Psychology | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 5 Psychology | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 5

Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

ok. let us leave it to our (weak) tertiary rogerian aspect to do the intro to today’s post.

“Only because you’ve been badgering us for more RePrint posts, and, by-the-way? love that formatting with the caps… perfect, here we go. And, in case anyone is muttering, ‘Sure, if I have three thousand posts I wouldn’t feel the need to write new content everyday. Besides, how new can any post be, after writing that many descriptions of a single perspective on personality. And, since you brought it up, and I hate to be the one to tell you, the Doctrine has a flaw. When I read and learned then applied the description of those clarks, scotts and roger types, it was clear that despite what they insist about only one predominant worldview, I have all three in equal amounts. But I don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade. Don’t say I said this…” tertiary r.

(ed. lol btw remind us to describe the latest project on time management. got ourselfs one of those task-time tracker apps. curious about where all the time that I’ve found going missing of late. Still in the habit-of-use phase, no good stats yet. has promise.)

Also, part of the rush (there it is, that time problem again!) being Wednesday we need to finish our contribution(s) to Denise‘s Six Sentence Story bloghop. Doors open at six o’clock (of course they do lol). You should stop by for a read. Better yet ask for permission… damn! movie reference (free Grat Item for your next TToT post for anyone who gets the reference without google). Better yet, write and link a story!

….lol

“Diogenes, C.W. Post and Jean Lafitte are sitting at a bar…” the Wakefield Doctrine (‘…early Tuesday morning, lets see you write your way out of this one!’)

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

You know what’s weird?  (no, not that…that’s simply strange), it’s that I find myself being  drawn to trying to learn to write. By that, I suppose I mean I am increasingly dissatisfied with my skills and at the same time find myself wanting to do it more. (Yes, paradigmatic of the adolescent male outlook).  This is, no doubt, a direct result of my association with writing-people over at the BBG* and  (new Friends of the Doctrine).
Nevertheless, I find myself creating challenges (for myself) with each effort to write Wakefield Doctrine Posts that are not only informative and interesting, but entertaining. I suppose, given my seemingly relentless drive to make the Wakefield Doctrine a damn household name,  this is not the worst thing that can happen.
And so, today’s Post Title.
I’ve mentioned in previous Posts and/or Comments that there are times when the Post you read in the Doctrine blog comes about simply because I hear a song fragment or get stuck with a single thought and I just try to ‘write my way out of it’. Today’s Post is one of those Posts.

…first, a little backstory.*** the Diogenes in our Title is Melanie’s fault! I was rummaging around ‘the Facebook’ and came across a Comment she made to the effect that she was having trouble with her internet connection and had to go find a more reliable source… now I know we all made the jump to that old… ‘in search of an honest man’ thing we all read about in grade school. So I wrote that as a comment. Naturally the next thing I thought was the old joke setup up,  “….were sitting at a bar” (or alternately,  “…walk into a bar”**).

(The work began.) I knew there should be three people in the set up, and since I was suspecting that Diogenes was a clark, I had to find a scott and a roger. I got lucky with C.W., in that the phrase, ‘best to you each morning‘ somehow got into my head and then the words, ‘Post Toasties’ and then on to our C.W. Post, who from my brief reading of his life struck me as a roger.  2/3s done!
Now all I needed was a scott!  Now most of us are thinking, “oh! how easy! a scott, flamboyant and aggressive and funny and predatory. The line forms here…’
No! unfortunately for me this morning, it is all too obvious that history favors those with a talent for self-promotion over those who are simply out to have a: good/ravenous/seduce-’em-all/conquer the country,  time.
But I came across our Jean Lafitte and the following line quoted in the Wikipedia**** :

Many Americans believed that Lord Byron‘s poem “The Corsair” was based on the life of Lafitte; the work sold over 10,000 copies on its first day of publication.[96] By 1840, Lafitte was widely known “as a fatal Lothario with women, and a cold-blooded murderer of men who yet observed some forms of honor”

So we had our scott!

So they are standing at the bar and Diogenes says to C.W. “what’s with the glass of milk?” and Jean interrupts and says, “”mais d’abord! roo roo un peu

I have to close now. I have a day job that I so cannot afford to give up!

 

*Cyndi and Janine and Rich and Michelle and Emily and Amy and them

** here’s one that I found on a site (http://www.schiesshouse.com/) probably public domain, but it can’t hurt to cite the source,
“A guy walks into a bar…. ok, he did not walk in, he was already there. One guy says, “I slept with my wife before we were married, did you?” The other guy says, “I don’t know; what was her maiden name?”

*** another excellent joke!! This is a reference to the joke about ‘roo roo’ which is noteworthy because it is a gender-tropic joke! Yes, I’m making that word up, but it’s true! Of the Readers reading this, I am willing to bet a Wakefield Doctrine DocTee that every guy will immediately recognize (and know and find hilarious, the joke that I am referring to)…the womenly Readers?  sorry. it’s to your credit and a sign of a higher state of evolution that you guys do not get the reference.

**** Wikipedia motto: ‘that’s right! like Cliff Notes, but with pictures and easy access to footnotes to make it look like you did the research

*

Share

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

Struggling to get started this morning. Quick search through archives…nah.

Recognized the twinge of guilt at using old content rather than typing new. Guilt is the preferred perfume/’after-shave’ of the Outsider, in no small part because we think it’s legitimate use is to divert attention from our-true-selfs and to abracadabra the impression everyone else has of us.

Funny thing, when we tend to wander about, writingistically-speaking, you know, like when you’re stumped on a multi-choice test question and, seeking reassurance in a fact/information of rather admittedly impeachable pedigree-opiniom, resort to counting how many times you’ve selected ‘D’ (None of the Above).

That said, the thing about clarks is, the above test strategy notwithstanding, we’re kinda immune to test anxiety.

Which ties in with Mimi’s Comment on yesterday’s post:

“Simple if not always easy.”

spoken like a: clark/scott/roger

lol

no! wait… just remembered how much we enjoyed being provocative in the early days of this blog and…

‘a scott alone in a room, isn’t’ (and) ‘clarks are crazy, scotts are stupid and rogers are dumb’ and, about applying the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine to your own life, ‘It’s fun and you can’t get it wrong.’

so, in the spirit of ‘hey, it’s not so much what you do or say, it’s how you relate yourself to the world around us and the people wbo make it up’, lets add a new(ish) one:

clarks make the hard things easy and the easy things hard’

 

 

 

Share

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

Antigone and Oedipus, yo

Here’s one of the simplest descriptions of the three predominant worldview (‘personality types’) of the Wakefield Doctrine:

clarks think, scotts act (and) rogers feel

Here’s one of the simplest overviews of the application of the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine:

The Wakefield Doctrine is gender, age and culture neutral.

Finally,

Here’s one of the simplest test-to-elicit-self-identification (vis-à-vis) as a clark (or) a scott (or) a roger:

How Much is Two plus Two?

Pretty simple, isn’t it?

 

 

Share

TT0T -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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. Comprised of ten people, places, things (and) events that have inspired, generated, elicited and otherwise caused us to experience the state, (as ephemeral as it might be), of gratitude. As this is, by all accounts, personal and third-hand, a positive activity, we encourage all within sight (and sound) of our words to stop in, read, comment and all the other reasons you might have for spending time in the virtual world.

And, if the lists that you encounter here at the TToT resonate or otherwise cause you to think, “Ha! I’ve felt like that!” or “Man, them too??!” or, even, “Jeez Louise!! Those Doctrine people… wait, they’re the current host!?!?! No way. Heck, I could write to that level, just have to remember back to junior high!”

For those of us in the curator’s office at the Wakefield Doctrine, the following list of grats:

1) Phyllis

2) Una

3) the Wakefield Doctrine

4) the Unicorn Challenge:

5) the Six Sentence Story bloghop:

6) the forecast of temperature today is partly-cloudy with a chance of above-freezing temperature

7) work (real estate) allowing us to see (and photograph some interesting properties) see Grat #8

8) technology… simple pocket camera (while not on par with, say, Kristi or Misky’s excellent use of photos in TToT) some of our other co-hostinae (Dyanne, Mimi, Denise, Lisa)  might say, Hey! Where have a seen a sink like that before!! lol

9) something, something

10) Secret Rule 1.3

 

music vids

*

*

*

*

You are invited to the Inlinkz link party!

Click here to enter

Share

Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

As promised to Friend-of-the-Doctrine, Nick, here is the story of an insight into a predominant worldview, well beyond simple extrapolation of common characteristics offered by the Wakefield Doctrine.

The Discovery of Referential Authority.

While a great deal can be inferred about the subjective experience, (of Life, the world and you know, reality), by our description of each of the three predominant worldviews, there is only a certain depth, ordinarily speaking, to which we can descend, to wit:

  • clarks (the Outsider)
  • scotts (the Predator)
  • rogers (the Herd Member)

beyond this level we rely on the willingness (and ability) of people of each group to report out, well, basically, “So, what’s it like being a ….

We can live with that, ’cause when it comes to know about the other person, the Wakefield Doctrine, is on a certain level, without peer. We mean, well, damn! Does your Myers, Briggs and Stratton system afford you an understanding of a person sufficient to: offer insight in a roger’s heart by suggesting you agree with them (even if only for the moment) or that it is usually a bad idea to get into a Truth or Dare game with a scott or, recommend that in a public forum, it might not be such a good idea to ask a clark to come up to the front of the room and answer all your questions (well, and expecting a good outcome).

running out of time

compressed version:

We once wrote a scenario, a fictional restaurant in which a job applicant shows up in the middle of the noon/lunch rush for an interview. Told by the over-worked manager that they would have to wait, the applicant stood by the coatrack at the entrance and watched the organized chaos of a successful restaurant. We then proposed to Readers three actions available to the interviewee and one of these was: seeing how the staff was overwhelmed and people were starting to leave the line for a lack of seating as some tables were still full of dishes, the applicant should take it upon themselves to clear (‘bus’ in the terminology of the restaurant biz) tables, the kitchen area being accessible and open for such a purpose.

The response was amazing. as in, wth?! People were writing comments: ‘They can’t do that!!’ “No way the applicant should get hired” and “How dare they take it upon themselves to interfere like that?!!”

(Have we mentioned how the existence of the Wakefield Doctrine is rife with examples of serendipity, aka luck, gift? Well, yeah. guess we have, first example being the Eureka Moment that started it all.)

…in any event, we realized that not only were virtually all the comments expressing outrage, most of it was coming from rogers. But it was the intensity of their emotional response that remarkable. Even to a clark! (lol)

We realized that rogers (the Herd Members) have within their world a concept we termed: Referential Authority, This is evidenced whenever a roger wishes to exert (uninvited) power on others. “That’s the way we’ve alway done it,” an “It’s SOP. I didn’t make it up, its in the manual (which) Everyone here (at this workplaces) calls it the Bible” and … and “I bring you, not my thoughts and ideas, but the Word.”

Like that.

and the cool thing? This insight is way farther into the reality of the Herd Member than any clark or scott might infer from the everyday descriptions of the relationship between rogers (or clarks or scotts) with the world around them and the people who make it up.

New Readers: Read the easily accessible descriptions of the three personality types until you got ’em cold. Then, we’ll totally bet you’ll be able to extrapolate new descriptions of the three personal realities of the Wakefield Doctrine,

Fun!

 

Share