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

Before we get to today’s Monday RePrint^© lets return, ever-so-briefly, to the beginning-years of this blog.

[Full Disclosure: we tried to find an old post that had, at minimum, a formulaic relationship to today, i.e. 07/10/2017 or 07/10/2013 but … nothin’. Well, one had something, but it was deemed too anachronistic or excessively topical. So we resorted to the scientific approach: spin the wheel, (of post-published-dates), and below, if we have time, is the result.)

Where were we?

oh, yeah

You know what we remember as being a part of the fun of the earliest of posts? No, not realizing that our skill-level in the writing was abysmal. For that there is a simple strategy for clarks, provided the Will is there to continue, to not give up, to not succumb to the pressure of avoidance of scrutiny. (Which, if you are wondering about ‘the deal with clarks (Outsiders) and scrutiny we wrote a brief, little post HERE)

Nope.

Hey! Did you realize that you, the Reader, are living in a Perfect World’?

yep, sure are.

You have things to do today, right? Well, if you were reading the day’s Wakefield Doctrine on this Monday morning, say, in 2017 or 2013, we might have made the statement: ‘Everyone works as hard as everyone else does at their job/work/school/homemaking/etc

And… and! we were quite sincere in these statements. With the meaning intended, (almost), literally.

Well. Out goal today is to write/RePrint something about the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine that, if read and comprehended, would get you, the Reader, closer to enjoying the benefits of this here personality theory here. In part, we’re referring to the statement: With the use of the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine you will be in the position to: know more about the other person than they know about themselves.

Bold claim?

Yes. Yes, it is.

But, since we’ve begun typing, we’ve embedded in our, if-only-we-could-write-like-a-roger post, several interesting discussion points (about the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers). The challenge, an unavoidable cost of taking the SOC*, is remembering the surely fascinating side roads we marked.

Better bullet-point them before they get too far in the rearview mirror. (Not in order or sequence to original post)

• you remember ‘the Everything Rule’ right? My reference: if-only-we-could-write-like-a-roger is to illustrate the fact that, even though there is nothing exclusive to one personality type and not the other two, there are some things that one (predominant worldview) can do ‘better’ than the others. In this case: writing (popular fiction). rogers have a way with the written word that we used to refer to as consisting of smooth, well-rounded words. (Look only as far as your favorite commercially-successful fiction writer. No, we’re not going to tell you which author is a roger (or clark or scott). You can figure it out. You have the tools.
• at the top of this post we referred to: “... a simple strategy for clarks, provided the Will is there to continue, to not give up, to not succumb to the pressure of avoidance of scrutiny“. lol  When in doubt about proper rules of grammar and/or rhetoric? Wordify the hell out of it. (Making up words ‘that should exist’ is the clarklike equivalent of the rogerian expression. Not as funny, but just as aggressive.)
• the provocative statements? We totally stand behind them. Of course, this requires the Reader to accept the notion that we go about our lives in a reality that is, to a small but nevertheless significant degree, personal.

outa time.

Sure, we can post a music vid that’s related*

*to the posts that we didn’t reprint… ha ha