clarkscottroger | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 2 clarkscottroger | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 2

Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

The Wakefield Doctrine in twenty-five words or less:

The Wakefield Doctrine holds that everyone relates to the world in one of three characteristic ways. If we know the person’s relationship, we know them.

Well, that certainly was fun, wasn’t it?

Who said offering a fun and useful way to gain insight into the other person’s reality wouldn’t be fun?

Now, we understand that we would be hard-pressed to state the principles of our little theory of personality, but like writing a haiku* we sometimes have to make up words and such. (And, way like haikus (haikuess? haikae?!) The people who are attracted to systems of personality are those who have already spent an inordinate amount of their lifes trying to devise one. To make sense, ya know, of the way people are and act and such.

Since we’ve pulled so far ahead of our traditional ambition of presenting a brief, cogent description of a way to see the world, we’ll stay with the soul of wit and plug this week’s bloghops. Six Sentence Story (Wednesday evening) and the Unicorn Challenge  (Thursday late).

Damn! you know how it is, being a clark.

So, in response to Mimi‘s comment we offer:

as children we seek
to know what will make us real 
become the answer instead

 

 

*haiku motto: ‘You can write one. Yes. You. Can.. (Just count the syllables and be sure to have at least one incomplete thought).’

Share

Two Who ZZZ D’hay -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

Man! talking about setting out to write one post and ending up with another!

Below is a post from the near edge of the Golden Age (ette) of Doctrine posts.

Full Disclosure: Originally set out to do small clips of posts written on the 18th of March in successive years. Had a ton of ’em! Surprised us, to…

(Hey! There’s a little ‘original’ content for us, to pre-defend against criticism of excessive use of RePrints. “Man, you used to be fun to read, whenever you decided to post, but now, I don’t know, man. It’s like you’ve gotten so concerned with style that you care more about correctness than takin’ to the Man!”1

…on this day, the Wakefield Doctrine said:

there is a way to use this, (the) Wakefield Doctrine that is actually quite practical!

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)1950s Teacher In Front Of Classroom Writing Confidence On Blackboard

You know what’s a real skill to have? The ability to teach! I’m thinking of the kind of teacher who not only can impart knowledge to the student the very first time, (doing whatever the hell it is that Teachers do), but is able to help the pupil or learnee, to learn more about a thing than they already know.  I suspect this is a gift that music teachers, early elementary and graduate school teachers share.

Note: the Rule of ‘everyone does everything at one time or another‘ says that all three personality types can be and, are skilled and effective Teachers. There is no exclusive domain for skills, professions, avocations or talent among the three worldviews. It is simply that how the art/science of ‘teaching’ is manifested in distinctly different ways. For a clark, teaching is one thing, for a scott it is something else and for rogers …completely different, from their perspective. (Warning: new(er) aspect of the Doctrine follows). And since we have just created a thought picture in your minds in the shape of a ‘guidance counselor in high school’, lets expand on this and suggest that and you (the Guidance Counselor) have been assigned the task of recommending the best career choice in the field of education for the 6 students you have been assigned, you might do as follows:

  • clark (female): elementary grades (reasoning: the class is comprised of people that a  clark is able to relate to, and the class does not get defensive with, like they tend to with adults)
  • clark (male): college level teaching (reasoning: most of the bullying, on the part of the students is in the arena of the intellect and the clark will not have a problem …unlike the earlier grades)
  • scott (female): pretty much any grade when one of the primary goals is to ‘kid wrangle‘, when the learning is more teaching ‘fundamental social rules of behavior’, picture  a cross between Cesar Millan and Famke Janssen)
  • scott (male): shop, gym (probably not elementary grades, “so honey what did you learn in school today? oh! mommy the new Teacher knows so much…. pull my finger!”)
  • roger (female): home ec, social studies, history (“I would like to submit to the Board my recommendation for a new Course: “Getting Along without Standing Out 101”  and “Cooking Meals that look perfect”)
  • roger (male): social studies, history, home ec ( ‘hey kids I really talk your language and I will, in fact, pass along things I learn in our private conversations to other students I am trying to impress. It’s never too soon to learn about the real world!”)

We can now clearly see how, the art of teaching represents something different to each of the three (yes, three),while there are undeniable differences in the culturally permitted behavior assigned to each of the two genders, the Wakefield Doctrine is, in fact, gender neutral. The person who grows up in the reality of the Outsider (the clark) finds the students they can best relate to, the Teacher-to-be who is, by personal-social-spritual development, a Predator (scotts) knows that antelopes are much lower maintenance (as feedstock) than, say, a herd of wildebeests and the Herd Member (rogers) simply sees the herd and notes the predators and remembers the blue monkeys (for future use).

So, class   are there any Questions??

….and No! I will not pull my own finger!

 

* do they still have guidance counselors? I mean the male roger (‘here take this aptitude test, ok clark the scores are back the career you are best suited for is ‘file clerk‘**) or clarklike female (“so what do you like to do, what do you dream of doing“) or scott (“c’mere let me tell ya a thing or two about jobs“)

** true story

  1. needless to say, we are comfortable saying that we have not, to the best of our knowledge: a) put it to the Man or 2) taken it to the Man. though in our defense, the Man has never found it comfortable here in any role other than ‘stylized, relatively benign authority figure’ or ‘caricatured symbol of the power of the irrational animal self’
  2. ya know?
  3. Why yes! You’re absolutely correct! This is, in fact, an example of a Brown M&M clause. Please, do comment. You deserve recognition

*

Share

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

The simplest, and among those who have come to this website more than two and a half times, question we hear is this:

What good is it?

There are, in the way of this particular theory of personality, three answers:

  1. It offers a fragment of a map
  2. It’s kinda fun and, hey…  anything that provides an edge is good
  3. It might, in certain circumstance, once properly vetted and refined, offer more richness to an already perfect world

There! Ha! Our topic!

New Readers: What follows is an example of: Experience versus Youth. Unbridled Enthusiasm versus Thoughtful Reflection. If you’re new, we recommend the 2010-2013 vintage posts.

Anyway. Lost the thread…. oh yeah, this (from this weekend’s call-in)

clarks are crazy * scotts are stupid * rogers are dumb

the worst other personality type for:

  • a clark is to be a roger
  • for a scott is to be a clark
  • for a roger is to be a scott

Why?

Do your reading.

Given how their joining in on the call-in this weekend spares us the need to find and post a RePrint, a Doctrine shout-out:

  • Cynthia for all website and internetistic needs and requirements head over to her site:  Artfunky
  • Denise for reading and finding a path to the true value of the blogosphere, i.e. bloghops and flash fiction and such: GirlieontheEdge
  • roger for words and posts that are composed of pleasingly well-rounded words: The Secessionist Rag

So go to these sites and be sure to tell ’em the Doctrine sent ya,

 

Share

TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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.

New Participants? Rules? Nah… well, wait, now that you mention it, yeah there are a couple of Rules: a) create a list of 10(ish) things that you believe (or want to believe) inspire a sense of gratitude and b) link them up to this here bloghop here. Pretty simple, isn’t it?

Why? (Who said that!! Get them the hell outa…. ) lol. no, perfectly valid question. Because there is more benefit to a person to acknowledging…. no, not quite ‘the positive!!!’ (there’s a door down the hall, says “And it can only be four”, you’ll be fine)…. what we were going for is ‘acknowledging the choice we have between the dark and the light’. Enough of the meta-meta. Bottom line, the one true gift of a particular fruit of a certain Garden is not overly-advertized capacity to identify with others. ya know?

1) Phyllis

2) Una

3) the Wakefield Doctrine

4) the Unicorn Challenge (bloghop)

5) the Six Sentence Story (bloghop)

6) closing (on a property)

7) ground is almost thawed in the backyard, which means Mia might be free to run around in her hyper-maniacal fashion,

8) something, something

9)…we’re working on it! jeez louise! ! give a moving-finger a break, already!

10) Secret Rule 1.3

 

music vids

*

*

*

*

 

You are invited to the Inlinkz link party!

Click here to enter

Share

Friday -the Wakefield Doctrine- (a Unicorn Challenge offering)

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

This is the Doctrine’s contribution to the Unicorn Challenge bloghop.

A word-count constrained imagination contest* hosted by jenne and ceayr, the prompt is an image and the only limit is ‘tell your story in under 250 words’.

 

“Toe may toe…”

“Toe mah toe!”

Laughter fractal’d from the two. Held by the gossamer scaffolding of their respective imaginations, both made good on their, (ok, our), offer to the Reader for a pleasant, momentary diversion.

(Contrary to the stern admonitions, embedded like the walnut chunks in a German chocolate cake, of countless books on rhetoric, there are times when a Narrator may be considered reliable.)

‘You’re more …refined sounding than you look.”

“…and you’re even more attractive, the up-lilt of your accent, no, don’t tell me! I was so young when last I encountered it.”

(The parentheticals too off-putting? Sorry. What? No, a good Narrator is but a guide, neither the journey nor the souvenirs.)

“While your voice is as familiar as sleeping breath, discarding one sense surely advantages the others… tell me more.”

“Your true strength is revealed by your voice, where a dark-smudge of a person was, sound replaces light.”

(Surely you’ve guessed. These two have appeared, however fictionally, in a number of our stories.)

“Indeed, sight is not the primary…

“Or primal

Laughter, like a good dinner guest, contributes sparingly to the event, enhancing a dish, not replacing it. The two, [as Narrator, reliable or otherwise, we pray you not regard us as elements in our tale], continued their exploration of their respective love.

“Since we are, for the moment, citizens of the aural realm, names are the most appropriate gifts we might exchange, do you agree?”

“I do. Mr. Stone.”

 

 

Share