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

Don’t you hate the term ‘hump day’?  Wait! don’t answer! We already know what you’re going to say, or, to be more precise, we know how you will answer this question. We know this, by virtue of knowing, ‘how you relate yourself to the world around you’  i.e. if you are of the personality type of ‘the Outsider, the Predator or the Herd Member, aka:

• clarks will agree (inside their heads), will make the effort to be more aware of their surroundings¹ and, if they have not projected a clear distinct answer to our question (yeah, as if) they will do that totally characteristic, clarklike ‘smile’  (you know, lips pressed together…the corners  with a slightly up-turned directions… eyes looking sideways, hoping to detect a corresponding smile from another)
• scotts will spot the word ‘hump’ from a grammatical mile away and depending on a number of factors, ( a) how bored they are, b) when the last time they had a chance to exercise²  c) if they had something else to do.  You know, like a couple of rogers walk into the room and pretend to be having a private conversation…in the middle of the fricken cafeteria/waiting room
• rogers will disagree and wonder why anyone would have a problem with such an innocuous and fun expression like ‘hump day’…

so, here’s an interesting post from, like 2012  asking Readers about when they realized that they were what they were… what jumps right out here is that everyone is a clark. (This actually is not a surprise, the Doctrine predicted that the first of the participating Readers would most likely be clarks… it is a compliment and acknowledgement to the scotts and rogers we hear from now that they are able to over-come the…. challenging organization of the information in this blog, learn the Doctrine and have fun with it.  Thanks, guys.

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.

 

(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.

(zoe) Ivy:  Waitress in a greasyspoon diner ( the other waitresses were literally named Blanch and Lil…everything you think of with diner.. It was just like Mel’s on TV but with more drunks.)

Christine: Never had a job I was awful at.

Lisa: I was never not good at a job. I did, however, hate one quite a bit because I was embarrassed to have to take it. The stupidity of youth. 

(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.

z/Ivy: three… nuff said

Christine:  Kindergarten

Lisa: Someone told me I was bad at math, so I believed them.(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.

Mrs. Skip/zoe/Ivy:  Scott. My roger is a pain in my ass.

Christine:  Just like Phyllis, I am happy to be who I am. Can’t imagine changing to another worldview.

Lisa:  I like my clark. I’ve grown comfortable in this skin. But my roger is a strong contender in second place. I could let him in every once in a while. 

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

1) ever wonder why people seem ready to label (many) clarklike females as ‘ditsy’ or ‘stuck-up’  or clarklike guys as ‘arrogant’ or ‘lazy’?   Because of the amount of time clarks spend inside their head. In fact, one of the ways of identifying clarks is to look for that faraway look in their eyes, the ‘inward regarding gaze’…. that’s not just an affectation, it’s a fact.

2) scotts need exercise… they are predators and predators need to stay in shape! It’s not just that they never know when the next stray antelope, un-intentionally separated from the herd. might wander by, scotts are predators…. it is in the nature of predators to be alert, on the guard for threats, ready for opportunity.  Now, exercise of this type, (for a scott), is not limited to sports and running and chasing fleeing things (although, that is the preferred form)…. anything that involves another person and competition is exercise for the scottian man or woman. it can be playing games, card games are big among scotts…they loves scrabble and other games that 2) are mentally challenging and 2) allow the prey to be vanquished and totally dominated (in a nice, friendly sportsman/woman ly manner, of course!)  So, if yo have a scott in your family and they get all irritable and snappy and such, walk up to them with a basketball (or scrabble board) and say, ‘hey! who wants to play?’…