Psychology | the Wakefield Doctrine Psychology | the Wakefield Doctrine

Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

May 13, 2026 By 5 Comments

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

Regular Readers know that, of recent, we’ve divided up the week into posts by subject (or perhaps, more properly, of arenae of special interest): Monday through Wednesday the principles, application and good practice of the Wakefield Doctrine as an additional perspective on the world around us (and the people who make it up); Thursday (with option on Friday) Six Sentence Story(s); Friday open topic and Saturday the TToT.

(well, that certainly qualifies as ‘stem-winding’ although, if truth be told, a liberal application of italics would be in order. The history of the phrase is…)

Wait. A. Minute.

The history of the phrase, or, more properly the inference from the process of researching the etymology of it, is a good example of the differences between the three predominant worldviews!

attend:

Having spent twenty minutes on the internet looking up and otherwise trying to learn the origin of the phrase ‘stem-winding’ (or, ‘stemwinding’):

  • clarks (the Outsider) would ‘feel good’ in the acquistion of a new and hopefully accuate understanding of the phrase; the rub being: it does not quite conform to their understanding (of the phrase) prior to their inquiry; lets be charitable and simply do (on movies it’s kind of a trope to have a block-lettered stop appear, for us lets go with ‘CONFIRMATION BIAS’   lol*
  • scotts (the Predator)
  • rogers (the Herd Member)

jeez Louise! sometimes being gifted with insatiable curioisty is not such a good thing.

We went in search of an image of a Patek Phillip watch, (’cause they had a hand (arr arr) in the genesis of the expression ‘stemwinder’ and that lead to reading about the most expensive watches sold at auction and that, naturally lead to reading up on Duchenne muscular dystrophy which produced a side-trip of blessedly short duration to inquire about Gower’s sign and, finally back here.

damn! still gots to complete the one part of this terminally-prolonged post that relates to the Wakefield Doctrine (hint: bullet points)

*our confirmation bias in this case is a memory of the use of the phrase. it was in a description of an old-time politician standing behind a podium before a crowd and deliberately, if not ostentatiously, taking out a pocket watch and making a show of winding it, the effect on the crowd is the realization that the speech would go on and on**

** who just said, “So, you were right about the phrase!!”***

*** ha ha

 

the least we can do is post some engaging, if not dated, music1

1) you’re really thinking ‘I wonder what the link from this post to the choice of music is?? Click away, just click away and we can stop typing lol

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

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

May 12, 2026 By 4 Comments

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

the ‘reality morphology’ that is threatening to rogers, amusing to scotts and useful (bordering on essential) to clarks

any questions?

~yes, the Wakefield Doctrine can anticipate a new Reader’s reaction/response at a distance

~no, there is no proof necessary to support this assertion

~well, because the unavoidable conclusion as to the Reader/User side of appreciating the utility, value and fun inherent in the perspective of the Doctrine makes that moot

~the Wakefield Doctrine is predicated on the relationship of the person with/to the world around them

~no, we agree, few things in the world are more personal than a ‘relationship’

~sure, physics, mechanics and (some) medicine…roger

~ we will, thank you for your approval and permission!

~as the end product resulting from the employ of the perspective(s) of the Wakefield Doctrine involves a subjective relationship, i.e. ‘she is a scott, I am a roger… ain’t a snowball’s chance of gaining control’

~… on one level, of course, being adults we have come to learn that in all relationships that include a dominant/submissive dynamic…ain’t one without the other

~sure

~the ambition of the Wakefield Doctrine is to allow us to be in a position to improve ‘how we relate ourselves to the world around us and the people who make it up’

~that italicized section, the ‘relate ourselves’?

~that’s the hard part, that’s what leaves 2/3s of Readers behind with a ‘yeah, it was weird, but fun, kinda made sense but… you know, incomplete, ya know?’

~we do

~if you’re to indulge in knowing more about ‘the other person’ in your life than they know about themselves, a list of characteristics that designaties their ‘personality type’ is a party trick, suitable for amusing friends and beating up on a significant other, aka a ‘mirror-shaped club’

~if you have the hubris to believe you can appreciate the personal reality of a total stranger, then you gots to be willing to get some skin in the game (for our scottian Readers, articles of clothing in a game of strip poker)

~ unlike the ‘real’ personality theories like the Oscar-Mayer Alphabet personality type (motto: ‘they’re only capital letters!! a) easy to apply and 2) what harm can it do you?‘) the Wakefield Doctrine posits three relationships one might maintain with the world around them

~come on, you’re better than that

~shed enough of the ego to allow that we all have parts of our selfs that fight against becoming more

~the Wakefield Doctrine is one (of a multitude) of the tools that make that (more) possible

*

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

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

May 11, 2026 By Leave a Comment

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

You do know/realize/accept that the tendency of this personality theory towards provocative/outrageous assertions/claims and descriptions is, in fact, proof of it’s validity as a description and efficacy as a predicator of traits and behaviors and such, right?

ed. ok, running out of time. here’s a RePrint that I picked (out of three) on the basis of a single throwaway line about rogers (will leave the Reader to find that line).

before we go, to the idea that everyone’s favorite personality theory is lacking in certain intellectual gravitas, we’d love to say it was by design. it was not. we will concede to a certain benefit to the Reader: if we say, “hey scott! they’re running away… oh, you’re already giving chase” that’s …not subtext… more an Easter egg in the sense of ‘yeah, we know you’re not saying I must chase anything that runs, but what is it about me (a scott) that makes that funny? and by illustrative contrast not being funny were you to address it differently: “err clark, for some reason they seem to be leaving at a dramatically quick pace” or “pardon me, roger, could you tell me why they are choosing to leave so dramatically?”

you get the idea (if you don’t, leave a comment and we’ll totally leverage your question/confusion into a post.

a quiet, (totally confusing) little Post the Wakefield Doctrine “shhh, there are new Readers, lets not scare…right yet“

March 11, 2014

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)Streetcar-MPAA-Code-Paris-Review

so …these early-weekday Posts seem to be more and more difficult to write. Naturally, I immediately go to the Question of why?  [Allow me to interrupt myself.  clarks ask why, scotts ask what and rogers ask how, right?… well, actually it goes a little deeper than that, but I need to complete this here Post here.]

where were we?  the Question is, ‘is it true that these Posts have been more difficult to write’  [Wait just a damn minute!! Did you see what I just said? wtf??!  hey, if we didn’t all ready have a Wakefield Doctrine which includes three worldviews, i.e. reality of the Outsider (clarks), the Predator (scotts) and the Herd (rogers), I could have re-discovered clarks with that single, awkward (and incomplete) sentence there!  “is it true that these Posts are more difficult to write”?!? Holy shit!! what kind of person, in a sincere effort to discover some inner truth, proceeds by way of:

  • starts with the pluperfect conjective form of a question and proceeds to stick about six layers of qualifications and conditions on top of it
  • makes it sounds like a question, but doesn’t given the slightest hint who the question is being addressed to
  • and…and! is this even a question!!??!  frickin clarks!   you know the worst thing about clarks?  the persistence in our attempts to secure validation from the world that we imagine we know is around us!  damn! if I had a nickel for every time I posed a secret question about what I thought I should be doing, I’d be a millionaire!  you know what I mean about secret questions…. like the characteristic smile of the clark:   press the lips together, aim it at the people you want to believe are being friendly and hope for the best

alright….sorry for the rant. (not really, but it sounds good to say).   and since were on the subject of apologies!!!  here:

  1. clarks apologize too sincerely
  2. scotts…. well, come on  seriously! who can stay mad at a scott…. they roll over, offer their soft under-belly  let you stand over them for a symbolic second and then its  “come on!! come one!! lets chase something!!!”
  3. rogers… don’t even get me started, rogers  apologize the way a good hooker has sex,  totally satisfying and convincingly …until you get the bill

lol

hey that was fun!!   no,  there is no underlying rationale to today’s Post  ‘just a havin fun’ as Johnny Winter sang*…oh it must have been 40 damn years ago!

Hey!!  Experienced Doctrine Readers!!  you guys know this shit… why doncha go ahead and finish this Post for us (in the Comments, of course), I’ll even leave you some spare words (left over from the beginning Part iv)

 

 

: a) am I confused as to my audience and therefore conflicted in what to say? or 2) am I just at an ebb in the cycle that has existed since the very first Post was written? or c) am I just wandering, rhetorically speaking, in today’s Post, hoping to stumble upon an idea, a theme, a thought ….a hook for today Post?

the Answer is:

 

* yeah, down here:

*

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

TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine-

May 9, 2026 By 8 Comments

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

This is the Doctrine’s weakly* contribution to the Lizzi R’s Ten Things of Thankful (TToT) bloghop.

The following are (the) people, places, things and events that have, in the course of the last week, elicited a feeling (or reasonable facsimile) of gratitude.

1) Phyllis

2) Una

3) the Wakefield Doctrine

4) knowing that there are Hostinae, Hosts or Readers who can identify the plant thing in this photo:

5) Six Sentence Story bloghop

6) in search of yard projects…

7) hypo-grat: the subzero daytime temperatures is holding back the insect both ‘flying’ and ‘wtf?!! is that??!!’ population. ProTip: We need glasses for reading and while the lenses keep getting thicker with each visit to the optomist, the salutary consequence of leaving them in the house when we venture forth into the woods, totally increases.

8) something, something

9) Frontlawn Meadow Update:

10) Secret Rule 1.3

* no, we never do tire of that ‘joke’

music

*  Thanks and shout-out to Keith for inspiring the inclusion of this tuneage

*

*

*

You are invited to the Inlinkz link party!

Click here to enter

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

Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

May 6, 2026 By 3 Comments

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

You’re welcome.*

Since we got off track with yesterday being Tuesday, the most clarklike day of the week, we’re gonna make up for it here and simply make observations without contextualizing or dramatizing.

of course not, for this blog, (and the Wakefield Doctrine itself), to be wildly popular, we would need to be a roger. they, (the Herd Members), have the innate sense of vox populi**

But then again, clarks are not ‘people’, clarks are Outsiders.

And rogers, having the quality of the average, healthy socially adept person is anything but an Outsider. (Even a scott is not an Outsider, at least not in nature. They separation from the Herd quality of the scott is a choice, one might argue of a tactical nature.

What neither scotts nor rogers have that clarks do, is the intrinsic sense of the reasonable dichotomy of the Outsider, to wit: I awake this morning. In considering the day ahead, I think in terms of the ‘world out there‘.

(and we mean it. lol)

So we’re good with the size and scope of this blog, the Wakefield Doctrine. If for no other reason than the fact that it would not have been created by a scott or a roger for one very good reason: no need.

And…and!! the benefits, (to us as a clark who happens to be the curator of this thing of ours) include: having far greater access to other clarks (to identify with/learn from/encouraged by seeing their successes in negotiating the world).

 

that’s enough.

well, one more thing. we’re most proud of the discovery/understanding/appreciation of one characteristic of the rogerian predominant worldview, that is their tendency to ‘lash-out’ when uncomfortable/or in fear of losing the (social) spotlight. clarks frequently experience this when interacting with a rogerian friend and the conversation is totally positive and enjoyable and seemingly out of nowhere, the roger says (the equivalent of) ‘Yeah, you’re an asshole’ And, with equal abruptness (after the emotional snack/meal provided by the clark) continue the conversation.***

Anyway, the reason we’re proud of this particular insight from the Wakefield Doctrine is that most clarks, in the endless seconds following being lashed out at, are thinking, ‘What the hell did I do to bring that on.’

Now we know. Nothing. It was not us, it was them. (for some clarklike reason, speaking only for ourself, hearing this makes all the difference in the world.

Thanks! Wakefield Doctrine!!

 

*surely one of the most costly, if not damaging characteristic of the clarklike worldview is our self-effacing modesty. Just gonna leave it at that. If (you’re a clark) you know what that means.

** this is new (to us), i.e.  the original and full expression is Vox Populi, Vox Dei (‘the voice of the people is the voice of God’)

*** classic ‘apology’ from the roger if called on this inappropriate attack: ‘Oh man, I can’t believe I said that‘

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