Month: November 2020 | the Wakefield Doctrine

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

November 24, 2020 By clarkscottroger

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

Never let it be said that the Readers of the Wakefield Doctrine are not involved! From yesterday’s post, Friend of the Doctrine, Mimi informs us, “Awaiting tomorrow with bated breath.”

…to recap.

What are the three worst things for the three personalty types? Their personalized kryptonite, if you will.

clarks: scrutiny scotts: unreliability rogers: individual accountability

yow! thats a pretty insightful list. Gimme me a minute. (Serially, while I knew the first, about clarks and was certain of the core idea, if not the comprehensive explanation of what it is scotts fear the most, I hadn’t looked at the existential fear of rogers all that much.)

So is the question: a) what makes each one specific to the type? or 2) does there have to be an individual (and distinct) worst things?

To the second, the answer is ‘Yes’. The reason is simple: each of the three predominant worldviews maintain a different relationship, (to the world around their respective selfs). There is, as implied by the Everything Rule*, an complementary quality in each to the other. (More on this in a later post).

What a great (first) question! Tough to answer in twenty-five minutes or less. But, this is the Wakefield Doctrine, (motto: ‘Careful, reflective thought, expressed with deep emotional grounding and precise choice of language? nah…”) so let’s run at the wall and see who blinks first!

clarks are Outsiders. They know, from the moment they realize they are not alone in the world, that they are alone in the world. Not physically isolated, but as apart as waves are to the ocean. clarks move through life quietly, looking for clues because, deep-within there is the thought, ‘It must have been something about me that puts me in the shadows.”

scotts are Predators. Their paradigm is to live in the moment. The context of the moment has standards: the sun rises, the prey submits, the body has urges, and to affect their environment is proof of life. If the sun rose a cheery, blue polka-dot one morning and then went back to normal the next, a scott would not be happy. She would be off her game, because the savannah/the jungle/the ocean/the sky are the context in which they celebrate their lives… it’d be no fun if someone changed that. The ground beneath their feet, the fluid resistance of the ocean, the invigorating power of the air can’t change, otherwise one would have to check first, to think about the next move …to hesitate.

rogers are Herd Members. They belong. First and foremost, they are ‘a part of’ something/everything. The distinguishing characteristics of the individual members of a Herd pales against the fact of being a part of a group. The power of a group is grounded in the fact that when it moves everyone moves. The freedom to participate requires surrendering the Power to separate oneself from the others. The converse of that is, ‘the group provides the power, the price is individual accountability’. If that is lost then how could a roger, a single roger move an entire Herd?

* the Everything Rule: ‘Everyone does everything, at one time or another‘. It reminds us there is a common reality and the differences between the three worldviews is in how (a thing) manifests, in reflection of that reality

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

November 23, 2020 By clarkscottroger

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

Raining on a Monday morning. If it were warmer I’d be going for the Robin Trower for the musical accompaniment. But its a bit too harsh, so I think I get us some Stevie Ray.

So, what do you want to know? Doctrine-wise, of course, not into autobiography here.*

Since you’re thinking it. What are the three worst things for the three personalty types? Their personalized kryptonite, if you will.

clarks: scrutiny scotts: unreliability rogers: individual accountability

yow! thats a pretty insightful list. Gimme me a minute. (Serially, while I knew the first, about clarks and was certain of the core idea, if not the comprehensive explanation of what it is scotts fear the most, I hadn’t looked at the existential fear of rogers all that much.)

New Readers! Three ‘personality types’ (though the preferred term is ‘predominant worldview’). Everyone starts with the potential of all three, end up with one. Never loses the potential of ‘the other two’, as an enhancement only. These three are:

clarks aka the Outsider. This type of person prefers the company of themselves in the context of others. clarks see the world as being something/a place, ‘out there’ (a sure indicator of a person having the Outsider predominant worldview is an identification with the statement, “First thing in the morning, before I even get out of bed, is to take stock of my recent past and impending duties and decide what I can do about the world out there.”) clarks are the creative ones of the three, but only in a startlingly new way, not anything that will appeal to the mass audience. That said, while clarks abhor being the center of attention, they will not tolerate being ignored. Dress funny, mumble and the loyalest of friends.
scotts aka the Predator. Action figures with moveable parts and uncontrollable emotion. The existentialist of the three, in practice not in reflection. The reason for the person who you always notice, be it in a line at the grocery or the gallery at a golf tournament (whenever the Covid lets them gather again), being the way they are, is: they grew up in the reality of the jungle/savannah, eat-or-be-eaten, chase your dinner or run from the chef. scotts are natural leaders, more due to the weakness inherent in the crowds that look to them for salvation than any particular intelligence or wisdom. scotts are often wrong but, never uncertain.
rogers aka the Herd Member. Because, what’s the good of living in a group if there aren’t any rules? as individuals, rogers are both Rule-discoverer and Rule-teacher, enforcement is left to the Herd at large, ’cause nothing says ‘join us’ more effectively than ‘or else we’ll banish you’.

The Wakefield Doctrine, as a perspective, affords us one more way to experience the world. Ok, three more ways to the experience the world; if, that is, you can imagine the world and the people who make it up as having the character and characteristics ascribed to the three worldviews. And, for reasons not understood, there’s an incredible interior consistency to the descriptions of the three personal realities. They, (these descriptions), pull together elements and aspects of life that make total sense, in the context of the personalty type. The surprise might be diminished if we remind ourselves that the Doctrine is grounded in the relationship between the individual and the reality around them. Understand how the other person, (or you), relates themselves to the world around them and everything else falls into place.

Remind me tomorrow to explore that ‘kryptonite thing’.

* no, of course not, Mr. Narrator, sir. Ain’t nobody but us non-critical listener/readers out here… lol

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

TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine-

November 21, 2020 By clarkscottroger

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

…no! Come back, this will make sense if you read the Post. We promise.

Hosted by Dyanne. (Hostinae Quatraenous c.2020) who has graciously, (one can be forgiven for wondering what shade of rose her glasses were when she sent the email back to Kristi), taken on the deceptively challenging job of hosting the TToT.

This is the Ten Things of Thankful (TToT) bloghop.

Enjoyed by millions.

1) Una

Warning: this photo constitutes an achronologic depiction of a post-branching of a timeline.
See Grat Item 3

2) Phyllis

3) The photo above, between Una and Phyllis? A near-perfect Grat Item. I mean, Peter Paul Mounds perfect. Here’s the story: Our backyard is basically a clearing in the middle of a pine forest*. Our practice, when letting Una out at night, is that I go out onto the deck and look for any animals that might be in the yard. That would be mostly late-night deer and rabbits with the munchies.** Usually there’s nothing out there and I open the door, Una goes out and comes back in, easy peasy. And therein lies the gratacious aspect to this adventure. Sometimes, when it’s extra cold or I’m tired, I might stick my head out for a cursory scan. (“A single grain of sand falls soundlessly from the upper lip of the Great Sphinx. Time destroys all, however limited the attention span of Man.”) Last night was not cold, so I asked Una to wait by the French doors that open out to the deck. I always scan from left to right, starting with the shed, down along the perimeter, past Ola’s grave and ending with the darkly-featureless woods. Movement caught my eye. In the middle of the lawn. My first thought was…. Pepé Le Pew! (No, seriously, the skunk was full-on black-with-white-stripe-down-its-back.) It was walking from the woods towards the shed. Kinda ambled, like Popeye, if Popeye was a quadruped, rather than the man that he yam. I said, “Holy Smoke!” The skunk took no notice. I did some calculations and, seeing how I was an arm’s length from the door into the house, figured I could outrun he or she, should, he or she, take offense at my presence. The skunk continued on, past the deck, past the garden and under the shed. I thought, “Damn! Only Eight more Grat Items left!”

4) Lizzi because, back in the late eighties, she began on a path that included creating a bloghop. (Interesting fact: She and I were among the first, at least in our circle of Facebookian friends, to do a life-video chat) Funny Doctrine insight: So we set a time to sign on, to whatever app google had back then, and there we were, face to face. I said, ‘Hello’. (transatlantic pause) and Lizzi said, ‘Hello’ And the connection dropped. My first thought, no word of a lie, was ‘She thinks you’re a creep and hung up.’ Fortunately I had a Doctrine to remind me that I was a clark and, it turns out that Lizzi did not think I was a creep. At least not then. lol

5) The internet. It’s capacity to function as a duct-tape-and-cardboard time machine, allowing us to travel back to when things were different. (see music vids this week)

6) Six Sentence Story

7) Writing, (and the practice of writing) which takes a form that, while a part of improving my skills, is also entertaining in the process. (Now, if only physical exercise could be like that, you know, while you’re doing the exercise, you become or appear to be the end product. Somehow. In top shape and totally stylin. err…. we have two serial stories ‘the Case of the Missing Fig Leaf‘ and ‘the Whitechapel Interlude’, from the Ian Devereaux pulp detective and the Book of the Order of Lilith )

8) THIS SPACE AVAILABLE

9) something something

10) Secret Rule 1.3 From the Book of Secret Rules (aka the Secret Book of Rules): We had the opportunity to remind Lisa that, as an offset to her uncertainty about joining in this weekend, with a ‘full TToT post’, the BoSR/SBoR lets a body, with sufficiently persuasive citations of appropriate chapter and verse she might send in a list of less/more than Ten Things.

musics

* Full Disclosure. When we bought the house, one cold January in the late 1960s, the forest of pines were of a certain age that created a full screen of green. The nature of pines includes not only growing tall, but, in that process, preventing the next generation from getting established to quickly. Pine trees block sunlight year ’round. The short form: we can see neighbors now.

** keeping the theme of the ’60s alive, ya know

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

Friday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

November 20, 2020 By clarkscottroger

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

Lets end the (work)week with a brief discussion of:

- secondary aspects: How do I know if I have one and what good does it do?
- are scotts really that fearless or is everyone just afraid to mention it*
- how to determine the predominant worldview of a person you’ve just met
  - - note their choice of pronouns
    - look at their eyes
    - discard the personality type that causes a ‘No way!’ response so you have only two to decide between
    - ask them (not recommended for anyone not advanced in the study of said Doctrine, as the character of their response will tell you more about yourself than about which worldview they’re acting from

As you slide towards the weekend, remember this:

The Wakefield Doctrine is not ‘the Answer’.

It is a combination crib sheet and Cliff Notes. Written on your wrist, these answers-the-the-questions-of-life / hints-to-the-plot-twist-in-the-next-chapter / and genuine ‘slow-clap’ that you are permitted to hear and enjoy on the condition your don’t tell anyone else, it extends up your arm, across your shoulders, jogs up to your head and from there, downwards, with a brief stop at your heart.

Use this secret wisely, binyons

* kinda/mostly and, before you say anything, count the steps to the door.

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: psychology of personality, self-improvement, the Wakefield Doctrine

Six Sentence Story -the Wakefield Doctrine-

November 18, 2020 By clarkscottroger

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

This is a Six Sentence Story

Hosted by Denise each week, the Six Sentence bloghop has only one rule: write a six sentence story employing the week’s prompt word.

Pretty simple, isn’t it?

Every other week we offer an installment from ‘the Case of the Missing Fig Leaf‘ which is, of course, our current Ian Devereaux serial mystery.

Prompt word:

WAX

“Yes, that’s Elias… my former….Doctor Thunberg.”

Competing with the cold hiss of the fluorescent lights, the detachment in Leanne’s voice brought to mind dialogue balloons that float above the characters in a comic book; authenticity was not in question, her emotional investment in speaking for the man, now a thing, a body, laying on a stainless steel tray was.

I stepped behind my client and friend, my right arm and chest exactly two inches from her left arm and back; I maintained a distance close enough to prevent any chance unsteadiness from cascading into vulnerability, while, in counterpoint to the flickering illumination, sadness and anger waxed and waned in a silent duet.

Leanne’s ex was discovered on the granite steps of the Museum Wiesbaden, the wreckage of a Porsche 930 an impromptu sculpture along the street, crumpled metal and glass throwing moon-glittered patterns on the dark asphalt.

The sports car was empty of living passengers; Elias would have died instantly from attempting to decelerate from 100 mph to 0, in an infinitely short time; the coroner’s report cited speed and alcohol as probable factors.

After we’d returned to our hotel and Leanne retreated to the neutrality of sleep, I called the number on the hotel registration card among Elias’s effects; after the desk clerk offered shock, condolences and sympathy, she asked, “And his young lady companion, she is also dead?”