Psychology | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 92 Psychology | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 92

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- Part Next

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

As promised, the follow-up to yesterday’s post

As to the language describing the core Doctrine concepts, has it changed over time? If so: Compare and Contrast

Once again a Reader has offered, (consciously or not), the suggestion of a perspective that, while not directly bearing on today’s stated theme, is one that offers perhaps an even more interesting look-see at this here Doctrine, here.*

Mimi’s Comment to yesterday’s Post:

All things being equal, perhaps they are about equal.

Yes, in the everyday sense. All (three) have strengths, weaknesses and ‘omg-you-can’t-be-serious?!?!! or ‘that’s what you think/how you’d act/the way you feel!??!’

(lol) We all have our own experiences with the more outlying behaviors of ‘the other two’ personality types in our lives. And, even if we can’t see it in our ownselfs, if lucky we afford ourselves of the opportunity to witness another person who shares our predominant worldview doing something that is total ‘wtf’?**

That said, we’ll take Mimi’s ‘the three are equal’ and raise her the admittedly less obvious, but definitely worth the stretch, view that the three predominant worldviews are one fractured whole person.

The (unstated) goal of the application of the perspective made available by applying the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine (out-of-breath-emoji here) is take advantage of the strengths of ‘the other two’ predominant worldviews. And, before you say it, as a personality theory, we recognize that it is not practical to think one can simply decided to ‘be a roger‘ or ‘go at them like a scott1.

Well, not quite.

From the very beginning of this theory of clarks, scotts and rogers there is the belief that while we may not have grown up relating to the world around us a(n) Outsider (clark), Predator (scott) or Herd Member (roger) we did, and still do, have the potential. The innate ability. Whatever the cool wordification for the capacity to act in a given circumstance.

Ok… too clarklike in our writing. (There! See?!?! Just Demonstrated the rogerian ‘honest, self-crit’ of my public behavior here. And… Hey! This is kinda fun! Lets go steal a car!!)

 

 

* New Readers? There’s a reason we recommend reading as many old posts as possible. It is beyond our ability (and focus) to present a totally comprehensive list of characteristic behavior/responses of all three predominant worldviews. (Bonus note: we just said ‘behavior/responses. That choice of verbs over nouns would allow a determined enough person to, dare I say it, reconstruct the entire Wakefield Doctrine. Being focused on relationships (to the world around us and the people who make it up) we did not say: traits and tropisms. But that’s not important now.) What we were about to say regarding the choice of words in the introduction above is that our choice of words were indicative of a clark, finding themselves lacking the succinct and eloquent words to complete the sentence, choosing to indulge in what we probably (and, mind you, a certain pride), pidgin intelligence.

** and surely this experience is the most difficult. to get ourselves to the point of being able to observe, appreciate and identify with another person of our own predominant worldview. Which is, of course, the ‘point’ of this post.

  1. extra credit to whoever shouted, “What about secondary and tertiary aspects, huh? What about. them! ‘nother post yo. But, seeing how you brought it up, what say you Comment the thesis and we’ll see what we can do.

 

Share

RePrint Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

A fine hat for your own damn scottian head.

 

Sure! One of our favorite ‘bands’ is Pompaloose they do this mash-up thing so damn well.

Almost any Reader would not be remiss for suggesting the idea of a post mashup. In theory, all posts should have a level of internal congruency despite the passage of time. Other than, of course, the level of skill/sophistication of writing. Plus a few developments in understanding our little personality theory: the Everything Rule, Referential Authority and the general shift from relying entirely on defining the predominant worldviews as personal reality; rather, to simply describing them as the characteristic way ‘we relate ourselves to the world around us and the people who make it up‘.*

(As early/old a post as possible)

who are these people?

With a basic understanding of the characteristics of each group (clarks, scotts and rogers), anyonecan understand everyone else!  You will know how those around you will  act in virtually any situation. Finally you can understand what has never made sense to you about the people you work with, live with and/or are friends with. The answer to the question, ‘Why on earth would you do that/say that/feel that way?’The three  ways of perceiving the world are referred to as: clarks, scotts and rogers. We all begin life with the potential of all three types. At some point we become predominantly one.

The Wakefield Doctrine is based on the premise that  behavior is a response to  perception (of the world). That we choose how to perceive the world means that we acquire a characteristic way of seeing the world and that leads to characteristic behavior.

We become clarks, scotts or rogers.

 

If you are a first time visitor, above is an outline of the ‘purpose’ of this site. (Despite the title, please avoid the ‘FAQ’ page and the ‘So, Which Am I?’ page, until you get a sense of what this Wakefield Doctrine nonsense is all about.)

(quick intro…)

A clark is the person you have to make an effort to notice. In high school the clark is not clearly of one group or another. Not popular, not a jock, not a geek, not a hippie not one of those who seem to always be standing next to their cars in the student parking lot. In a workplace environment same thing happens, the clark is seen in any setting but is not a part of any of the normally identifiable groups. The thing about clarks is that they will be seen at one time or another in all of these groups! Not as a member, but apparently a part of whatever the particular situation is; clarks will be found in association with the ‘leader/alpha’ of whatever clique or social group. But only in a ‘situational’ sense, definitely not a member of that group.

A scott is the person you can’t not notice. In high school the scott is the class clown or leading hoodlum or the captain of the sports team or the head cheerleader. The scott is popular, the entertainer, the joke teller. In a workplace environment they are also the leaders, but limited by the extent of organizational complexity, white collar or blue collar the scott will lead as a pack leader. Scotts are not good managers, they require a great deal of freedom and latitude. A scott might be a ceo or an owner, but only if it is ‘all his’. Truly an example of a ‘cult of personality’.

A roger is/are the masses. The people who make up the circle around a high school fight, the people who know what you did last weekend and tell the other people at the office. In a workplace environment rogers are the middle managers or that person in charge of supplies that has always been there and insists that they follow the rules (always refers to it as ‘I call this the bible’ lowercase).  Rogers are the members of the cheer leader’s squad, the football team. Rogers are the crowd, the mob, the congregation, anywhere there are people with a common interest, most of the members will be rogers. They form the social fabric in every society.

So, hopefully your curiosity is piqued. Look around the site, look around where ever you are and you will them.

 

P.S. Given that this is a new site, there is a better than even chance that you are a clark. (and, yes, I know you have a system like this with different words etc).

 

Hey! Tough month for content, that August. Went through ’em all, couldn’t find a post what sounded congruent to the above (post).

On a personal note** Looks like the rate of posting is currently on par with the early years. hunh.

Lets close-out with some sort of point/lesson/morel1

OK

what? damn! you’re correct, the next topic should be a contrast, ‘as in the intro to olden essay question: ‘Compare and Contrast’

will get right on it! See ya tomorrow. (which provides the music vid.)

 

* if this reprint doesn’t pan out, this would make a legit topic for today’s post, i.e. ‘Which is more useful: Personal Reality or Relationship?’

** yeah, right!***

*** well, as we type it, we suspect that this particular self-dep joke has less force than one might assume (assuming one’s current self-image is accurate and not chaotically-anachronistic along predominant worldview patterns)

  1. ha ha

 

Share

TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine- “Nothing says ‘Summer’ (for old people) like ‘reruns’

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 on it’s One Hundred sixty-third anniversary! Long a beacon for those of us with an abiding interest in: self-improving ourselfs, finding other bloggers of like-mind and making sure we don’t lose writing-momentum. (This last is, actually, kind’ve a real thing. Taking time off from this admittedly odd pastime/avocation involves a very real risk of not returning. Not that that is a bad thing. Only if it was not intended.

[ed. damn! found the TToT post I was looking for…on the first try! from the beginning. the links actually, still kinda work!]

1) Phyllis

2) Una

3) the Wakefield Doctrine

4) the Six Sentence Story

5) Mimi (who, if you want to get a laugh, visit her site, not sure which day, and I won’t link into it (the humor feature but it’s a regional humor thing. up here in New England there’s an old, old act called ‘Burt and I’ so I guess every region (at least those with a strong culture or mix of cultural influences) seem to have them.

6) hey! we should do the Summer Re-Run thing and count (it) as 6-8!

Re-Run TToT from August Two-thousand Thirteen! (a vid ‘oT to boot!)

‘… the Top Ten Ts of T for the 11th Week!’ the Wakefield Doctrine (well, if you must know, for a lot of different reasons!)

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)I am ‘happy’ to have another Post to contribute to the Ten Things of Thankful  bloghop. Created by Considerer with the aid, support, encouragement and participation of Christine and them, this is not your typical bloghop. While there is nothing wrong with the ‘typical’ bloghops (I participate in the Twisted MixTape Tuesday run by Jen (My Skewed View) and Kristi (Finding Ninee)  and Finish The Sentence Friday  Janine ( ‘mommyholic) and Kate (‘bottle of Whine) and Stephanie (‘for Real) and Kristi.

What makes our TToT different is that it is a true ‘weekend blog hop’. By that I simply mean that it starts this morning and ends tomorrow night. If you want to participate you can do so at any time this weekend…and (here’s the difference) people come and read and Comment throughout the weekend, so if you have trouble today (I am a great example, I have to work today, so I’ll get this Post in and read who ever is around…later in the middle of the day, I’ll pop in and see what’s going on…then the end of the day and so on). And… Comments? that’s a little different here too!  Jump in anywhere we totally believe in cross commenting. So… I think I have put this off as long as I can… my List of Ten Things:

(…yeah, I know!)

(too late to quit now!)

(…lets wrap this up!)

 

Ok… I had fun doing this…. (did someone just imply that they were….?)

Number 10 I am grateful that I am able to submit the above as my TToT of this Week.

We’re here all weekend (‘try the veal’) Be sure to tip your Waitress… and Comment (‘dammit! Jim  I’m a Wakefield Doctrine writer, not a videographer!)

9) something, something

10) Secret Rule 1.3

 

music vids

*

*

*

Share

Six Sentence Story -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

One rule: Six (and only six) sentences per Story.

Prompt word:

ABƧTЯACT

“What the hell are you talking about now, Samael?”

“Language, Michael,” the Voice, as low in volume as it was high in Presence, had the world already been created, would have reverberated like a bell in a hail storm;

“I’ve gathered you, my first Creations, here for your thoughts, suggestions and feelings on my Plan, so that it might be as perfect as each of you,” a noise, the combination of a snort of condescension hidden under a laugh managed to disguise it’s author among the archangels.

“Well, Father, what your favored one here fails to understand is that among the many creations you plan, this ‘Man’, by virtue of being in your Image, must be perfect; leave it to the Light-Bearer to cast aspersions.”

The Presence paused, slowed by the words of the one He created to protect the Heavenly City, “So, tell us Morningstar, what do you think I am doing wrong?”

Lucifer stood and began to move, paused as aeons fled, seemed to think and turned to face the group, “All of your ‘living creations’ are perfect; they celebrate the moment, express their natures and conform to your Design,” a smile grew on the First’s beautiful face, “Especially, this ‘Dog’; I must say, Father, you really nailed it with this delightful creature, even I would be proud to call them one of my own.”

“But giving your… ‘Man’ the one thing all your other creations lack, the capacity for abstract thought and it’s bastard son, Free Will, well, it’s like giving a child a loaded gun and insisting they will learn in their own time what it’s for; not really the act of a caring parent, don’t You think?”

 

 

Share

Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- “We interrupt this post about rogers with a video of a clark!!

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

Seeing how we’ve apparently gotten into a ‘Before They were Famous’ series of RePrint posts, let’s finish it up with an earliest post on rogers.

Damn! A lot of posts have our Herdonian brethren as primary thematic focus if not the clear topic/subject matter. Let’s go with this one, as we have a Six Sentence Story to ‘find’.

 

“Sing a song of Sixpence, a pocket full of rye…” what is it about rogers and the Past? the Wakefield Doctrine pauses, reflects and offers you Pie*

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

Sing a song of sixpence,
A pocket full of rye.
Four and twenty blackbirds,
Baked in a pie.*

* Many interpretations have been placed on this rhyme. It is known that a 16th century amusement was to place live birds in a pie. An Italian cookbook from 1549 (translated into English in 1598) contained such a recipe: “to make pies so that birds may be alive in them and flie out when it is cut up” and this was referred to in a cook book of 1725 by John Nott.[1][2] The wedding of Marie de’ Medici and Henry IV of France in 1600 contains some interesting parallels. “The first surprise, though, came shortly before the starter—when the guests sat down, unfolded their napkins and saw songbirds fly out. The highlight of the meal were sherbets of milk and honey, which were created by Buontalenti.
( source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sing_a_Song_of_Sixpence )

Well, didn’t they know how to have fun back in the 1600’s ? ( ” Hey, Ephesus!!  dude, yo  when her Majesty the Queen Mother sees the birds fly up from the table, she will surely impart a smile upon thee…dawg” )

Be that as it may, today we talk about the thing that rogers have for the Past.  Lets dispense with all the work of constructing a well-crafted narrative and get all Bullet Pointy on this bad boy! So, ‘The Past’ and the rogers? Welll…we’ll have you know that:

  • rogers live for the Past (as scotts live in the Present and clarks live for the Future)
  •  most ‘Historians’ are clarks and yet rogers are the people who you think of when you are interested in knowing something old, or out of date or archaic, what the hell!
  • the more involved the family tree, the more you need a roger, and not just because they love Yellow #2 Pencils**
  • in order to maintain a coherent history, you must have an internal consistency… rogers  love repeating patterns
  • the past is ‘a place’ that rogers know they can be alone and by themselves, at least for a little while
  • hey, it’s really rather simple! …the farther back in time a tradition or a practice or a dogma extends, the bigger the herd that has come to be associated with it and, like scotts…for rogers ‘more is more’! …following is the epitome of this ideal:
  • …Ken Burns…
This quality of the rogerian personality type is one of the most positive and essential, not only to the rogerian people, but to mankind as a whole. It has often been said that rogers are responsible for society and a (certain) continuity of civilization, without which we would all still be living on the savannah…darting down to the stream in the evenings nervously keeping one non-stereoscopic eye on the treeline, alert for the sudden movement of a scott!  As a matter of fact. I was talking to a rogerian friend, Valerie about the Doctrine and the positive contributions of her people to life and I put it this way, “Yes scotts are active and loquacious and really get things done, but would you want to fly across the country on a plane designed and built by a scott?”
I believe at that moment, Valerie understood and become proud of her people***
Tomorrow is Friday so get your ears out, it is Video Friday!!
** …and nice, clean, full-sized #2 Pencils! certainly not what you would find in your hands if you made the mistake of asking a scott for a pencil!! (think teeth-marks, stubby and prone to smudge)
*** which emotion, of course, was immediately transformed into a sense of  fervent righteousness and a total conviction of the deficiency of  all non-herd members

*

 

Share