Psychology | the Wakefield Doctrine Psychology | the Wakefield Doctrine

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

April 15, 2025 By Leave a Comment

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

So, what is the simplest, most immediately productive of takeaways from yesterday’s post?

There are three and only three languages.

Imagine you wake up in a foreign country. You are able to communicate, in your native tongue, so sure you won’t die or get put in jail (at least initially). There is no doubt you’ll get through the day by pointing and miming. You’ll even make a certain progress in understanding the natives. And, if  you lack excessive self-consciousness, there’s a chance that in the course of your first day as a stranger in a strange land, you might begin to establish the rudiments of a vocabulary. ‘Car’… ‘Eat’… ‘Sad’… ‘No I don’t want to…’

The single most productive insight made available by accepting the core premise of the Wakefield Doctrine? They look like you, they dress as you do, (better than/worse than), have the same social landmarks: living rooms, class rooms, bathrooms, supermarkets and airports. You know they are, on a fundamental/biological level, the same as you.

But when you stand between a native and the work they must do, the lessons they need to learn, the girl/boy they desire? That is the moment that spoken language, (the first manifestation of Earth’s Apex Predator), becomes glaringly, painfully, embarrassingly obvious. The complex society observed anywhere there are more than two people, exhibits the preeminence of the percentage of their dictionary devoted to the elements of rule and behavior.

…the benefit to learning the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine, (and choosing to apply this alternate perspective on the world around us and the people who make it up), is simple:

You will be in a position to see the world as the other person is experiencing it.

With a lot of work, the grace of your preferred diety and a bit of luck, you can acquire a level of fluency in the three languages endemic among the Outsiders (clarks), the Predators (scotts) and the Herd Members (rogers).

good luck

*

Share
Filed Under: Lead Stories, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: ,

Mmm?undae? -the Wakefield Doctrine-

April 14, 2025 By 2 Comments

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

We enjoy comments on posts and stories, Sixes and Challengae. However, there are the not-infrequent occasion when a Comment gives rise to a theme suitable (or demanding) an entire Post.  Mimi, (a total font (lol) of inspiration) is one such influencer. Denise and Cynthia have for a significant tenure, whispered (or shouted) ideas that lay half-developed in the discourse. Of late, Misky has contributed. Now, Cia has stepped up to the mic with the following:

Even if a person doesn’t own a secondary personality, they can randomly exhibit aspects of it, but not show signs that they vaguely acknowledge they have that trait.

After reading it we thought to ourselves, we thought, “Damn! this is a gift disguised as an opportunity to practice what we really hope to be effective in our writing.”

Cai’s comment clearly coincides conclusively with (our correspondent’s) coming to a near complete understanding of one of the Doctrine’s core concepts, i.e. despite there being only one predominant worldview in which one grows, matures and develops, the ‘other two’ (of the three) remain and have the potential to become significant factors in a person’s ...err personality.

They are referred to as secondary and tertiary aspects. They manifest to differing degrees in different people. They can be significant or they can be negligible. Example: we are a clark with a significant secondary scottian (and) weak/negligible tertiary rogerian aspect(s).

We have found, among Readers, that often one’s secondary manifests under duress. In instances of extreme stress one might behave in such a manner that, after the emergency has resolved itself, others say things like, “Where did that come from?” The answer: our secondary aspect kicked in.

In a less dramatic fashion, some (of us), exhibit our secondary aspect in less dramatic fashion.

Cynthia is a good example. She is a self-identified clark*. Very early on in our friendship, Cynthia decided to add live, unedited video to her blog. (Selfies at time before they became ubiquitous.) In any event, we were watching the first video and, like in the first thirty seconds we were all, ‘Yow! You’re a natural on camera. Total presence! But…but…. you’re a clark!!

And then, it thunderbolt’d us, “What we’re seeing is her secondary scottian aspect! ayiieee!” (one of us may or may not have actually said ‘ayiieee’…. well, yes. yes we did.)

There is no limit to this secondary/tertiary thing. Well, there is, in a three-factorial sense of the combinations of the predominant worldviews, but our tertiary rogerian aspect is quite weak. So find a roger to explain.

That said, Phyllis is an example of a roger with a significant clarklike secondary aspect. She not only ‘gets’ the Doctrine, she has contributed to the body of knowledge. (Example: rogers create a ‘box’ to define the perfect world and deliberately erase their knowledge of it (the box, not the world).

Thanks, Cai! We’re sure this makes everything much clearer on the matter of the existance, significance and effect of secondary and tertiary aspects!

* Note: no one can, with any actual authority, designate another’s predominant worldview. It is up to each of us to discover. We do, however, refer to others for the purpose of education, illustration and…well, fun, But there is no color of law to it.

 

 

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

TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine-

April 12, 2025 By 3 Comments

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

This is the Doctrine’s contribution to the Ten Things of Thankful (TToT) bloghop. Established in 1975 as a mimeographic-newsletter, this bloghop is the simplest form of spiritualism available without a purple-heart from a parochial education or a graduate degree in coed college dorm with a focus on blacklight reflection and macramé deconstructionism.

Following is the list of grats we would offer, available for identification purposes and general R&R.

1) Phyllis

2) Una

3) the Wakefield Doctrine

4) the Six Sentence Story bloghop

5) the Unicorn Challenge bloghop

6) hypo-grats. (In two-parts) Hypo-grats are a valid experience qualifying for inclusion in one’s TToT list. It is, imo, a perspective that helps our little ‘hop stand out in an addmittedly crowded, (if not somewhat… ‘we-get-it-you’ve-memorized-your-multiplication-tables-but-math-is-not-rote sorta way), field of Gratitude Bloghops. Be that as it may, a hypograt is a person, place, thing or event that would, on first blush, appear to be a bad thing, something you’d just as soon forget and move on from. But, and here we would defer to a certain hostinae an opportunity presents itself. To us all.

7) (hypo-grats cont’d) Example:

We decided to sign up for free seminar at a local liberry: ‘Self-Publishing and Making a Career Writing Fiction’. First session was Tuesday past. Unsurprisingly, the moderator did the ‘Lets go around the table and introduce ourselves’ thing. Small group, the Librarian and three young women. We spoke last, (yeah, shocker that). The preceding three writers-to-be: opened with the anticipated: “I’ve been writing since I was 6yo/ even as a little girl I wrote stories/I can barely remember…”

When it got around to us we said, “I’ve been writing since 2009. For some reason, at that time, I found myself with a blog about a personality theory with three types, it’s called the Wakefield Doctrine. As part of trying to share it with as many people as possible I got involved with various online platforms like the Facebook and such. Almost immediately the thought came to me, “Shit! These people around me, they really write good. So I began to write as much as a I could.”

8) forbidden and surely toxic scents, smells and odors:

  • mimeograph ink
  • airplane glue (way before many Reader’s time it was available in the model car section of the drugstore (ikr?)
  • diesel fumes (the ‘hello, welcome back! no, you’re not too old’ when walking the docks lined with commercial fishing boats)
  • magic marker smells (still legal, right? toll of surviving diminished olfactory sense)
  • one’s own socks (for a certain length of time) (come on, we won’t call you out in the Comments)
  • rotting fish …and last and most challenging!
  • the smell of wet hair, under a towel after coming out of the water at the beach on a hot August afternoon

9) something, something

10) Secret Rule 1.3

music vids

*

*

*

*

 

You are invited to the Inlinkz link party!

Click here to enter

<!– ends InLinkz code —

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

Add Title -the Wakefield Doctrine-

April 9, 2025 By 4 Comments

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

A Comment from, Misky the following:

That is, of course, in reference to: If you’re still reading, congratulations! You have a significant secondary clarklike aspect. enjoy!

Thanks, Misky

Funny thing about Chuck Berry, (sample below). Back when we were as young as the music was new, we took to the change in stride. But like Vinko Bogataj, we both under-and-over appreciated the new music. Over-appreciated in the sense of the technical innovation of Mr. Berry’s guitar playing and under-appreciated how fundamental to modern music it would be. (Hint: showmanship, while never absent in popular music, to the student impatient with the dull, routine of playing scales by rote, represented a license to evade the drudgery of practice.)

the Wakefield Doctrine, in this caffeine-stumble of a Post (that started with such an impeccable thesis: ‘Essay Question: Typical Response of the three predominant worldviews (clarks, scotts and rogers) to first encounter with the Wakefield Doctrine. Compare and Contrast’

clarks: damn/huh!/shit
scotts: “You fuckin’ clarks!” (infectious laughter)
rogers: “Sorry, but while this is interesting, I seem to be a fourth personality type consisting of all three equally”

So, back to the implied essay question: Why is having a significant secondary clarklike aspect necessary for scotts and rogers to best appreciate this little personality theory of ours?

The inability of clarks to believe anything.

There’s an old saying, “The greater the power of imagination, the higher the barrier to belief.”

In simple terms*: a scott or a roger without a secondary clarklike aspect is a perfectly balanced personality. They live in perfect worlds, leading perfect lives. The relationship they (each) maintain with their respective worlds accounts for everything. While individuals may appear to search for answers and strive to develop, they are all Chuck Berry. They advance their personal realities. Develop and become more sophisticated. But they are, (to themselves, in silent affirmation), good and sufficient people.

There’s another old saying, “If you need to identify the clarks in a crowd of people gathered in an auditorium, pose the question: “Who would be interested in becoming another person?”

the clark’s gift (and curse) is the prominance in their personal reality of the challenge, “Yeah, but what if?”

*(lol ok, we’re trying. having, of late, spent time with early-Doctrine posts, our efforts to duplicate the naturally provocative voice of those days… (visual: opera singer complete with tuxedo and pince-nez singing: ‘Deep down in Louisiana close to New Orleans…’)

 

Program Note!! Tomorrow is when Denise‘s bloghop, the ‘Six Sentence Story’ goes live. Be there or be…

*

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

2ooze’dae -the Wakefield Doctrine-

April 8, 2025 By 8 Comments

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

(tonight we walk among the Herd…shhh)

The ‘Everything Rule’ notwithstanding, we can make the following observations:

clarks think, scotts act and rogers feel

when manifesting creativity, clarks are the only one to bring into being something that was/is/otherwise would not be; the creativity of a scott is to allow the other person to imagine they might have had a hand in bringing to the world something wonderful, and rogers, they are the Fabergé manipulators of the world in common (which explains why rogers in whatever art they may engage are the more successful. if popular success was the only measure.)

the Wakefield Doctrine offers a perspective that you would have/probably already noted (if you’re a clark), watched and enjoyed others become entertained by (a scott lives to live, not consume or otherwise deplete), rejected before fully-appreciating, (those rogers with insufficient secondary clarklike aspects)

more often than not, ‘its them, not you’

that said, the ‘them’ (in this contrived provocative statement) is also you (or rather, the ‘them’ in your life are almost (almost) entirely a function of the manner in which you relate yourself to the world around you and the people who make it up.

the Wakefield Doctrine is the simplest of toys/tools. you can’t break it. you can’t even ‘get it wrong’.

If you’re still reading, congratulations! You have a significant secondary clarklike aspect. enjoy! (the clarks knew that already)

Don’t worry about ‘getting’ the Wakefield Doctrine. It’s not a get. It’s more a ‘oh yeah, I see what you’re doing here. you won’t tell them, right?’

Absolutely.

mums the word

trick your friends into coming by and checking this thing out. natural selection at work. (the way young clarks, with the best of intentions, deluded themselves into thinking the world could be, and continued trying to maintain it. yet, you’re here.)

cool

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