becomes un-readable …what part of ‘he’s from Y Chromia (Y Chromian co-host motto: ‘if it’s worth doing, it’s worth over-doing! … no wait!! ‘more is more!!’…. one more!! no don’t go!! ‘one more, this is the last time I promise’) lol

2) sorry lost track….

1) Back! well, sorta

There! that wasn’t difficult!

I don’t believe I’ve missed a weekend Post yet and, maybe it’s a Y Chrome thing or not but the consequences of breaking a streak are not something that I take lightly.

Your hosts

A Fly on our (Chicken Coop) Wall, Amycake and the Dude, Considerings, Finding Ninee, Getting Literal, I Want Backsies, The Meaning of Me, Rewritten, Thankful Me, The Wakefield Doctrine

Join the Ten Things of Thankful Facebook Group

An InLinkz Link-up

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: Personal, personality types, psychology of personality, the Wakefield Doctrine

fff -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘here’s an Answer! …is this really an answer, or another trick to teach the Doctrine?’

January 16, 2015 By clarkscottroger

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

Thanks go out to our friend, Cynthia, for the ‘Friday Post Prompt’ (Friday Post Prompt motto: ‘thank god!! a coherent thought to base a Post on!!!”)

Is there any, more common reason, (for a clark) to like the Wakefield Doctrine, than it being a resource in figuring out how to deal with the rogers in their lives? No. Well, maybe. No, yeah, but that business about how we can rest our brain even for a minute…. that qualifies, right? (I remember being in a conversation one evening with a group of people. We were having a good time with the Great Questions of Life. There came a moment when the question of ‘communication between people’ rose to topic-level and, when there was one of those pauses in the give-and-take, (when the rogers are preparing their rebuttals and the scotts are calculating their chances of getting lucky after the intellectual activities ceased), I made the following statement: “I’ve always wondered what it is that real people do, with all that time in-between sentences.” Had there been a person to throw a handle full of pins, everyone would have come up with the same number, …someone whispered, very loudly, ‘oh man!! what is it with this guy!!’ His tone was not negative, it definitely had a certain quality of ‘wonderment’… this was followed by good-natured laughter.

I identify with Cynthia. We are fortunate to have rogers who are of such a mind as to be willing and able to share with us their perspective, (thinking of Kristi and Michelle and Phyllis and even, accidentally Sarah), however, the solution to ‘Cynthia’s Problem’ is not in learning what the rogers want. The solution to the problem is for Cynthia to know what she wants. You know how we have this saying for the New Readers, ‘the Wakefield Doctrine is for you, not them‘? There is an extensionary thought* to be derived from this, ‘It’s about us, not them.’
A clark lives in a reality where things should make sense, that there should be an understandable reason for everything. Where we clarks often get into trouble is when we project this (quality of understandable-ness) and believe that the ‘correct answer’ will be possible only with the participation of the real people in our world. (Now, stay with me….)

We don’t believe us.

(That’s not fair. I should say: as clarks we don’t believe that what we understand is sufficient, unless it’s supported, corroborated, validated, confirmed and otherwise approved of, by the people around us. You Advanced Readers are now looking around and waving your hands. “I know!!! I know”…. lets let the New Readers have a moment to figure out what is it about clarks that cause them to get trapped , despite the clear fact that they are thinking everything through in an organized and rational manner.)

I’ll be back a little later in the day.**

* an attempt at a rogerian expression¹

** yeah, right

1) not to be confused with a person’s ‘rogerian expression‘