Month: November 2017 | the Wakefield Doctrine Month: November 2017 | the Wakefield Doctrine

Sic(six) Sentence Story -the Wakefield Doctrine-

November 30, 2017 By

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

Another week, another Six Sentence Story. Mathematically-speaking that means, by the end of the year, there will be at least 312 more sentences in the ‘sphere than there were at the start of this here year, here.

zoe proposes and …. sorry, wrong quote. The word this week is:

MATE

From the next to the last pew, the people at the front of the church lost their individual identifiability, reduced to the most primary of distinguishing qualities: the age of clothing, (from high-quality, worn-out to awkwardly new); hair color, (from white and greys vainly covering mottled pates to exotic hues configured as muffled protests) and finally, posture, (from stooped and precariously balanced to light and effortless, barely touching the floor).

As the priest began the service, intonation and rhythm stretching the ritual words into a sing-song cadence, somehow more compelling to those whose hearing had been muted by a lifetime of sounds and shouts, warnings of danger and celebrations of passion. The man suddenly remembered, in that explosively detailed way that made the mind a wonder to behold and a force to be feared, a poster that hung from the college dorm wall of an almost-girlfriend. A Day-Glo painting of a man and a woman embracing, and, in a font readable only by the young or impaired, the words ‘Soul Mate’.

As might any medieval princess secure in a stony Keep, the young coed proudly and perhaps somewhat desperately, covered the room’s cinder-block walls with the modern version of tapestries; on the wall opposite the Lovers; a beautiful meadow scene with the wildly successful misquote, (or, to be less charitable, the willfully truncated), quote of Fritz Perls that began, “I do my thing and you do your thing…”  and, (on the money-making poster version), ended “…its beautiful.”

The organist began to play and the music compelled all to move, not as a ship applying the power of its engines, setting out on a pre-determined journey, rather as would a vessel, its lines parting, now useless with age, pulled inexorably by the tides, away from the familiar land, towards an undefined horizon.

 

 

 

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

-the Wakefield Doctrine- “…of time and effort and the secret toll of self-improvement.”

November 28, 2017 By

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

So we were talking on the Saturday Night Call-in this past weekend. ‘We’ being Denise and Cynthia and myself. And we got on the topic of writing blog posts and the ‘early days’. Cynthia was already ‘here’, I met her at ‘the Facebook’ (and the FTSF bloghop, I believe), and Denise showed up in the ‘sphere shortly thereafter.

The level of creative output, ‘then versus now’, is invariably a topic when bloggers reminisce about ‘the early days in the ‘sphere’. There’s never a dispute that we wrote more (or, at very least, posted more frequently), the interesting question, of course, is ‘Why (the slower/lesser)?’

The short answer: we were young. Which, in the true, underlying intent of this post and topic, raises the question: What does the Wakefield Doctrine say about youth, being young, acting your age and be careful what you wish for?*1 

(Quick reminder: we’re born with the potential to live in any of the three worldviews. Even though we settle into one at a very early age (like, 2 or 3 years old), we spend the childhood years learning the ropes. And this…this is at the heart of the difference between the Doctrine and all the other perfect-insight-into-a-total-stranger’s-inner-self, personality systems. The aggressiveness, impulsiveness, and tendency to act before thinking that are hallmarks of the scottian personality is exactly the correct way to act…provided you grew up in the reality of the Predator. The world of eat-or-be-eaten, run-or-get-caught, requires an entirely different set of skills than does the world of the Herd Member or the life of the Outsider. We don’t get all hung up about sufficient/insufficient, appropriate or maladaptive behavior here, it’s about ‘what did you have to learn, what was the style of coping with the world was required to get through childhood?‘ A scott lives in the reality of the Predator. Their strategies of interaction (with the world around them) is perfect. In the world of Predators. As it is with clarks and rogers. I’ve said too much already.)

the Wakefield Doctrine’s position on youth and childhood?:

  1. clarks are born old (and know it and try, unsuccessfully at first, to hide it)
  2. scotts are born late into adolescence  (and enjoy every minute of it and barely notice the difference between adults and children)
  3. rogers are born young and carefree (they are secure and not in a hurry as the world is clearly a reasonable and orderly place… all they have to do is learn the Rules)

So, what did we conclude from our shared insights discovered as we drove through the streets and avenues of Wakefield? While improving one’s skill, (in this context, writing) is certainly desirable, maintaining the enthusiasm, (see!?! what I just wrote?  that is the thought of an ‘old(er)’ person. ‘Why, yes. It’s certainly an admirable goal to make an effort to continue doing what you enjoy doing, provided it doesn’t get out of control.’  lol

No, we all need to nurture our inner scottian natures. Except for the scotts… they have to nurture their inner clarklike aspect. And rogers? oops outa time…. ask us in a comment! I promise to answer.

 

1) (I suspect that only Denise and Cynthia will get this abbreviated footnote, at least in the context of our discussion this weekend. Ed.) Oh man! I can’t end a sentence with ‘for’…. thats, like, against one of the Seven Cardinal Rules of Grammar! Or it’s the difference between a B- and C+*

* this may seem a minor and totally inconsequential difference in grades, unless you’re a clark…. or a roger (‘cept for totally different reasons)  for a clark, it’s the difference between a kiss and a handshake on the porch… both are in the realm of surprisingly successful, but the promise of the former creates an immeasurable gap between the two in terms of value. for a roger? Letters are elements of the Herd. Need I say more?

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

TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘…post-Thanksgiving gratitude list?! sounds a little dangerous to me, if you know what I mean.’1

November 25, 2017 By

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

“Sitting at my desk at two minutes past five on a Friday afternoon, deep in the season of darkness.”
(Landscape orientation) The perspective of a person sitting at a desk, closely enough that the nearest edge of the muted-toffee top does not show. Most of the lower half of the photo is of the desktop. Except… it is not a full and even right-to-left claim on the bottom of the photo. The desk’s left edge is up against a wall that has a pair of windows. The wall on the left (with those two windows) takes up most of the left side of the photo but in the middle (of the scene) the left wall becomes the opposite wall.
The result is: while nearly all the elements in the photo are of square/rectangular shapes, not are straight, at least from the perspective we are afforded in the photo.

In the spirit of the delicious and lovingly prepared, multi-vehicle, interstate highway pile-up of a dinner this Thursday past, I’ll continue the theme in this week’s TToT.

Thanks go out to: Josie, Una, Phyllis, clients, the Graviteers, Joules (and her human, zoe), the fabulous Hexaliterati at the Six Sentence Story, the Book of Secret Rules (aka the Secret Book of Rules), Sister Bernadine of St. Dominique’s…oh and the the inventors of camera phones, Kerry (SOC-extrodinairette and road-trip role model), whoever invented yellow lined-pads, Cynthia and other like-minded clarks with the skills and discipline to ‘take the message’ out to the clarks who still live in the shadows. the movie ‘Tin Man‘ and the oddly encouraging personality quirk of un-justifiable ambition and delusions of literary skills beyond any reasonable assessment.2

There, that was a quick and simple TToT

A few feet notes, photo descriptions and a music vid and we’re done!

Hey! remember the ’70s?  (“You don’t?  No, no need to bother your parents…sure, I realize it’s just a quick call …no, I’m quite aware that Wikipedia is a keystroke away…. well, here watch the video and try to imagine a time/culture/milieu when the special effects contributed to the listener’s enjoyment of the song…no, seriously, It did.)

1)  It is axiomatic that if a person revisits the Wakefield Doctrine more than twice, (once by accident, once again to be certain that the author of the blog wrote what they thought he wrote), that person is: a clark or a scott or roger with a significant secondary clarklike aspect. ya know?

2) So let’s try and organize this mess ‘o grats. There are People, Places and Things that, by being present in my timeline, provide a positive influence on the path of its continuation.

The ‘People’ (in the above citation) are self-explanatory. (Yes, I will wait for the clarks to stop laughing.)

For the benefit of those new to this blog, I will list Una separately (from the people). Here is a photo:

Older Readers are permitted to laugh at the incidental (however greatly appreciated in retrospect) resemblance to a wonderful cartoon series from the 1960s, ‘Mr. Peabody and Sherman’ The term side-long glance is totally appropriate.
A landscape orientation.
Una on the left sitting upright on her haunches (forelegs straight, supported by front paws), in a bad-choice green leather wingback chair. She is looking directly at the camera, with mouth open, pink tongue anchoring the rounded ‘V’ of her face and head.
Phyllis is sitting to the right (Una’s left). She is not sitting upright. She does not appear to even be sitting in a chair. We guess this because the top of Phyllis’ head and Una’s head on a level.
Phyllis is not looking at the camera. She is looking at Una. She (Phyllis) has her left arm on the arm of the leather chair and, as a result, is leaning out of upright, towards Una.
The sidelong glance is apparent, despite the fact that Phyllis is wearing glasses. Her torso and head are facing the camera. Her eyes are looking at Una.
To seal the deal, Phyllis is wearing a turquoise tee shirt.
Una, on the other hand, conveys a sense of being properly and formally dressed for the occasion.

The ‘Places’ include the office in the photo at the top of the post. (“Yeah, the rogers are sitting with totally over-loaded thought balloons with, like, ‘there’s something wrong in that picture, hey that clock on the wall…wait just a damn minute!’) Direct your questions, concerns, outrage and complaints to zoe, thank you very much.

And finally, the Things: the Wakefield Doctrine. The reason for my presence in this virtual funhouse, everyone’s favorite ‘sphere, the blogosphere.

Here… that’s right…go ahead, click and read the other writers participating in the TToT

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

SSS -the Wakefield Doctrine-

November 23, 2017 By

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

Six Sentence Story

Secret Word: FLEECE

(Six sentences, no more and no less, involving the week’s prompt word)

Send your complaints, outrage, moral indignation, expressions of dismay and prayers for forgiveness to zoe (but leave Joules out of it)

Fleece

“Talk about your tourist-with-travelers-checks beware, jeez, did you hear that guy?” The grey streaks in the man’s hair imparted a gravitas that more than offset the deliberately juvenile choice of words, “γνήσια σάλια μαλλί!  …yeah, right, probably shipped in from some sweatshop in Indonesia.”

“Well if our wives had encountered Demetrio’s pitch for genuine Greek clothing, no telling how over-charged they’d of been.” The second man took the bag from the old woman at the plywood-and-tablecloth market stall, tossed it into the back of the sports car and drove out of the center of Mykonos Town as quickly as the serpentine streets would allow.

The postcard-blue Aegean Sea spread in three directions below and outward from the monochromatic landscape, the younger man checked the GPS for the route to their rented villa and turned his head slightly, “Well, I don’t know if my marriage will be rejuvenated by a surprise gift, but Alma’s got zero tolerance for cold and these Mediterranean evenings are way cooler than our travel agent made them out to be.”

The older man smiled with a sardonic leer, turned to his friend and said, “So, all your hopes for an enjoyable vacation come down to getting on a new fleece on your wife?”

 

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

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘..of occupations, avocations and worldviews’

November 21, 2017 By

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

(Refresher: the Wakefield Doctrine maintains that we, all of us, are born with the potential to experience reality, (and the world). in one of three characteristic manners: as does (an) Outsider (clarks) or a Predator (scotts) or the Herd Member (rogers). At a certain early age, (the Doctrine tells us), we settle into one of these three ‘worldviews’; we become clarks or scotts or rogers. We do not lose the potential to relate to the world as do ‘the other two’, they are available if we but find ways to access them.

The Wakefield Doctrine wears the label of ‘personality theory’, but it really isn’t. What it really is, is a perspective on the world, the people in our lives and our ownselfs. The Doctrine is a tool for adding to, enhancing our understanding (of the world and the people and ourselves), but has little interest in any whys or wherefores. The goal is to add to our understanding and appreciation of ‘how we relate ourselves to the world around us‘. (Not, ‘how we relate to the world around us’, rather ‘how we relate ourselves to the world around us’. Big difference.)

And so, since it, (the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) is nothing more than an additional perspective, what good is it?*

The cool thing about self-improvement and the Wakefield Doctrine is that we don’t have to acquire anything that we don’t already possess. Thinking that you need to learn to be more demonstrative, more accessible on an emotional level? No problem, your rogerian aspect will totally help. Need to temper your temper, pre-empt your impulsiveness? You have a clarklike aspect. Feel like you want to task risks, leave behind the caution and conservativeness? Just check in with your scottian aspect.

So it’s all there, provided you can let it out. And that will be the topic of our next post.

 

 

*  The extent to which a new idea is accepted and embraced by others is very much influenced by the claims made by the originator (of such ideas). It is not about providing the answer to the ‘what’, as it is about making the answer to the challenging question of ‘what’s in it for me?’ immediately clear. Even more so, it depends upon providing this information cloaked in the appearance of being widely accepted and incontrovertibly true and certain. (Which, for one of the three worldviews, is a totally redundant description).  If this is a valid observation1, my own predominant worldview is very much a factor. Not in a good way. Let me explain2.

It will help to consider this: there are three jobs/occupations/avocations/hobbies/styles-of-effort-to-influence-those-around-us. (Yes, just three).

The three jobs are: scientist, salesman and machine operator.

The scientist is concerned with a world of ideas, reveling in explanations and laboring to refine proofs of principles that underlie the workings of the world and (especially) the people in it. The salesman lives for the people they encounter each day, it is not simply about getting them to buy his/her product (or service or convictions or willingly-submit-to-whatever-it-is-the-salesman-wants…at that particular moment), it is about the interaction/negotiation/the ‘Close’. The machine operator lives for the precise execution of rules and laws, relationships and ideals, they find joy (and frustration) in learning the correct way to do job/cook a meal/build a society/live life.

As you’ve probably guessed, each of our three ‘personality types’ is more appropriate to one of these jobs than the others3.

  1. clarks (Outsiders): scientists. if you think hard and observe the world around you, the rules that people follow to feel a part of the group will become knowable. (Career recommendations: school teacher (elementary or college), nurse (pediatric or geriatric) sheepherder, librarian, counselor (effective but not successful), one-term politician)
  2. scotts (Predators): salesmen… I don’t really need to give examples here, do I? The guy on TV, the politician, the early developer in school doesn’t care if you buy or not (well, sorta) that they get to try to get you to (buy what they have/believe what they want you to/do what they feel like doing is what life is all about. (Career suggestions and ideas: cop (or robber), surgeon (but not physician and totally not an oncologist), nurse (charge nurse) teacher (High School industrial Arts, Gym or French…)
  3. rogers (Members of the Herd): machine operator.. precision is the result of following the rules and precise application of the rules is how you get to that point, there is a right way to do everything (add and subtract/machine aircraft parts/play in a symphony/treat cancer/live life… being the best among many is its own reward. (Careers: Accountant, attorney (prosecuting) physician (oncologist), chemist, scientist, philatelist, chef (but not cook), firefighter politician (successful, multi-term)

That’s about all we have time for today. Thanks for coming by.

….the point? My misgivings about how I present the Wakefield Doctrine? Wellll I guess to learn the answer, you’ll just have to keep reading the posts.

1)  see!?!?! damn!

2) enough with the explanation!! tell ’em what it’ll do for them!

3) the Wakefield Doctrine has something called ‘the Everything Rule’. It states, somewhat obviously, that ‘everyone does everything, at one time or another’. What that means is even though the most effective police (in the present culture) are scotts, that does not mean that there are no clarklike or rogerian police men and women. And, chemists are more likely to be rogers, yet you can find scotts and clarks in that profession. (look for the exploding laboratories). The point is, how well one does in a profession or job is very much related to how (that) job or profession manifests to them. One of the reasons that rogers make excellent accountants is that, for them, the world is quantifiable and knowable. So working with numbers is a joy, in and of itself.

 

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