Month: May 2015 | the Wakefield Doctrine

-the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘Tristan and Isolde’ (now for something really fun)

May 12, 2015 By clarkscottroger

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

Couldn’t leave the classical literature thing alone. You know, certain stories or tales, fables or legends have endured and continue to show up in cultures down through the ages, clearly they’re reflecting some aspect of the human condition. But that’s not important now!* What is important is how much fun, (and scary perceptive), is our Wakefield Doctrine. (New Reader Advisory: the Wakefield Doctrine is a perspective on human nature and, as such, is not ‘the answer’, rather it’s an alternative view of the actions, behaviors, motivations and intent of people. …you know, lets just say, this Doctrine? ‘as much art as science’, and let it go at that. There’s already too much “well, if you’d only accept my research findings and statistics, you would have no choice but believe me.” in the world today. Check it out.)

…so, anyway, this morning? I’m looking for some enduring tale or fable and I come across ‘Tristan and Isolde’ (or as wikipedia started my thread with ‘Tristan and Iseult‘) and immediately after, the Camelot version (i.e. Guinevere and Lancelot and King Arthur). And now I’m stuck with the topic! I mean, we all ‘know’ the story, but I’m after the worldview of our three main characters. Let me admit that, at first, I was thinking, ‘ok, she’s a clark married to the older guy (Arthur) and swept off her feets by this Lancelot. Simple clark*roger*scott triad, right? maybe

You want to see a fun way to use the Doctrine? look at the images below:

(that last painting, titled ‘Love Potion’…. I think you know where I’m going with this)…. hey! she’s no innocent clarklike girl!!! that’s a scottian female, if ever there was one!

I need to keep this short this morning. Anyone want to jump in and provide us with any additional evidence as to the predominant worldviews of our three characters, please, have at it. And, yes, I did make a leap to a conclusion of Guinevere’ personality type purely on the basis of images I found. Here’s my reasoning:

enduring tale, story of human weakness and foibles and such (and, sure, romance too… can’t ignore our college age readers)
characters remain essentially the same from the 12th Century
artists and painters and actors and directors interpret the characters and depict them…. from the 12th Century to present day
…she is totally a scottian woman

lol… ain’t this Doctrine fun?

* thank you, genius creators of one of the top 3 funniest movies of all time, ‘Airplane!’

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

-the Wakefield Doctrine- “Who is it that can tell me who I am?” ― (William Shakespeare, King Lear)

May 11, 2015 By clarkscottroger

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

“[T]he bonds of outsiderness are stronger, in a way, because they’re not predicated on hierarchy or conformity, but a state of the soul,” Lizzi

“…We need to be useful to our own selves.” Denise

Sometimes people say, ‘Clark, your blog is topical, it’s about the Wakefield Doctrine, only the Wakefield Doctrine. You’ve been writing posts for, like, 5 years. How the hell do you do it?’ I smile and say, ‘well, the Doctrine is about life, about how we relate ourselves to the world around us, so everything is a potential topic. It’s not just things, it’s events and occurrences and situations that we, all of us, encounter everyday.‘ Of course, there are Reader Comments, now that is a source of Post topics that’s invaluable. As people who have been reading this blog know, the first half (of the time we’ve been writing this thing), was spent presenting the idea of the Doctrine, it’s principles, how to use it and like that. There came a point, a couple of years ago, when I realized that, not only did Readers understand this thing, but they understood it way better than I realized! Sufficiently to extrapolate its principles and, through their own experience, further the understanding we have of this Wakefield Doctrine. (Kinda funny about that, I was the last to know that Readers and Friends of the Doctrine were that far along in taking the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine and applying it in their own life. )

What does this have to do with today’s Post and my Three Daughters?* Well, it’s about Readers Comments. They have become a really great source of Post topics. It’s no secret that there is much more to discover about the Wakefield Doctrine. We have the basic principles:

we all live, to a certain extent, in a personal reality (aka worldviews)
there are 3 characteristic worldviews that we all are heir to, the world of the Outsider, the Predator or the Herd Member
what others call personality types, the Doctrine maintains that everyone grows and develops ways of interacting, strategies for coping with the world that are in the context of the world that they are, as growing children, experiencing. Outsiders (clarks) learn to hide, Predators (scotts) know that ‘fight or flight’ works best and the Herd Member (rogers) accept that conforming to the collective wisdom of the group is really the only best course of action.
while we all experience the world as one of these three worldviews, (our predominant worldview), we always have the potential of seeing the world as do ‘the other two’

…and we have the goal: to understanding how the other person is relating themselves to the world around them. Knowing this last, we are in a position to know more about the other person than they know about themselves. And…. and! we will never have to find ourselves lamenting, “How could you do such a thing!! I really thought I knew you better than that!!”

fine.

what about the quotes?

Lizzi and Denise are referring to the most recent ‘development’ in the Wakefield Doctrine, i.e. the benefit (to clarks) of identifying with other clarks. It, (this ‘identifying with’), holds the potential to be remarkably beneficial (and) helpful thing that clarks can do to improve their very lives. Yeah, I know….

…sorry. Hey, no one said this would be all seriousy and academic and, you know rogerian…. at the risk of losing a tiny small handful of Readers (those who might have missed the statement of how the Doctrine is a fun…and useful tool to help better understand the people in our lives. oh well)

But the serious part of this topic today is that there is a thing that clarks can do with other clarks that will not only help, but will be useful to other clarks, all without invoking any requirements that might trigger the ‘run away!! they’re getting too close!! I’d love to help, but I don’t want to let you get too close (and run the risk of you learning too much) or be in your debt (and run the risk of disappointing you), reflex.
That a clark can identify with another clark is obvious. What might not be so obvious is that, by doing so, I benefit in ways that simply would not be possible with, say, a scott or a roger. And even though I benefit, I don’t have to worry about the relationship (created by this ‘identification’). I remain free to benefit or not, from seeing a person (another clark) and knowing that they experience the world as I do. I’m free to know that, if they weather a certain storm and survive, then I might.
It’s not that I need to learn shit from the other clark… hell, if learning was all it took, clarks would be….well, rogers and scotts! lol.

No.

What happens for me is that I see, say Lizzi, survive a bad time and maybe she did a little thing differently, then I know that when those conditions apply to me, (that dark place is available to all clarks), maybe it can be different. That’s all. And if I see a clark, say Cynthia, and see that she can take the totally un-ruly ambitions and interests and enthusiasm for life and channel them in a way that keeps one strength from neutralizing the other, then it becomes a possibility for me!

(end of Part 1)

* well, because odd and (semi)random references to classical literature and stuff is fun, if for no other reason than, with surprisingly little effort, you can see the Doctrine in everything. Take the three young women in the painting above…please (bar rump bump!). Who out there is not thinking, ‘ok… I see the roger, pretty sure I got the clark…that leaves the red head as the scott. Hurrah!’

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: personality types, psychology of personality, relationships, the Wakefield Doctrine, Understanding Human Behavior

TT C-1 -the Wakefield Doctrine- (can ‘Title-cleverness’ allow me grat item credits?)

May 9, 2015 By clarkscottroger

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

Surely it will! Allow me to take at least 3 grat items credit. Today’s bloghop-specific title, of course! (okay okay! lets compromise. If any Reader comments, “oh I get it! how terribly clever“) I get the 3 Item credit. If I don’t get that comment, I’ll fill them in. Well, no, I thought I’d leave three items blank somewhere amongst the 10. This is ’10 Things of Thankful, right? It would hardly do to have a list of 7! Then it would be the 7 Things of Thankful, and that would never do. For one thing, it’s an odd number.* For another thing, it’s 10 Items and that’s the number that Lizzi came up with, back in her pre-swan blogger days.

1) I’ll make that grateful Item #1. That I hung out at the original FTSF and came across this odd little blog… considerings …written in blogger, no less! Needless to say, one Post and I recognized a clark, and proceeded to demonstrate that odd, faux-contextual confidence that clarks (at least those of us with significant secondary scottian aspects) have, which meant I simply started writing comments as if I knew her already. Which, of course, I did. Courtesy of our little personality theory. (You shoulda been there… there were like, 2 or three comments on any given Post! yeah, I know! who would of guessed what the future would hold. Well, actually a number of us. It’s no secret that the people around these parts were not short changed on the intuitive gene.)

2) seeing as how I’m pre-claiming the free three, lets start here

3) I can always put Una in one of the Items. And that’s not an easy one. At least in terms of what I judge to be the standards for this here bloghop here. (not that there are Standards… per se**)

4) I’m totally grateful for wikipedia and his sister Wiktionary ( “..yeah, she kinda brainy and stuck up sometimes, but when you get past that, she’s alright…no you can’t set her up with your cousin Pictionary!“) Consider Item 3. sure we all know what ‘per se’ means, at least well enough to properly use it in a sentence. But 2 mouse clicks and you take a worn around-the-edges latin phrase and …..

From Latin per se (“by itself”), from per (“by, through”) and se (“itself, himself, herself, themselves”).

très cool, non?

5) …(surely someone’s written the ‘oh! what a clever title. aren’t you the precocious one.’), sure, you’re right! I need to show more confidence!

6) speaking of self-confidence, I will thank my associate at the office who helped me realize that once I achieve a goal, I must act like I deserve it. This relates pretty much exclusively to clarks. (Hey! Thank you! Whoever out there yelled, ‘yeah but some of us rogers and scotts have strong secondary clarklike aspects!! We have those kinds of reactions too… get with the frickin Doctrine, ok?!?)

7) …along the lines of the previous Item, I want to thank whoever posted some kind of grid-thing on ‘the facebook’…. it had to do with writing shorter sentences. Or, at least, that’s how I read it. It even gave reasons, i.e. ‘falling into passive voice’ (me? passive??! say it ain’t so!!), ‘trying to get too much into one sentence’ (sure, but isn’t that what parentheseses are for? and ‘quotes’ and bullet

points? I mean, they’re there, so it must mean we’re supposed to use them and besides
this is a theme/topical as opposed to general/personal blog so I need to always incorporate the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine into nearly every Post… holy
shit! this is still the same sentence!! I’m grateful we have a BoSR?SBoR!!

8) placeholder

9) I am always thankful for the Book of Secret Rules (aka the Secret Book of Rules) and …and Seven of the most attractive (aka hottest (at least as appropriate to gender) Guard Virgins who stand (or lounge seductively and/or coquettishly on these, like couches without arms, except at one end it’s slanted…. I’ll try and find a picture…anyway) on guard to encourage the encourageable or chastise the incorrigible,

10) grateful for the new participants and writers join this here bloghop here… hey, tell me that this is not the best bloghop in the ‘sphere! See? You can’t deny it!

* an old Steven Wright joke:

“In Vegas, I got into a long argument with the man at the roulette wheel over what I considered to be an odd number.”

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, Thankful Me, Uncharted, The Wakefield Doctrine

Join the Ten Things of Thankful Facebook Group

An InLinkz Link-up

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

-the Wakefield Doctrine- (‘…of faith and self-improvement’)

May 8, 2015 By clarkscottroger

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

It is surely no secret that the (true) ambition of the ‘telling of the Wakefield Doctrine’ is for other clarks in the world to find it and benefit from applying it’s principles to their own lives. (However), much of the ‘proof’ of the efficacy and value of the Wakefield Doctrine is presented obscurely within these pages, hidden in parentheses, disguised in proto-clever prose and smart-ass videos. That the Reader is required to find his/her own evidence for using the Doctrine in their own life is obvious, if not intentional. Readers who are:

clarks (those people who grew up as ‘Outsiders’, seeing the world as a place that is apart (from themselves), their (life)time invested in the effort to learn the secret of ‘belonging’;
scotts (the Predators, aggravated often by the un-necessarily complex rules, restrictions placed on the individual in society’s endless seeking of Conformity, a world composed mostly of people who value peace over danger, cooperation over competition, these very same people nevertheless encourages them to contribute their spontaneous enthusiasm for life, all the while, reining them in…just when it gets exciting or
rogers (the Herd Members aka the person who from the earliest stage of their life, knows that the world is quantifiable and would be quite satisfied being left alone (in the company of their Herd), the Herd that is both literal, figurative and totally metaphorical to tend to their business of executing the steps of Life in a perfect a manner as they might manage.

That these Readers will identify with the stories is not in question, it’s whether I can develop the skills to present the stories, situations, allegories and ‘hey! you-want-to-hear-what-happened-to-me-today?’ in a simple, engaging and informative writing, is.

Allow me to offer an interesting example of the nature of a clark’s worldview and how, while still maintaining that this Wakefield Doctrine can serve as a useful tool for self- development, I continually appreciate how difficult change can be, at least, enduring change:

[please indulge me as I hijack my own Post.]

…so, the thing of it is, the story that I’d intended to tell at the start of this Post yesterday, was a simple cautionary tale about how when we set out to gain or acquire or make some sort of change in our lives, we don’t always fully accept the results, even when our efforts are successful. We, (some of us, at least I did and still do), continue to act as we’ve always acted, ironically we act as if we had never tried (to change or develop or win a coveted office). I’m tempted to address this specifically to our clarklike Readers, knowing quite well that, though scotts and rogers might not experience what I’m describing, we all possess the potential of ‘the other two worldviews’. Hell! Let me retract that last part of that last sentence, I say that everyone who has read this blog more than 3.5 times has a significant secondary clarklike aspect. So, this story should resonate with any Reader. That being said, the need, the drive, the desire to self-improve oneself, is a peculiarly significant aspect of the clarklike worldview. This is not to say that scotts and rogers don’t have a drive for self-development. The distinction is more about the ‘why’ of self-improvement. scotts and rogers tend to view self-improvement as adding to what they are, while clarks look at self-developement as a way of changing what they are.

note: ‘faith’ is in lower case, simply to imply that quality found in some people who go through life knowing/acting as if/feeling as appropriate to something that is not objectively verifiable. Most often associated with religion, I maintain that it, faith can (and does) exist independent of dogma, belief, or other rational framework. When it exists (in a person), it stands out. There is no mistaking faith (or Faith) when a person has it. At least to those who are willing to (allow themselves to) see it. That would be pretty much everyone who persists in coming back here… the ability, the self-confidence to be open to ways of being, reality that is not the same as our own.

ya know?

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

-the Wakefield Doctrine- “..Ood-gay ob-jay on the allenge-chay” (Dyanne) and other valuable insights

May 5, 2015 By clarkscottroger

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

No, I’m not only being serious, (with today’s subtitle), I am sincerely appreciative of the insights that are to be found in the Comments on yesterday’s Post. Before I tell you why I can make that statement, let me cite two other Comments:

Oh, yes, that phrase fits very well! :-) Knowing that everyone was laughing at me (or at least at my mistake–no one except John actually knew I was the author of the title), really the best choice was to laugh, too. That way they were laughing WITH me, not at me. (Kristi)

(and)

Here’s the sad part. As clarks, we set such high standards/expectations of ourselves we often lose sight that others most likely do not have those same expectations (of us). Therefore we’re not really in danger of “failing”. Only in danger of “failing” ourselves. (Denise)

(New Readers? the above Comments were written by people representing the three personality types of the Wakefield Doctrine. As such, you can, (after learning the characteristics of the three worldviews), obtain a glimpse of three different worlds! No! really, we are quite serious. Read on.)

If there is one, simple-to-a-fault, statement about the Wakefield Doctrine, ( as a roger might express it: the condensation of the Doctrine), it is this:

clarks think, scotts act and rogers feel

Why these Comments? What insight into the three worldviews do they offer?

(we’re being a little unfair to Dyanne), in using only one of her Comments. That being said, we know that she would not complain about how we’re not using her Comments in the ‘correct context’, not framing them to allow Readers to appreciate the full and comprehensive meaning that she intended… (if you turn your good ear to face the middle of the country and ask every in the room to please stop talking, just for a second, you might hear a sound, off in the distance, “Hey!! I said good job in pig latin ’cause your Post was about languages! That’s it! Lighten up! Move on! Lifes too good to sit and ponder implications!“*) scotts tend to speak with ‘special characters’…a lot! (lol)
Kristi illustrates the identification with the Herd… as a roger, she is not immune to feeling uncomfortable or ill-at-ease, however she lives in a world that she knows that she is ‘a part of’… (you know that meme out there, seen on many a spare tire cover on the back of jeeps and SUVs. “Life is Good’? Kristi, if she did not own one herself, would smile when a car with that saying on the back passed her on the highway.) Heck! you really want to know how different a roger is from a clark?! do you? well, if that car (maybe a jeep cherokee with the spare tire on the back door with ‘Life is Good’ on it, or even just a bumper sticker), cut her off on the highway because she was driving too slowly, she, (Kristi not Denise or Dyanne) would smile. She would not be happy at such driving, she would not be approving of such rudeness, but she would not be swearing and thinking “what a jerk!” Well, maybe a little… lol But what would happen is that she would know, (or one might insist on saying, ‘choose to believe’), that this other person might be in a situation that made the aggressive driving unavoidable. This is not to say that Kristi, (or rogers in general), are very forgiving people (anything but!)… but she would tend to identify with that other person, and understand, even while being annoyed at such dangerous driving. (that particular inference, i.e. the driving being a threat to other drivers is a huge insight into how the rogerian worldview is experienced).
Denise (who is a clark) writes and writes, offering not one solitary answer (and therefore only a single, valuable insight, i.e. high risk bet), she provides us with everything she has, offering all she knows (in the context of her Comment) on the subject, assuming that we might want to play with the parts and possibly come to our own, different conclusions. …all for free. No demands that it be acknowledged, satisfied that she was considered a significant participant in the conversation. We all know how much most people value the free stuff, right?

* this, to use an old cultural reference, is like me saying, “I will now do an impersonation of Ed Sullivan. “Its been a really good shew…really good shew…”**

** famous TV guy in the early 60s. This is, of course, meant to imply a badly done impersonation… that I might have simply said, ‘this is a badly done impersonation’ never even occurred to me…. no, really, did you not read the bullet point about Denise’s Comment?!