the Wakefield Doctrine | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 2 the Wakefield Doctrine | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 2

Friday -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘of changes and mis-memory’

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

ruh roe

Ree…Print!

 

It is not necessary to understand this…M. Eckhardt

The topic of today’s Post is: Discourse and Discussion  (quick definition so we will not get any shit from people saying that this blog is amateur scholastecism),
discourse: from the Latin discursus; the act of running about. Sociologists and philosophers tend to use the term discourse to describe the conversations and the meaning behind them by a group of people who hold certain ideas in commonAlright lets start there people, the sooner we get through the “serious” part of the Post, the sooner we can get to the music videos. This the Wakefield Doctrine Lesson of the Day. The question before us is:What is the goal, the perceived object of the act of conversation/discourse for clarks, for scotts and for rogers? (and as a follow-up question), What does the Doctrine offer to aid the person trying to effectively communicate with a person of the other type (clark, scott or roger)?First up, clarks. clarks value knowledge information above all, therefore they will attempt to bring as much fact, knowledge, information, inference and implication as possible to the discourse (see?). You will know a clark by the fractured sentence structure. Their goal is to offer (the listener) the maximum choice in paths to take, because (to a clark), everything branches off everything else and each branch offers some information that is discrete from other (branches). That accounts for the (heavy) use (as opposed to light use) of parenthesis. It is a clarks way of saying “hey! by the way, had you considered this…?
Sample: “what is it that real people do with all the time in between sentences?”Second up, scotts. scotts need to know: are you predator or prey; are you dominant or submissive. For that we require a verb.
Sample: “Hey!” secondary example: “pretty simple, isn’t it?”

Last, rogers. rogers are not using words to communicate or carry specific questions, rogers use words to exist. They live in a purely social world, one comprised of people, however these people, all being rogers do not interact. Instead the rogerian members of the herd are relating to each other…and s0 the only thing to talk about is the past. The past of each of the other members of a herd is the topic of all rogerian discourse. That is why rogers tend to be good at writing, they are laying out a world, not imparting information. It is a fabric of emotion.
Sample: “did you hear what she said about him…?”

Now you know how each of the three converse/communicate/engage in discourse/run about. What good it this information? Glad I asked. So you can understand the other person, knuckleheads! There is this old saying, “clarks are crazy, scotts are stupid and rogers are dumb”
Why is it necessary to mention this?
Because the best tools in the world are useless without the skill of the person using (them).  And skill in the use of tools involves understanding the material/the object that the tools are being used on as much as (understanding) the tools themselves.
You know that clarks are trying to impart too much information, so take what you need and ignore the rest.
The scott is barking aggressively at you, so decide if it is in your interest to be prey or predator/submissive or dominant and bark back  or roll over.
The roger is spreading information throught your workplace about you, and you do not want that. Take a clue from terminex and contribute information into the network of your own, it will work its way into the social matrix and maybe surplant the bad information.

That concludes the Lesson of the Day. Now to the entertainment portion of the Post. We have a mix, two music video and one movie clip for the scott, the roger and the clark. (In that order, in case, you are a new Reader)

*

Share

Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

RePrint?

sure, why the heck not?

(oh yeah!  before this shortcut: the Wakefield Doctrine is an additional perspective on the world around us based on our relationship (since, like right from the start life) with it there are three of (these) and the one you have based your social strategies and interactional styles of behavior upon is your personality type (aka predominant worldview) you only have time to learn/practice one and while the ‘other two’ ways to relate to the world remain as potential, one is all you gots, luckily, it’s the perfect personality type based on the personal reality you exist in (and have, since you was babies) clarks are Outsiders not to be confused with introverts, but to be fair, lets say during our young school years, we summered in Spectrum-ville, (lol); scotts are Predators full of life and determined to ride all the rides, they will nip at your hells and be at your side for the climatic showdown all guns a-blazing while laughing the scottian female will totally have a derringer and maybe a knife (or two) with wicked martial/marital skills (“We’re surrounded, one chance. Now go!! I got this!!!”) and rogers of Members of the Herd so certain you’d think (or chose) to believe what they say, but the thing is it’s not what they say, it’s what they know that’s important, ready to be reliable, often distracted/offended by the novel, they will surely be remembered by their works if not their thoughts.)

 

ok, we promised a RePrint

… no, you’re absolutely correct how the above all ee cummings manual of style (ish) is sufficient

the coolest thing about the Doctrine is that you already know what you need to know to take advantage of it’s curious organization of views of the world.

one thing: the Wakefield Doctrine, while possessed of the glorious ambition to allow us to see the world as the other person is experiencing it, is not for everyone.

the Wakefield Doctrine (and it’s perspective) is for you, not them.

 

 

Share

2’s Day -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

To decide what the predominant worldview of another person, start by discarding the ‘no fricken’ way’ of the three.

Too many people, (not you, Faithful Reader!), allow themselves to get caught up in the laundry list of characteristics that they, (incorrectly), believe are the determinants (of ‘personality type).

To which we will remind all, the three personality types:

  1. clark (the Outsider) clarks think
  2. scott (the Predator) scotts act
  3. roger (the Herd Member) rogers feel

Two out of three, how hard can it be to select the correct worldview?

To wit: knowing the character of each of these remaining predominant worldview, look around… through their eyes.

Two distinct world(views) but! (this is the part where your reading comes to the fore) each is different from the other… maybe the number of 1st person pronouns, or 3rd person or ‘Hey!’

Two, like the optometrist’s googles, (‘look at the chart, is this clearer, how about this? now, is this better or worse?’)

To experience the world, (in a fairly shallow degree), means the scene you are comparing is ‘clearer’ through the lens of one predominant worldviews than the other.

To our conclusion:

  • learn the three relationships, inside and out
  • if obvious indicators, (of a person’s predominant worldview), is not evident, i.e. the eyes of a scott, the slouch of a clark, the social ease of a rogers then go for a side-by-each approach
  • they will reveal themselves
  • and you will immediately know more about them than they know about themselves

2 Pretty simple, isn’t it?

 

*

Share

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

It’s Complicated

You wouldn’t understand

You’re different, this doesn’t apply

Life is not so neat and organized

Sure, it’s clever but to be genuinely useful it’s fairly under-validated

Derivative, been done

People simply don’t fit into so limited a taxonomic scheme

Everyone will laugh

Life doesn’t fit into three categories

What were they again? (clarks, scotts and rogers)

And the basis of this paper-doll phylogeny? (one’s relationship with the world)

Stop it, now.

There’s no way you’re going to backwards-answer the above statements and bring it to a conclusion. (no, not if you maintain that attitude)

An additional perspective on the world around us and the people who make it up. The Wakefield Doctrine is not the Answer. It is a question. As such, you are responsible for the product of its application to your life.

One thing: a) you can’t get it wrong 2) you can’t break it.

It’s not for everyone. Not everyone enjoys the constructive make-believe that is hidden (all too effectively for most) in the world.

*

Share

TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

Speaking of the Book of Secret Rules (aka the Secret Book of Rules)… this pitcha is good for, like, 13 Grats

 

This is the Wakefield Doctrine’s contribution to the Ten Things of Thankful (TToT) bloghop. Created 13 or so years ago by Founderess Lizzi R what sets this grat blog apart from the many, many, many others with the same theme is that it (the TToT, not the theme) encourages all to be as creative as the spirit moves us. Ya know? To that end, while we hope to get a list of ten things that you (the Reader/Participant) have found to inspire and instigate a state of Gratitude it’s total WWF-no-holds-barred list writing. The only requirement is ‘good intent’. Won’t spend a lot of time defining that; suffice to say, if you get it deliberately wrong you will have to answer to Kristi.

1)  Phyllis

2) Una

3) the Wakefield Doctrine

4) Front Meadow Status Update

5) the Six Sentence Story bloghop

6) Ola’s bridge

7) something, something

8) Hypo-Grat* So, like, everyone pulls out the chrono-reverse** refrigerator ever time they vacuum, am I right? The photo below shows a bottle of dog shampoo we bought for Una in the throes of ‘My god! What kind of humans are we… (backstory: Una was a chodsky pes and, as such had a double coat and, wicked long hair. She didn’t particularly enjoy being brushed. So we didn’t. We did take her to a groomer once, back in, like, 2016 or so. They did a great job. Went back the following year and Una made it abundantly clear that the first grooming she did for us. Naturally, I paid the cancellation fee and we beat a hasty retreat. While the photo for Grats 1 & 2 was not taken at the time, it is a good facsimile for the expression on her face when we left the groomers in our rearview mirror;) that fell behind said refrigerator. The grat is an appreciation of exercise and a brief time-travel to that day with Una.

 

9) grateful for the Hostinae (and Host, Andrew) Just this week, the codes that link this thing of ours suffered from an operator error. (ikr? like we made a mistake with the date span. knock us over with a feather). Be that as it may, Hostinae cai alerted TToT Host Central as to the error and it was rectified.

10) Secret Rule 1.3

 

 

* Hypo-grat: one of the distinctive features afforded participants by the rules (SR 1.5 chapter 9 subverse 8) of our little bloghop… most of us not living in Vincent Peale-ville, ya know? So bad things happen to nearly everyone. Find and include the grat aspect and you’re good to go. (Some restriction may apply. When in doughnut, consult the TToT resident maven, Mimi)

** when ordinary, every day objects, devices, things and/or ambition becomes heavier with each passing year

music

*

*

*

*

*

You are invited to the Inlinkz link party!

Click here to enter

Share