Psychology | the Wakefield Doctrine

Phrydies Irae -the Wakefield Doctrine-

February 23, 2024 By clarkscottroger

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

Detail of the painting “God reprimanding Adam and Eve”, by F. Zampieri (1625)

Oh, the Humanity!

No, we have no idea why we wrote that or what it might mean.

That being said, we do know what Friday means: ‘the Unicorn Challenge‘. This is when jenne and ceayr go all ‘June and Ward Cleaver’ on the blogosphere and get some pretty damn talented writers to have a TAT-moment from the photo of the week.

Anyway. Two Hundred fifty words is what they allow us to write a story keying off the photo below.

“Who would do such a thing?”

The girl’s voice trembled with outrage, her posture, galvanized with fear, sought ground, yet her eyes were all challenge and defiance.

The boy was startled. Then confused. Finally aroused. However, in the way of many of his kind, taught lessons that left no trace other than a set of invisible cue cards for conversation with others not of his kind, chose to laugh. The opposite of a hug, laughter was the go-to strategy for those disadvantaged by self-conscious empathy; serving as a well-padded courtship ritual.

“Hey, doncha’ know, that’s the work of Krylontisse, the most notorious tagger in the city. And, to be quite honest with you,” the young man pulled at metaphorical cuffs as he unconsciously evoked the First Prayer to St. Sigmund, Proiectio est innocentia diaboli, “that’s kind of how I felt when we first met.”

The young women stood straighter, in-curving her shoulders slightly, the closest the body comes to frowning. She clearly was not impressed.

“I don’t care who she is! Why do they let her deface our city’s buildings with such disturbing images?”

“Who said he was a chick? Why can’t he be a guy?”

“Because of the…” saying a prayer to Lilith, the girl smiled at two small victories: the acceptance of herself and the too-little-to-be-held-responsible discomfiture of her companion.

“Never mind, be glad you will never understand. Now take me home.”

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: personality types, the Wakefield Doctrine, Understanding Human Behavior

Six Sentence Story -the Wakefield Doctrine- “…of Heroes and the Misunderstood” [a Rue DeNite Serial Adventure]

February 21, 2024 By clarkscottroger

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

This is the Wakefield Doctrine’s contribution to the Six Sentence Story bloghop.

Hosted by Denise, governed by a single admonition to make the story six sentences (no more, no less) in length.

This is our next installment of a Serial Six (co-written with Tom) ‘…of Heroes and the Misunderstood’. For heightened reading pleasure: …Previously in our story.

This week’s prompt word:

PASS

I’d be catching hell from Rue as soon as we were alone, but hey, sometimes gender trumps a guy’s better judgement, so as long as I was in bodyguard-mode, I decided to try and defuse the mounting tension in the room, “Let’s all take a beat, aiiight?”

Being 46 degrees of Italo-American descent, I was blessed with the whole, dark hair/complexion/eyes/improbable dimple, yet for God knows what reason, I find affecting a gangsta patois amuses the hell out of me, not to mention throwing my opponent off-balance, if only a little bit.

“OK, everyone but the dead or comatose chick on the floor stop talking,” I moved to the side just a microsecond before Rue’s hand on my back could move me; she was totally focused on the skinny dude with a twitchy arm, sneery lips and what looked to be a professional manicure; I moved over to our currently-holding-the-rug-down assassin-ette.

Crouching next to her, I turned her over on her back; her light-brown hair was short, (the pale of the nape of her neck suggesting a recent effort to change appearance), she was wearing what I think they call a peasant blouse and, as god-is-my-witness, circa 70s hip hugger jeans complete with a triangle of flowery fabric at the cuff; standing, she’d be 5′ 4” or so with a pass-able figure; a small tattoo showed above her honest-to-god macramé belt, a symbol: ; disregarding the remains of a big-assed gun now reduced to wood stock and canvas strap on the floor next to her, she reminded me of a coed who shot me down back when I was impersonating a college student.

Wonder Boy, or whatever his name was, was still speaking to Rue like I was her plus-one said something that reminded me that we weren’t in the US of A and how, other than Aston Martins, the Beatles and a recent UN award for “Most Progress in the Field of Dentistry’, I wasn’t in love with London or the whole spite-makes-right attitude of it’s inhabitants.

Then again, Rue had orders from Lou Caesare, orders far more nuanced, (and private), than the one he gave me: “Don’t let anyone kill her; you’re the more dispensable, capische?”

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: Six Sentence Story, the Wakefield Doctrine

Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

February 21, 2024 By clarkscottroger

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

Mimi said something in a Comment yesterday that got us thinking.

[New Readers? Who among you just muttered , ‘As opposed to acting? Instead of feeling?’ Very good!]

She say,

“How to have fun? What do you think I’m doing, I wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t to have fun.”

>Fun Fact? Pretty much everyone who returns to this blog more than twice, if not a clark then (they) have a significant secondary clarklike aspect.<

No, it’s true!

From the very beginning we’ve described the Wakefield Doctrine as a ‘fun, productive way to look at the world we live in with the added benefit of knowing the other person better than they know themselfs‘.

The thing about the Doctrine is that it is but one more perspective on the world. And the single hardest, nay impossible for some, is what we used to call ‘flexible intelligence’. This is the capacity to accept that what we all refer to (out of either necessity or need or both) as ‘reality’ is not necessarily one thing. That there is such a thing as personal reality. Nothing weird or made-up. Just a certain part of the day we experience, say today, is created by us/for us/at us.

And, this is captured in our, if we had one, mission statement:

With the practice of the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine, we increase our ability to see the world as the other person is experiencing it.

>Fun Fact? The Wakefield Doctrine is gender neutral, age neutral, culture neutral.<

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: clarkscottroger, psychology of personality, relationships, the Wakefield Doctrine

Twosday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

February 20, 2024 By clarkscottroger

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

While the action in FictionLand is cranking up, i.e. Six Sentence Story, this is still the Wakefield Doctrine. And the raison d’être for our little blog has not changed. It’s always been about presenting the principles of our little personality theory in a manner both entertaining and easily understood.

oh yeah? I’ll step in yer frickin river as many times as I

July 11, 2010

Yeah, it is Sunday again. And no, there is no rule that we have to get all weird (alright, weirder) on Sunday Posts. But the Doctrine allows for virtually anything, as long as there is something (in the Post) that advances the understanding of the Wakefield Doctrine.
The Wakefield Doctrine Lesson of the Day: talking yesterday to a person who has recently encountered this blog. She expressed some concern about knowing for certain which of the three (clarks, scotts or rogers) she was, which is appearing to be a rather common experience among new Readers and as such is important to us here at the Doctrine. We want everyone to immediately get the Wakefield Doctrine and then conribute to the blog through Comments. As to the un-comfortable part, I suspect there is an element to the writing “style” of these Posts that imparts some kind of “you better get this right” vibe to the First Time Reader. Damn.Hey Readers, yo. (No you’re wrong, I am totally entitled to affecting any (writing) style, slang, patois, pidgin, dialect or any other form of projectile cool (including a delusional perception of sounding cool, inevitably limited to my own imagination) if I want to cause I am the one writing this Post and who is anyone else to say that I am not in fact a dreadlocks-sportin, surfboard-on-the-car drivin’, pants-worn-down-about-mid-thigh wearin’ scott or roger or, for that matter clark(except the part about the surfboard and pants and dreadlocks but otherwise, I’m there) Sorry, lost control of the parentheseses. Besides, the job is open, anyone got a Post you want to write then step right up. Let us know in the form of a Comment and we will be too damn happy to let you write one of these rascals.Anyway, the important thing here is this: the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and roger) proposes that all of us start life with the qualities ascribed to three (‘personality’) types (clarks, scotts androgers). Further, at some relatively early point in life, we begin to experience the world mostly from the perspective of one (of these three). At that point we can say we are a clark or a scott or a roger. Having said that, we always retain the qualities/capabilities/capacities of the other two types; but except for you Readers, we all seem to forget that we have a rogerian side or a scottian aspect.
The reason you are reading this is that you have the intellectual flexibility to imagine that which is not. (Yes, I know what you clarks are thinking at this point, but let’s just keep that to ourselves for now, shall we?)
The short form (lol, as if) is this: you already know this shit. The Doctrine is a productive, unique and fun way to look at the behavior of those around us and understand why the people in our lives act the way that they do. Pretty simple, isn’t it?So, New Reader…relax take a deep breath (not too loudly, scott) (not too dramatically, roger) (breath! clark, breath!). There is no rush. Since you are already all three, deciding for yourself which of the three you are predominately will take care of itself.
The most frequent experience of new Readers is to say, “Yeah, I get the theory, but sometimes I am like one type and at other times one of the other two. Almost as if I am all three”.
To which we say, “Very good! Many of us feel that way when we start, then we frickin read what is written about being all three and it being predominately one of the three and we get over it!” Jeez…come on, people I know you have an extra capacity to understand new shit or you wouldn’t still be reading this, you would have long since moved on to crocheting-with-emily.com or wrench-and-sports.com. Relax, trust your instincts and get over it. Have fun! (clarks, see us after class and we can help you apply an overly long, convoluted, tail-eating definition with complete instructions on how-to have fun).And write a Comment. Win a hat (for your damn head).

You want pressure? I give you pressure…watch the following music video and tell me (through a Comment) if the Conductor is a clark or a scott or a roger…(come on scotts, some of you must like classical music)…but the challenge is identifying the type.
Not easy, of course, but I don’t want anyone to feel that they should not submit an answer….there is a hat (for someone’s damn head in it) for the correct answer!

ed note link below was bad (this is from 2010) but if you would like an updated quizlet, just go ahead and write in the comments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZwgLrVEw84…put down your keyboards, your time is up…answers are in…remember what we say here at the Doctrine, “there are no stupid questions, just your questions”

(Come on Readers, lighten up. Take a chance, clark; don’t feel threatened, roger; hey scott, you can do this)

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: relationships, the Wakefield Doctrine, three personality types, Understanding Human Behavior

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

February 19, 2024 By clarkscottroger

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

Let’s just prime the wordage pump, just a li’l bit with this from 2010 (like the first full year of this here blog, here).

(Funny how this RePrint thing works as a rhetorical lubrication* but we’re thinking about a number of topics which, in the interest of keepin’ things moving, we’ll save for later this week. These topics include: the perception (and role) of time (and it’s passage) as manifested in clarks, scotts and rogers; the translation challenge and, finally, how to get deeper into ‘the other two’ worldviews for to have a better grasp of their reality.)

damn! that all sounds interesting! But in the interest of … oh, yeah! Cynthia has promised to recover a phrase she employed during our (along with Denise) conversation on this past weekend’s call-in. It keyed an insight into the development of a person’s relationship with fatigue as we age. Stay tuned.

(oh, yeah… a little crib sheet for this very vintage post. that last section, in blue font? a character that turned up and hung out in our post-writing, for a time. now, from the perspective of our current interest in learning to write fiction, we can appreciate how much the Wakefield Doctrine has to nurture the potential to encourage one to use it as a tool for self-improving ourselfs. In this instance, it allowed us to explore and practice our interest in writing, all while, in while in the middle of a ‘serious Doctrine post’.)

(Hey, just noticed (yeah, early am and all) this post was written before the custom of inserting a top-of-post image developed. Interesting.)

God said to Abraham, kill me a son. Abe say, man you must be puttin me on

February 28, 2010

(Man, tough Post.)I mean, I know what I want to talk about, but it’s how to talk about it that has me dialing: 1-800-kitchensink.
You do not want to know how many drafts it has taken to get even this far. But write it I will. (remind me to tell you later about how helpful our Miss Sullivan has been).Let’s start at the beginning (…”and go on till you come to the end” L Carroll):‘The Wakefield Doctrine is built upon the idea that everyone experiences the world/reality differently, from one of three overlapping but distinctive perspectives… maintains that this characteristic perception of reality can be grouped into three distinct types, called for reasons stated elsewhere, clarks, scotts and rogers.’
…we also possess the potential to see the world as a clark or a scott or a roger. It is only the predominance of qualities from one (over the other two) that makes us what we are. No one is only clarklike or scottian or rogerian. (source: About: The Wakefield Doctrine (italics added).Why quote that which we all know?To assert balance.
In the last few Posts we have received a good amount of input from the scottian perspective. We appreciate this. The Doctrine is being read by more and more (repeat) Readers because of this input.
(and)…it is the nature of scotts to present strong opinion on all matters, the topic of rogers being no exception.
(All Opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the person, character or self-identified entity attaching their names to said Opinion. These Opinions do not necessarily reflect the Opinions of other Progenitors or Downsprings. All Comments are possibly incorrect, with the exception of those from the one with the marked penchant for parenthes(es))¹So, let us go right to the matter at hand.

Rogers are awful…
they are awfully opinionated and parochial, they are awfully judgemental and closed minded and obsessed with the mundane and the measurable and the repeatable and the consistent and the reliable and…it is a good thing we have rogers or we would all be living on the open savannah, sleeping in trees and looking over our shoulders every time we tried to have a drink of water.Our scottian brethren (in fact our individual scottian aspect) are not incorrect in their assessment of the foibles of the rogerian nature; they are simply limited. Their Comments are direct and without nuance or subtly, you know: scottian. But neither are they (the scotts) at fault, they are merely expressing their perception.
Having said that, I would not want to fly to Vegas in a plane designed by scotts (or for that matter, a plane built by clarks).
In the first case, the plane would have 5 over-sized jet engines stuck on various sections of the fuselage, mostly towards the back of the plane, painted bright colors and the pilot would be expected to be able to stick his head out the window to scream at other passing jets. In the second case, the interior would consist primarily of couches (with pillows and quilts), that while comfortable, would tend to slide around (a lot) and there would be 6 or 7 bathrooms taking up the entire back half of the plane.(You get my point).It is a given here at the Doctrine that those who participate are assumed to be able to handle whatever forms of interactions occur. And while we maintain the editorial right to shape expressions of opinions, it is with no small amount of pride that we can say that has not happened yet. What you read is the direct and un-abashed thoughts and opinions of the contributors.

But that is only half of the challenge we faced sitting down at the keyboard here.

The other half (and possibly the half with the greater significance for this thing of ours) is how to speak to them (rogers and scotts and clarks), as brother Malcom said:

“And during the few moments that we have left, we want to talk, right down to
earth, in a language that everybody here can easily understand.” (Malcolm X)

The simple fact of the matter is that if not written in the ‘language’ of the type, no message will get through. Another way to say it: if I do not manage to ‘speak scottian‘ to a scott, my message will be misinterpreted at best and totally unheard at worst. If I cannot speak to a roger in the language of the herd then I will be treated as noise.

This is the dilemma we face with this Post.

But, fuck it. We are writing (this) which is not the same as assuming that we are communicating (with the Reader).

Hey scott! Hey!! Don’t eat all of the local herd or you may find yourself having to go outside of your own hunting grounds…getting hungry…getting weak…finding new hunting grounds and finding…a whole new pack of scotts…(and we all know how social and co operative scotts are). (Can you say, ‘the weak and old simply get left behind to die’? I knew you could!)

Hey roger…get over it. The herd is all there is… until you look up. Once you see the herd, I hate to burst your bubble pal, you ain’t in the herd anymore. And try as you might, you can never, never bury yourself in historical novels and documentaries by Saint Ken, never go back to that bovine indifference to the werld. And those scottsthat you love supplying food for and the clarks that make you feel so better than…guess what?
They know that you know. And know that you know that they know…

oh clark…don’t think you can type yourself out of this one…no, there will be no literary constructs to divert the Reader. No mf…you of all of the three forms, you are the one to indulge in the ‘people? can’t we all just get along’ bullshit. Which, when you really look at it, is a sin against all that the Doctrine stands for… goddamn dude, you really think that just sitting there and typing this shit week after week was going to change you into the real person you have always been afraid that you are not? Well, you may be on track but you better be prepared to step outside of your perfectly defined-surely-this-includes-all-inferences-and-possibilties little world. As the Lady would say, ‘You been told’.

Welll…that sort of went all toyota on us, didn’t it? (Heh heh) …oh Janie!

? no…busy now…come back.. oh alright! Now I am called in to lighten things up? Any of you real people/Readers think through the implications of using a ‘literary construct’ to lend a sense of reasonableness to the shenanigans that go on around here? Even a hint of how messed up that is? No, I didn’t, think you had…
Hey, did you know that the old janitor/music video guy (Mr. B, I believe) was once a professional musician? yeah! he was just telling me…no, not too old man tries to recapture… but I am an ‘A’ student in the Doctrine and I did not know that a roger could deliberately give up his rogerian expression…yeah me too. Anyway he had to run and left the following music said that if you don’t try too hard you will get the connection…whatever
…can I go home now? this does get just a bit tedious…

1) In case of disagreement, the protocol will be followed:
we are right and you are wrong…