Month: November 2022 | the Wakefield Doctrine Month: November 2022 | the Wakefield Doctrine

PrePrint Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

November 29, 2022 By

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

So, yesterday we used a phrase that made us think, ‘Damn, that’d’ be an interesting phrase to base a post on!’

[Time Loop Warning: we’re writing this then, as opposed to waiting until now to write it. Messed up, no? But it’s true. Now, before I get in so deep as to totally denature the energy matrix of the day ahead (yesterday, to you non-Believers*) I’ll stop with the phase. See what our future-self makes of this idea.]

Stop reading…. seriously, stop reading! Better yet, close your eyes, for just a secon….

 

awright! We’re gonna get metaphysical on yer…

Wait. No. No we are not.

This is a serious blog. It concerns itself with a subject affecting us all that, while not six floors up from Lawrencium, the matter of personality types and how we relate ourselves to the world around and the people who make it up is not Telly Tubbies, by any stretch of the imagination.

So, to the topic of the day! Leap(s) of Faith.

We looked it up (favorite part of writing) and, shock as it may come to Readers, we disagree with the meaning of the phrase: (a) leap of faith. (parentheses ours).

Most returns on a query: the origin if this phrase, credit Søren Kierkegaard. And most say he didn’t really say it, but the thing is (they all figure) he meant it. So check out the link under his name, back earlier in this sentence.

Full Disclosure: While this post is really interesting, the thing weighing most heavily on our mind is, what song best encapsulates this meaning, if not the intent of this post? Of course, what you should be doing is looking up Regine Olsen (drawing at the top). Quite the rock ‘n roll tragedy.

Faith is at the heart of the phrase. Faith is a funny thing, in a non-rational way. Like most the non-rational sort of things in life, not only is faith (imo) not a product of logic or reason or arithmetic, it has a quality that is pretty recognizable.

…gots to run I have to go to work, which, in and of itself, benefits by a certain leaping approach.

 

 

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

RePrint Monday RePrint -the Wakefield Doctrine-

November 28, 2022 By

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

Mark your calendars! Only twenty-five days ’til Summer!

On with the reprint!

(In case we can’t find anything RePrint-worthy, on this weekend’s Guys2 & G1 Livestream we did discuss… )

We interrupt this genuinely sincere attempt to bring the most wonderful of perspectives on the world around us, (and the people who make it up), with the following ‘first-time-with-your-parents-car-driving-with-your-high-school-friends-at-night feeling kinda post.

Full Disclosure: we haven’t bothered to read it in it’s entirety. But, seeing how we hit Publish once already, back when this blog was new(ish), we’ll take a leap of faith and post it without reading.

Hey! Alert Reader Dinise (owner and proprietorini of the fabulous Six Sentence Story blog hop just signaled of a major misspelling. All set. (If you’re one of them what pulled up the post before we corrected, hold onto the Post!! It’ll be worth something, someday.

 

(BONUS Post-ette included today!!) the Wakefield Doctrine “1st Annual Black Friday Video Chat…Tonight! at 7*”

November 28, 2013
Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and roger)

Hey!  Tomorrow  Friday   Tonight as in later in the same day as you are reading this here correction in….from  (unless, of course, you forget and don’t read this Post until tomorrow, the forget about it) ….November 29th  ( 29-Nov-13 to our International Friends) at  7:00 pm*  First Annual Black Friday Video and X-rated Movie Festival!!BONUS new material!***

Speaking of contributions from Downsprings,  had an interesting and challenging discussion with Phyllis the other morning regarding rogers. For some distantly related reason Phyllis said that ‘rogers are mean’. Out of the context in which this sentence was made, this statement, ‘rogersare mean’ demanded consideration. For if a statement is true about one form, what does it tell us about the other two forms? So from that Phyllis’ single statement we jumped to the following:

rogers are mean, scotts are cruel and clarks are heartless

So, lets consider these statements.
We start with the premise, i.e. when one (of us) chooses to be unkind to another, what is the characteristic of the behavior relative to our type. (Or may I could just say, why are clarks heartless and scotts cruel and rogersmean, instead of say, clarks are cruel and rogers are heartless etc)  ( Update:  The current preferred way of expressing this:  how do each of the three ‘manifest’ the state of ‘to negatively affect another’ This is a result of the understanding that ‘everyone does everything at one time or another’. )

‘Rogers are mean’ because when they want to negatively affect someone, they do it within the context of the herd. They will gossip and talk among each other about the target (of this negativity). They will never go up to the target(person) and say ‘you are a slut’. Instead they will say to each other, ’isn’t she such a slut’? It will be the group opinion that will constitute the negative effect. In other words, if an outsider comes on the scene and and needs information reagrding this person, the herd will make a point of offering an opinion. ( as in:  “hey, clark! because I’m your friend and no one will say this, I think I owe it to tell you that everyone thinks you’re a slut. Not that I agree with them, but I am your friend” )  Updated 11.29.13
(Now class, why is that so rogerian?)
(God, I so love to lecture)

The answer is, of course, because the effort to affect a non-herd member is always done among and within the herd. No single member (of the herd) could or would approach the ’target person’ directly and certainly would not say anything to their face.

All right, then how about scotts? Why cruel instead of heartless or mean?
Because it is the nature of predators, to act alone. Granted scotts will gather in packs when the occasion rises, but for the most part they hunt alone. And when a scott is being ‘negative’ it is expressed in a manner that can only be called cruelty. Part of this is the result of the fact that scotts will act directly but impersonally. They enjoy the efforts of the prey to resist, hey that squirming and trying to get away is the damn relish. But its nothing personal, the scott is hungry and the prey is food. So in the case of scotts, this cruelty is the ‘way of nature’ cruelty.

Clarks? Heartless? No! Say it ain’t so!! If any Reader needs it explained, then you need to read the content in these Pages a bit more.

So leave a Comment let everyone know if you are intending to join us tomorrow… you may regret your rash decision, but hey, that’s what the Wakefield Doctrine blog is for!!

(I’ll be back in the course of the day today, will have more details and and insights and outrageous assertions as, I trust you have all come to expect from everyone’s new favorite Doctrine, the Wakefield Doctrine continues it’s coverage of this first of ‘the Big Three Holidays)

(back) So what do you have to look forward to from the Wakefield Doctrine this Joyous Winter Season?   more scott and more roger!  you do recall that the Doctrine holds that we all have (the potential) inherent in all three worldviews, don’t you?  and you remember what we said about using the Wakefield Doctrine as a tool for self-development, right?  (i.e. ‘simple as can be, harder than anything you have ever tried to do’…that) Well that’s what we are going to be spending your valuable blog-reading time over the next 6 weeks or so. Plan accordingly.

 

(back)  I know that I write every year about parades… (rogerian essential) but my god!! where the hell is Child Protection services?  those poor children… 3 hours walking the streets of New York City , in 30 degree windy temperature all for 5 seconds ‘in frame’ in front of Macy’s so the folks back in Indiana can say ‘look!! it’s Tracy!!! what the hell’s the matter with her face?’
On a personal note: the over-hormoned 23 year old inside of me died a little late this morning as I sat in stunned disbelief as Joan Jett stood, singing, on a frickin float…. not a cigarette or ‘record machine’ in sight…waving at the crowds with a blank look on her still very attractive face…

(

back) (…again!)  that ‘cover photo? the one with the Delegates from Slovenia?  that goes back to the early days of this blog. we had a thing about Slovenians!!  (a good thing, nothing bad…just a fun kinda affectation.) will tell you more in a little bit

 

* For the time-zone impaired:

  • Jak!! yo!!! that means  6:00 pm  Twin City time
  • Stephanie?  I believe you will have to stay up kind of late… this being like 2:00 am (!) in your time…. well, there’s always the Sunday Video Brunch (which is 3:30 pm local  i.e. your local )
  • Molly?  yeah… I know we’ll need to co-odrdinate on the google circle thing, but these Video chats are kinda fun… for you  it would be 5:00 pm  stop in while fixing dinner…if your phone can handle google hangouts
  • Michelle?  wakey wakey!!   8:00 yo
  • Lizzi?  it’s a Friday night! you get to stay up late ( sorry if we appear to be assuming that you would have nothing more…. exotic…exciting?  better to do on a Friday night!  12 Midnight!
  • Melanie  a late night rendavouz with what I trust is the oddest group of people you know
  • Christine… you know that we totally would love to have you join us…but it will be either 6 or 7 pm your time, so I suspect that you’ll be in the middle of dishes and homework and such… but if you do get a chance…on your phone  come hangout with us!
  • Kristi   oh Kristi!  come out and plaaay
  • Richard oh Richard….  lol  you know it would be fun

**  ‘cept for Zoe… she has a very rare, ‘Join in late Card’  a privilege enjoyed by few, so step carefully when you join the brunch!  lol

 

*** well, ‘new’ in the sense that if you were born anytime after, say… I don’t know  2011?? then this is totally new and original!! hey, it’s a great insight from a DownSpring so ya better appreciate it …you know how hard it is to get a roger to say anything that amounts to more than ‘I told you so…’??!  I didn’t think so…. so read and comment, already.

 

*

Hey! there’s a post-worthy phrase!  (a) ‘Leap of Faith’… remind us to make that the topic of tomorrow’s post

 

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

TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine-

November 27, 2022 By

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

This is the Wakefield Doctrine’s contribution to the Ten Things of Thankful (TToT) bloghop.

oh…em…jee!

New Readers and participants? The SOP for construction (creating? compiling?!) a TT0T post is to write a list of the people, places and things that have elicited and, otherwise, have been at the root of an episode, however transient that involved the emotion of gratitude. This has been the practice adhered to since the founding of the bloghop on the final week of the penultimate month of the year (Gregorian not Julian) by our founderess in the Anno Domino* 1989.

But that’s not important right now!** What is, is that, here in Oceania, we had one of the Big Three holidays: Thanksgiving. ayiiee… that creates either a state of infinite regression1, gratitationally-speaking or, just provides some easy introductory material.

1) Una

2) Phyllis

3) the Wakefield Doctrine

4) the cottage project is complete2

5) the Six Sentence Story a place to send quick, little stories

6) * the availability of single songs that elbow their way (tunefully, of course) into our stream of consciousness and turn a TToT that is primarily photos and random thought into a well-thought-out…. err (Domino music vid below)

7) an afternoon’s conversation with two interesting people and your’s truly best place, we hear is to go over to the youtube and wait or, if you prefer, at the FB

8) something, something?

9) One of the cool things about the realization of P’s cottage (at the top of the Post) is that it draws much from a WIP/work of fiction, Almira; specifically, its modeled after the feeling/tone…no! wait! this is a once-a-week writing occasion, lets go for the fun…. what Phyllis is going for, both in the interior and the exterior is the design aesthetic of the library in the Gulch family home on the East Side of Providence.

10) Secret Rule 1.3

** Airplane!

  1. lol (Homer Simpson voice) ‘Philosophy… mmmm’
  2. for the year. next spring will be the patio see Grat# 9 above

Music vids

*

*

*

*

*

You are invited to the Inlinkz link party!

Click here to enter

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

Six Sentence Story -the Wakefield Doctrine- [a Case of the Missing Fig Leaf Six]

November 24, 2022 By

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

This is the Wakefield Doctrine’s contribution to the Six Sentence Story bloghop.

Nurse Ratched’d by Denise, this weekly event celebrates the gathering of writers encompassing the complete spectrum of skill, intention and pent-up drives to add to their fifteen minutes of rhetorical notoriety.

The fun in this format, imo, lies in the near limitless parameters imposed on the author. Other than the eponymous number of sentences, we’re free to write whatever amuses us. For me, it is to practice writing, in general, and create scenes and impressions against a variety of backdrops, or in what the movie franchises so modestly refer to as the (-Franchise here-) Universe. Today, we’re off to our favorite fictional world of strip clubs and Radcliffe Unverstiy department chairs, fast cars and faster airplanes where we might find Ian Devereaux and them.

The prompt word this week is:

VERGE

“I’m tellin’ you, Devereaux, holidays ain’t what they used to be,” Lou Ceasare, standing behind the bar of his establishment, the Bottom of the Sea Strip Club and Lounge, looked through the open shelves of liquor bottles that served as a divider between the Lounge and the Strip Club.

It was the Wednesday afternoon before Thanksgiving and the club was half-crowded with students and businessmen; one group seeking a last minute Adults-Only fix before returning home for the holiday and the other, delaying their return home for the holiday.

I’d given my admin, Hazel, the day off and after a morning of sleuthing on the internet, alternating between LexisNexis, eHarmony and Ancestrydotcom, decided to have a late lunch before driving up to Cambridge, where my very close friend, Dr. Leanne Thunberg, promised some holiday-themed consciousness-raising.

Individual bottles of liquor not being at the top of the list of sound-proofing materials, I could enjoy the show, on the verge of the testosterone-mandated camaraderie and celebratory fist-bumping, as a new dancer, Crsytal Dale, in an admirable, if not slightly insane, display of creative dance, took off her full-on Pilgrim costume; only then did I notice that Lou had help behind the bar, a woman with multicolored hair, a touch of ink and an expression like Jane Goodall’s face on her first morning in Tanzania.

Nodding in her direction, “Who’s the new help Lou, if I knew you were hiring, I’d of brought my resumé,” Lou, his laughter, the burgeoning rumble of a domestic dispute between grizzly bears, looked over the top of his bifocals, “I was short on help and your buddy at that Café joint said I could give her a call.”

Looking up from cutting lemons into slices you could read through, the Bartender said, “You been told, Lou, you been told, I got a sociology paper due and I need a walk, not an apartment, on the Wild Side;” a silent two-count and they both laughed loudly enough to throw off Crsytal’s finish, her capotain flying into the dividing wall, nearly dislodging an eighty-five dollar bottle of Green Chartreuse; I decided the forty-five minute drive up to Radcliffe should be just enough time for my mind to transition from one world to the next.

 

*

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

Too-too Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

November 22, 2022 By

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

Hey! Before it fades, we witnessed a new rogerian Expression!* A character on a show (forget the show, remember the character) facing a situation that is challenging on all levels, says, “Well, that’s a tall pill to swallow.”

(something, something… didn’t want to step on the only, vaguely original thought in this post. Given the holiday, here in Oceania, later in this week, thought it best.)

* what are rogerian Expressions?!? sorry, didn’t see your ‘New Reader Leave Me Alone, please’ badge.

Welll… have a seat. Can we get you a coffee and something to nosh on? ok, we see you have the three name tags recommended for first time visitors to the Doctrine. Never a bad idea to leave your options open until it’s too late. Here’s the link to the original reference, just in case. If you’re in a hurry, scroll down to near the bottom of the Page in rogers,

Don’t go anywhere, gots to find a reprint and finish up the post.

lol!! damn! Sorry, I just encountered one of those, probably-only-because-it’s-the-blogosphere moments. We all have those times when we don’t recognize our own writing. Most often very old posts. The normal reaction tends to be, “Hmm, kinda basic, but clearly that was us writing… keep practicing!” but sometimes, like today’s reprint, there’s a line that makes one laugh and think, “Alright! Weird as you thought you might be, but still…kinda funny,”

 

of egos and empathy the Wakefield Doctrine (yes, I know! it’s already half past Monday! )

April 15, 2013

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) Sorry for leaving an undeniably out of date Post up there, after all, it frickin says ‘Saturday’ in the damn Title. So while we rack my damn brain for some fresh Content, here is a reprint Post, which is actually surprisingly germane to where our thinking is on the Doctrine. Don’t want to get into it too much but we will say this: a) the Wakefield Doctrine stands to become a very cool tool for self-development (for those so inclined) and  2) those rogers have been relaxing long enough in the wings…time to get this show on.

But for now, please enjoy:

Welcome*

…we know now, ( if you read yesterday’s Post, you know now ), the relationship between rogers and scotts is a very… intimate pairing. While easy to mistake the roger’s as ‘victim’ to the scott’s predation, we know that this is totally not the case. ( New Readers!  Go and listen to DownSpring Phyllis in Episode 13 of Video Friday), rather it is obvious that there is very much a symbiotic relationship binding1 your rogers and scotts.  The Wakefield Doctrine is gender neutral, however it is often where gender is the central feature, that we can see the relationship between these two personality types in highest contrast. We all know a couple** where the guy is a roger and the girl is a scott. He is always pretty and she is always sexy. He is socially adept and she is socially aggressive. It is when these two are observed tant qu’ensemble,  do we see the interplay of each personality type.  With a roger/scott couple,  it is the scott who is quick with the jokes about (the roger), ” oh yeah,  you should have seen roger on our honeymoon! he was so nervous”  (this kind of comment actually serves two purposes: a) make fun of the roger for the amusement of the surrounding group and b) (serve) as bait to entice any rogers listening to the story). The roger, in this situation, laughs comfortably and watches the reaction of the female members of their ‘audience’.  Think:  Bill and Hillary Clinton  or  (for you older Readers), Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton   …hell, lets throw in  Bobby Brown and Whitney Houston!  In any event, you will find ‘this couple’  in most social gatherings where attendance of ‘couples’ is appropriate. It needs to be said that this type of relationship (roger/scott) is by no means exclusive to ‘couples’ in the romantic sense; anywhere there are people interacting, you will find the dynamic described here.  And, as Phyllis points out in her Video interview, the roger is not truly the passive partner. (From the rogerian perspective), the seemingly passive one is ‘leading from behind’ and reining in the scott, particularly in the public/social situations that we are using to illustrate the two personality types.

While the roger-scott relationship is relatively easy ( if not kind of…racy… dynamic… “ewww, I can’t believe she said that“…) to understand, what of the roger-clark relationship?

Before we continue with our discussion, a quick note!  You know how we have been accused of… making up words,  (neologisms, to get rogerian on it) for our own enjoyment?  ( No? well we do!) Real made-up words, not rogerian expressions, in any case, with Molly’s help we went and sent in a word to the Urban Dictionary just last evening. While not up to the sublime, subtly-nuanced standards found with most of the entries there, we are beginning to spread more and more into the ‘real world’.  Thanks Molly!

The roger-clark relationship is much more stable, less wildly dynamic than is the roger-scott relationship. As the ‘active’ partner in a roger-scott relationship is usually the scott, the roger plays the more active role in the roger-clark couple. This is attributable more to the patience of the clark than (to) the aggressiveness of the roger.  Lets just say that in the ‘natural’ relationship between rogers and clarks…

rogers are to clarks as:

  • a diploma is to an education
  • (the) record to the needle
  • the ocean to the tide
  • Thanksgiving is to Christmas

(As with yesterday’s Post, here is where we will relate an anecdote to serve as an illustration of some part of this Post.  So I was talking to the Progenitor roger just the other day, the conversation was great fun, ranging an incredible variety of topics. This is as much evidence of the rogerian skill at story-telling, as it is proof of a clarks ability to adapt to nearly any situation.  In any event, roger and I were talking and the topic came around to either:  a)dinner, b)body weight or c) both a & b, at which point, roger made the statement, ” of course, you would be eating tuna casserole…” Now this statement should not mean anything to you, (the Reader), however, what makes it so atypical of rogers is that at one time in the past (say …20 years ago) I was on a tuna casserole diet. Great meal, tuna…noodles…good hot or cold…perfect food! Being a clark, I could, (and did), eat tuna casserole for every meal. The point of this story is that roger mentioned this…menu choice, as if it were (still) true. What is remarkable about the sentence that he made was not that it was no longer true, rather that he made the statement with such certainty and conviction that, for a second, I could almost smell tuna casserole. rogers do that, they maintain a (certain) worldview that they have decided is accurate, the passage of time, (in this case, 20 years), has zero effect on how true the roger will hold their statement to be… This capability is at heart of the rogerian need to: preserve, to maintain tradition, to support their view of the world as lasting and consistent. This is perhaps the  reason that rogers are such effective story-tellers…they maybe be relating a tale, one that they totally make up, but when they tell it, it is ‘true’. The listener feels this (rogerian) conviction that the story is true, it must be simply because (the roger) remembers it so…)

  • musical technique is to creativity
  • machine operator is to a Teacher

Well that wraps up Chapter II.  Be sure to stay for the Video  (  isn’t George just so….dreamy??! )

1) lol…ask a scott

* the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers

** we mean it about gender neutral…the term ‘couple’ is not limited to simple heterosexual pairs… can include any relationship, sexual and/or friendship-based

*

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