Uncategorized | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 3 Uncategorized | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 3

Monday-Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

The Wakefield Doctrine maintains that everyone and all of us are: a)born with the capacity to perceive the world as having one of three characteristic natures. This ‘nature’ determines the basis upon which the individual forms and develops their personalities and 2) at an early age the individual establishes their residency (or membership (or backdrop)) in one and only one world. Growing up, a predominant aspect of, (the individual’s), style of interacting with the world is, obviously the character of the reality they are in. While one’s predominant worldview is one of the three, the ‘other two’ are not extinguished. They remain as secondary and tertiary aspects, influences and potential, as opposed to fundamental realities.

…man! we’re out of practice! While we recharge the batteries of the forklift that is clearly necessary in order to move words and phrases about this post, what say we go look in the archives for something a little lighter?

[Damn! I think I remember!* And…and! a fringe benefit of remembering the proper state of mind is to not only feel better, but enjoy an increased level of impulsivity. So here it is…. wait, better call them what were on yesterday’s Livestream,  Nick and Denise and Frank and Mimi and Cynthia (in spirit if not in person). A little more of a ‘setup’ is in order. They were on when the topic we’re discussing came up. The others, Tom and Ford and M. and the others hadn’t yet tuned in.

So the question from Nick yesterday was (paraphrasing here): why is it easier to react negatively (to the world) than positively? Well… this morning: we had to check on a house that might have had some issues with the furnace. Not surprisingly there was a sense of suspense as we drove up to the house. Fortunately, everything was fine. As we drove away, in a better mood, it occurred to us there was a choice in how we could feel. The default choice was ‘Relief’. But the better choice was ‘Celebration’. (Spoiler Alert! The surrounding concept and conclusion is beyond the scope of this intro, but we thought you’d want to know…about the universe and such. lol]

…after all is said and done, what’s in a name? the 3 personality types of the Wakefield Doctrine ( 3 labels account for all!!)

Mickey Rourke a clark?1
Prince a clark?
Kristen Stewart a clark?  ( well,  that was kinda easy….just go look at this video)

And what’s with the term ‘clarklike female’?  After all, the Doctrine is gender neutral and you do call (the others) scottian women and rogerian females… why the weird name for the…wait… nah, never mind.

( No! We are not reluctant to answer the question, that is, after all,  how we all learn… well, clarks and rogers in any event.)

The answer, with any luck, will prove to be both simple and obvious

  • a group or multiple scotts results in a pack
  • more than one roger gathering together?  clearly a herd!
  • 2 or 3 or more clark…… results in a… what was the question? (hey they were right here a minute ago!…was there always a floor lamp over there?…wait a minute…

Hopefully that answers the question to everyone’s satisfaction.

scotts are very, very easy to identify…when you see them, chances are they are already watching you! And if you are up for it, take a good look at them, (preferably when their attention is on someone else)  there is no mistaking the gaze, the alertness, they are paying attention. (Go back to the Kristen Stewart video thing above, this time focus on Kelly instead of Kristen)

rogers are not too difficult to spot, given that there are more of them than the other two types ( in any given situation)…besides you cannot help but to run into the roger wherever you happen to be…it is not enough for a roger to gather in a herd…they must find people who are not of the herd in order to get maximum enjoyment from the rogerian experience… now these ‘others’ will be of 2.5 other categories  clarks and scotts  male and female2 and depending on (which) the roger will cause their herd to either interfere with the clarks ( like the old  joke we all loved when we first learned to drive…you know, “Hey want a ride?” just as they reach for the door handle, jump the car ahead… lol now that I remember that it is pretty funny) anyway thats sort of what a rogerand their herd will try to do to a clark…now if it happens to be a scott entering the room  then…er…  think more….  Lunch is served!

clarks are interesting…they have a natural affinity for the company of scotts  and a weakness for the charm of rogers…as to spotting a clark, well that’s another matter, if the clark does not wish to be noticed, then you are plain out of luck! You won’t.. but then again with patience you will see the proof (of the statement about clarks) that they do not want to be the center of attention but will not tolerate being ignored. clarklike females are second only to scotts as being easy to spot… with clarklike non-females** (lol)  it is a little more work, but all you have to do is listen to the conversation going on in the gathering… “we cannot directly know anything is real, but then again it doesn’t matter, because all this is imaginary in the first place…”   ( that sort of thing, along with the sound of scottian laughter and footfalls of the fleeing rogers )

 

* What makes for a dull post instead of a, ‘yeah, that was fun’

  1. Go find the official video of ‘You can leave your hat on’ on the youtube. Watch how Mickey (his character) reacts and relates to Kim’s character. Ain’t no scott and too much humor for a roger (in that context)
Share

Teusday -the Wakefield Doctrine- “ok, we get it’s all about reprints…but spelling optional?!”

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

Hey, before we get to the reprint. (Which we’re looking forward to, as it has a lesser-seen movie illustration of the personality types of the Wakefield Doctrine. Specifically, a roger and a scott. Forgot how cool this one was. Now… where the hell is the door outa this parenthesisisis?!)

Before we do that…

whew!

Advanced students, (and ambitiously-confident New Readers*), here’s an interesting thing: the misspelled title? It’s because we turned off the spellchek**. We turned off the spellchuck*** because it was autocorrecting improperly. I thought about digging into the WP dashboard and fixing it but, it was easier to turn it off.

…and endure the consequences. (Don’t even ask us about childhood experiences with dentists. It’s exactly like this instance. Except instead of the intimidation of messing with the inner workings of the blog, there were giant needles. And, instead of constant re-typing of common words, there were six-year-old dental nerve endings.)

Where were we?

oh, yeah! Reprint!

Excellent one this Tuesday. Classic scott in Jack and James Spader? Nothing less than poster boy of the Herd it’s ownself.

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

Hunter-Trader-Trapper 1937-06

Alert Reader Denise writes:

“…Doctrine! It has provided me with much insight into rogers. In a nutshell: they will always be the ones to say no. They will do nothing to disturb the boundaries, the lines that frame their world. clarks need to take notice of this. The sooner the better. I leave it in your hands, Clark, to explain to new readership the why. Maybe you need to write the answer in the form of a post.

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And since we are talking about rogers**

Our Friend Zoe says to us in a Comment, she says:

“… my new roger is settling in to his new environment a bit too well… coveting my office…I loan my office out readily without reservation, but he made it very clear by saying ” I want that office… when are you leaving?” and has left telltale signs of his usage… I may have a rogerian twist and be a clark at heart… but never piss off my scott.

Sorry. The ‘damage’ is done.

Not to ‘baby-coat’1 our assessment, but you are witnessing a roger challenging your membership in the herd. How is that possible, you ask? The frickin guy got there 20 minutes ago and he thinks that he can include himself in the group? ( you say with not a little emotion). What gives him the right to try that?  If you are in possession of any of these thoughts, I hate to tell ya, but you have just painted yourself a lovely shade of blue2. It is totally ‘too late’.

Not ‘too late’ to make things right, restore the proper balance, achieve an understanding among the players in this little drama…. just ‘too late’ to avoid a ‘conflict’ with the roger in your environment.

If he had perceived you as another roger or a scott he would have:

  • presented his credentials, not to meet your approval but to allow him  to ‘tune himself to the herd’ (you know how the sound of cattle and herds of cows are often presented as a single  ‘MOO’  ?  well, I think our Progenitor roger will attest to the fact that what is heard as a single MOO  is, in fact, comprised as a harmony among the members… your roger probably started with presenting some of his history to everyone he came into contact with…to hear the pitch of his new herd)
  • presented his ‘soft-underbelly’ if he thought you were a scott (at least, a predominant scottian female)… but this observation is moot, because in that particular tango, the woman leads… (at least initially and to the extent that the average person is able to see

So… now you have yourself a roger feeling like he can enhance his standing in the herd by making you appear more and more the Outsider. Remember, a dominance move by a roger, in contrast to that of a scott is never made ‘alone’.  While he may appear to be addressing the matter of use of the office space to you directly, most of his efforts are actually directed to the others in your environment. rogers always work in the context of the group, the herd. It is this ‘contexting’ that rogers will base their strategy on, that and, be on the lookout for (him) invoking referential authority. ( Hey, I know you love your space..I respect that, but we were talking about how, with the practice growing we all need to work together more…”)

All kidding aside. you now have a problem that, interestingly enough, can be seen as a manifestation of the trap that would appear to an inherent aspect of the desire for self-improving oneself. You rightly know that you can ‘over-come’ this person’s attempt to reduce the quality of your personal work environment. But at what price? The Doctrine states that we all retain access to those two worldviews that are not our predominant worldview. In your case, (we hear you say), ‘ a clark with secondary rogerian and tertiary scottian aspects’. but…. but!  here is where the conflict begins to manifest.  (If) you are a clark, then your personal reality is that of the Outsider…which makes perfect sense given your situation. You can access your scottian aspect and inter-act with this roger as would a scott, and as we have already said, if this were a scott-on-roger thing, none of the the above would be happening.  So, you can dominate the roger rather decidedly. But then what?  Will you trade your predominant (clarklike) worldview for a victory in a single circumstance? Or… is there a way to reach an understanding with this person?   unfortunately, the Wakefield Doctrine says ‘no’.

Well, sorta. We’re playing with the words now.  clarks think, scotts act and rogers feel.  So, if you want to reach an understanding, you are out of luck. That is not to say that there is nothing you can do, but it should not be thought of as an understanding.

Lets return to a strategy we have previously offered:  ‘love your roger‘  This is still the preferred strategy, but it will require a bit more….finessing.  Yes, you should ‘love your roger‘,  but that does not mean (as is all too often the case with clarks), you must allow him to do as he wishes. But, to love your roger requires that you relate to him on an emotional basis… more than that!  you must regard him on an emotional basis. We’re using italics here to convey the idea that, if you are able to know him completely on an emotional basis you will be relating to him as a member of the herd. That’s right!  trade that lovely azure coat for a comforting wrap of brown and white spots!

(will continue later today…. )

Wait a minute!! If you haven’t seen it yet,  watch the scott and roger…. everything is right there. (the roger looking to left and right for the herd that is his context, his invoking referential authority, his offering of emotional currency…his love).

 

1) a rogerian expression of sorts… a fascinating characteristic use of language found only in rogers…here,  go to the page on rogers  down towards the bottom

2) a reference to the description of a clark in the context of a group, or perhaps it would be more realistic to say, ‘a clark in contrast to a group’. In any event, the term ‘blue monkey’ is a remnant of grad school days when we learned of, (or came to believe that we learned of), an experiment in which one young monkey was painted, (more likely dyed), blue and returned to his troop. You can imagine the result. In the Wakefield Doctrine we use the blue monkey image several ways, as a symbol of the innate outsider-ness that clarks exhibit when in a social setting, and it is also used to refer to (a) clarks self-sabotaging by make an extra effort to ‘contrast their differences’.

 

* which, finally, here in the world of the Wakefield Doctrine, clarks step up into a leadership role… we’ll until, that is, the Herd begins to re-orientate itself, an amoeba with a million faces, propelled by the inexorable power of curling lips, on a body and then, well, lets hope the clark in question has a sufficiently significant secondary scottian aspect

** take that! you supercilious (don’t think about the root of that word…ewww) nanny sub-routine

*** hah!

Share

secret hiding place experiment # 1 08/24/15

Cynthia

(first I will say ‘thank you’… for being the clark that you are in the situation you are in, real life Doctrine learning and application…I do feel fortunate to know you)

and therein is our best starting hint: you’re clark and, and you are in a position to need to bring out additional leadership quality. those italics? …exactly! (it’s so easy talking to clarks, at least about the beginning of a solution to a clarklike problem…heh heh) you are needing additional quality development, not! (I repeat), not needing to find or otherwise acquire the quality itself. Your problem is surely real. You are farther along your path than you ever been before, which is great. However, in my opinion, it’s critical that you remember that you got to where you are because of the qualities you have… not because you got dropped into a place/situation, out of context.
it (your question) is a totally valid one and goes to the heart of the contradiction presented by the nature of the 3 worldviews that the Doctrine is based on, i.e. you’re a clark and you know things but you need personal qualities that are not necessarily grounded in the intellect (ha ha only joking, scotts!) so how can you access your scottian aspect when you’re a clark?

and thats where perspective and faith* comes in… perspective via what you’re doing and I’m doing, stepping back to see where you were, what happened and where you are now…. helpful. not the entire answer, but very helpful we all lose a certain perspective on our own efforts when were busy doing them!
unless I turn this (discussion) into a post, I better keep it brief: trust your passion. where you are is because of what you are… you have this (secret) notion of creating a family from among those who might benefit from your help and efforts… you will eventually attract people who might have more developed skills in certain areas (yeah, scotts and rogers)… and that’s where the real transformative part comes: you’ll need to accept them into your family …. ‘your’ family (not join with them to create something, you already have done that!) they will be willing to give you something… that can help your efforts and that’s where it gets tricky for us clarks…. letting others help us to achieve what we feel strongly about)
…more to follow

*faith: with all respect to those who see the religious element/place of faith in their respective lives, I’ll make use of the concept as being the deliberate investment of our selves in a belief/proposal which requires commitment without the support of ‘proof of efficacy’…

Share

keeping the post so un-cluttered! the Wakefield Doctrine video insert

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

here is the video that you are so incredibly intrigued by the alluring reference, back there at the TToT Post July 19 2014

Share

2s Day Video Supplement (to) the Wakefield Doctrine 07/15/2014

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

when you have the time:

 

Share