clarkscottroger | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 14 clarkscottroger | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 14

Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- (RePrint, as promised)

August 2, 2023 By

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

 

… as promised*.

Hey! While we have you ‘on the line’** don’t forget, tonight is Wednesday night which means the gates open for the Six Sentence Story bloghop. Ever ones gonna be there, you should stop in. Serially! While not the most skillful of prompt-post writers, we have been told by unnamed others that the Doctrine’s contributions have a certain, je ne sais quoi, no matter what the weekly prompt word might be. Be that as you may*** stop by and check it out. You can thank us later.

[We won’t take offense if anyone feels that the premise of the following is outdated and without value in the contemporary blogosphere. But, we always assumed there is a value to links-out to other bloggers. Maybe the algorithm that ‘more-links-the-better-for-the-linkee‘ has long since sailed. Until convinced otherwise, we’ll keep at it. So, keeping with our mention above of many talented writers at Denise’s Six Sentence Story ‘hop, lets see if this shortcut/combined link works: Sixarians from last week.

 

the Wakefield Doctrine just like Summers of old… a re-run! …Post from August 2011

August 5, 2014

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

Rizzoli and Isles ain't got nothin on these two...

Rizzoli and Isles ain’t got nothin on these two…

From August 2011….  You know what’s funny? This (reprint) references a failed collaborative writing project.  Well, if you go to his blog now, and the Wakefield Doctrine does, in fact, recommend that you do, you will find an un-failed collaborative writing project! Denise (over at Girlie is co-writing a story with the Progenitor roger. And it’s getting pretty good! the roger, being the wildly creative, blog-risk taker that he is, is posting each chapter as they are written. So, when you go over there to read it, you might want to scroll down to Chapter 1 and ‘read your way back to the top’. Be sure to Comment (tell ’em ‘the Doctrine’ sent ya!).

As we all know, the Progenitor roger ( nom de plumage RCoyne ) started his little blog in the hopes of creating a Collaborative Writing Project. Attracting and combining (the efforts) of the full range of  talents,  that seem in so plentiful supply in cyberspace, it was RCoyne’s hope to produce a totally original literary work, (and)  given the apparent variety of interests  found among people in the blogosphere, it  would have been one helluva a blog.
….It failed, of course.

This is not to disparage  RCoyne’s idea nor his Intent. It is a reflection upon the fact that he is a roger….or more precisely, it is a reflection upon the inherent limitations of the aspects of being a roger. Do not misinterpret our feelings on the matter, we are making this statement without placing the onus entirely on roger (or his people). This statement  is equally true of the other two personality types, the clarks and the scotts. Each of the three personality types, that comprise the Wakefield Doctrine, represent a worldview, a ‘reality’, if you will; each a perspective  that is unique and (one) that has great strengths and terrible weaknesses.
(Readers! Remember that the Doctrine maintains that all people are possessed of the qualities/the potentials of each of these three ‘types’ and while we  become predominately one of the three, the other two aspects are always within us, waiting to be called upon by the dominant personality. At times of extreme duress or peril they are available to be called upon.)
We call this…the…. Mystery of the Wakefield Doctrine and the Proof of the 3 Personalities

What is the mystery of the rogerian personality type that prevented RCoyne’s blog from taking off?

What should have the roger done, in order to be successful with the Seccesscessionisticalationist Rag?

Why are we picking on the roger so much?

Lets start with what we do know, about rogers:

  • they believe that Life has rules and that if followed everything will be as it should be
  • rogers believe that reality is essentially quantifiable, that 2 + 2 equals 4 is true now and will always be true, even after the human race is extinct
  • the world is perfect to a roger, we use the word in the sense that implies completeness and order, as opposed to virtuous or good
  • rogers experience the world in general and people in particular with an organizational bias predicated on the herd mentality, ‘like gathers with like and excludes that which is not like’ (or some such nonsense)
  • for a roger, the ‘backstory’ is more attractive than the narrative, (an example from the progenitor roger: early in the days of this blog, one particular Post drew an exceptional number of Comments, we asked  roger what he thought about it and he indicated that he didn’t bother reading the Post, he only read  the Comments)
  • rogers are responsible for civilization, for the development of civilized society, for all social development and refinements beginning with cavemen and moving forward to the Present
  • in expressing their perception of the world as a place of rules, rogers become: Doctors and Lawyers, Accountants and Engineers, Surveyors and Writers of Popular Fiction, Missionary Families and Dynastic Families, Pioneers (geographically), High Priests and Politicians, Homemakers and Trendsetters, Judges and Executioners

The rogerian component of the Proof of the 3 Personalities?  rogers are the only ones who can  ‘ manage and maintain‘  the scottian element of the population. Without rogers, we would all be living under bushes, darting out to drink from nearby streams at dawn and duck, shoulders hunched in anticipation of the attack from the nearby  Umbrella Thorn Acacia tree.  Damn!  The thing about scotts, they are all drive, instinct, appetite. Someone, ( I think it was Claire ), was recently musing about the three-ness of the Wakefield Doctrine and that got me to thinking about Freud (have not got a clue) and his Id, Ego and Super Ego. Who out there does not see that our scottian element is so the Id. And while it is essential to life,  appetite and impulsivity, left un-checked would be kinda short-term.

Let us end today’s Post with a little example that came up in a recent letter to Molly, in which we were discussing the difficulty encountered in distinguishing between a  (very) robust roger and a scott. Both are active, and charming and totally gregarious. But if we watch these two walk into a social gathering ( a party, a picnic, a business conference)  what we will see is:

the scott will make a noise (figurative or literal) immediately upon entering the space…this is meant as a first effort to flush-out any other scotts
the roger will stand in a prominant place at the entrance and wait for a sign of recognition from the various herds making up the crowd
the scott will go to the first person they can get to and start to tell a joke about the fact that they (the scott) are present
the roger will go immediately go to the first person they recognise (provided the person is another roger, if however, the first person they recognize is a clark, the roger will wait)
the scott will go from person to person and tell a joke or introduce themselves to each individual (if there are too many people, in which case the scott will treat each herd as a person)
the roger will either join a herd or gather clarks to start a herd….and wait for a scott.

Bottom line: the scott sees the social environment as a hunting ground, therefore everyone is either prey or predator. If the scott encounters other scotts then ranking must be established, either dominant or submissive, as long as they know where they stand.
The roger, on the other hand, sees the social environment as an expression of themselves. All that the roger encounters is either of the herd or not of the herd. Those that are ‘not of the herd’ are as important and valuable to the roger as the outsiders. Rogers cherish outsiders, they are the dross that accentuate the beauty of what the roger builds in his little herd.

Hey@!

* You remember, yesterday’s post!

** if you have to ask, ask your parents.

Share
Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , , , ,

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

August 1, 2023 By

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

Alright!

Who said, “Hey! Can you please find and post an old post today? We’d really like something from the era, more technical than readable and one where the focus is on ‘the other two’*.

Can you do that for us**?

Yes. Yes we can.

Guess what?

We’re outa time. (Yeah, all of us tipped out of true vertical by the application of aviary plumage.)

Be sure to return tomorrow. Same URL Same IP address and we’ll have a post from August 5, 2014

 

* a Doctrine phrase that refers to the ‘remaining worldviews’, after (an) individual’s predominant worldview is accounted for. This concept is important as it allows a deeper understanding of seemingly contradictory behaviors. Example: as Readers of this Sunday’s TToT post know, we went to see Lyle Lovett and his Large Band on Saturday. Lyle is, (imo and for instructional purposes only1, a clark with a secondary scottian aspect and a significant rogerian tertiary.

Well, had a New Reader been sitting next to us at the concert, they might’ve commented, (aloud as they probably wouldn’t have a keyboard…)

…Wait! What the hell!! omg!

We just ran into a fact-of-life as we typed that last semi-jokey characterization of a person recognizing the clarklike demeanor of Lyle.

Damn (* cont’d) we just came face-to-face with the reality of the passage of time. Specifically, when this blog started in June 2009 cell phones were available and used. Not, however, to the degree of pervasive-to-the-point-of-supplanting-traditional-modes-of-communication. (Semi case-in-point: our seats at the concert were 2nd row center mezzanine. A totally clear view of the ‘floor seats’. People without cell phones were the exception. A sea of TV-blue-glowing rectangles.)

So my joke was anachronistic. Out of date in a critical detail. So what.

We’ll tell you what.

We value comments from Readers who have recently joined us. This ‘recently’ is very relative, of course. We’re using it to compare those who started reading when the intended RePrint was new (2014) and those who have found us, say, in the last two, three years. Our mind goes to Mimi, Nick and them.

While they totally get the principles of our little personality theory, so much so that, more often than not their Comments generate new posts and Doctrine discussions. But on occasion there is something, more likely than not a reference to one particular stage or another of how we describe the Wakefield Doctrine, that they will say, what is (fill in the blank). Denise and Cynthia and Phyllis will not wait for me to write an update and just state: ‘You know, you haven’t reminded us that ‘the Wakefield Doctrine is gender, age and culture neutral’ in, like an age.”

The thing is, I don’t always stay mindful of the new (and newer) Readers.

Probably a classic mistake, i.e. forgetting that every Reader has not been here since the beginning.

And that’s the ‘learning moment’ for me this morning.

The joke about the concert-goer not having a keyboard with them implies that my ‘story premise’? / ‘narrative assumption’? or whatever the cool, Greco-Roman term in rhetoric that identifies this effect of the passage of time for a writer. Might as well start a post with “And Nick doffed his stovepipe hat as he handed Mimi down from the landau.

But, bottom line: thanks for the opportunity to remember what I occasionally  forget.

The Wakefield Doctrine, as an additional perspective on the world around us and the people who make it up, is meant to be used and enjoyed today. Whatever our circumstances may be, there is an opportunity to see the people around us as clarks, scotts and rogers. We do that and maybe, just maybe, we won’t find ourselfs saying, “What the heck! I really thought I knew them better than that.”

 

  1. one of the first ‘rules’ here was to the effect that one person cannot tell another person what their predominant worldview was, at least not with any force or authority. We do, however, for instructional purposes and practice (and fun among whatever group has gathered), try to figure out if a stranger is a clark or a scott or a roger. Good clean fun, ya know? But, in no way binding upon anyone.

** your hypothetical Readers! well, duh!

Share
Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

July 26, 2023 By

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

Why do clarks always (seem) to hedge-their-bets/hold-back/not-embrace-the-present/pay-the-price-but-leave-their-purchase-at-the-fufilment-center*.

The answer is at the heart of why clarks (and scotts/rogers with way too much secondary clarklike aspects) enjoy the Wakefield Doctrine.

The answer** lies in understanding the predominant worldview of the Outsider, aka clarks.

[Ran out of time. Need to work on Six. And go to work. Comments are always fun.]

* an actual word for the place you go (or used to go, pre-internet) in any sizable department store to gather up your purchase and toddle off home with a new portable entertainment center or Three-Speed SunBeam mixer

** we trust some of you have started waving your hands in the air like Prince and shouting ‘There are no Answers in the Doctrine!!’ ‘There are only additional perspectives… and, well ok, if you must, a few Rhetorical Questions, such as:

  • they say that clarks abhor being the center-of-attention, but will not tolerate being ignored
  • if they’re so curious, why don’t more clarks look into their tendency to procrastinate, at least on things that involve others
  • …what do you mean, ‘That last bullet point makes no sense?!’
  • of course it does… but, this post notwithstanding, the attitude remains: offer the tools to self-understanding yourself and let the Reader decide how to proceed
  • …no, we don’t think that this approach to what is, purportedly, at-least-in-part, a self-improvement system is a wee-bit on the laissez–faire
  • sure, and it might seem to some to be the equivalent to the Captain of the Titanic directing his crew to slide notes under the cabin doors of all the passengers informing them that ‘Skiing, rock-climbing and competitive Ice-Water-Swimming has been added to the ship’s athletic program…
  • no, we’re not goings to keep this up
  • yes, there is a coherent answer:
  • clarks, as Outsiders, tend to avoid accepting (things/people-who-seem-to-want-more/events that represent the culmination of a deliberate effort) because then others would be in a position to know us
  • …. we have to spell everything out?!?! ‘Know us without an allowance for a ‘makeup effort’ There is always something of a mystery about clarks and we are good with that because if everything is stated and we don’t measure up (to whatever standard) what’re we gonna do then?

*

 

(yeah, like Prince wasn’t no clark1)

  1. similar to Hendrix in the contrast between stage persona and… personal (at least in interviews and such). Even more (than Hendrix) in the contrast with lyrics and music…
Share
Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , , , ,

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘…ok, ok!. this time an actual/’real’ RePrint!’

July 25, 2023 By

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

Of course, regular Readers know that the idea of posting an old Doctrine post is to prime the rhetorical pump, as opposed to merely to re-purpose old words, right?

Of course, as we type, the thought comes, ‘How can there be such a thing as an ‘old post?’ At least in the implied pejorative sense. And, the answer is, there is not. Since the core of the Wakefield Doctrine is the relationship (we have) with the world around us, then there can be ‘no getting it wrong’.

There are three characteristic relationships in the Doctrine and only three. Sometimes a person will come along and say, ‘Great system, but it needs one more personality type’.* Not to worry! Not only can you not get it wrong, you can’t break it.

Hey! Maybe we can find an old post that discusses one of the old standards: i.e. ‘the Wakefield Doctrine is gender, age and culture neutral’

(hold on….)

Well! We couldn’t quite find that, but we did find a post with bullet points!

A post from our second year online.

look no further! we have the answer you are searching for, provided of course, that the question you have is: How I can understand the behavior of others and better understand myself through a system comprised of only three personality types?

August 29, 2010

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

Please make yourself comfortable, feel free to browse through the Table of Contents (over there on the right) or just flip through these Posts. There is a lot of information to cover and not a lot of time. So in a nutshell, seedpod, or lunchbox the Wakefield Doctrine is:

a fun and useful way to understand yourself and other people, a “theory” of personality that is much, much more than all those other theories you read about. The Doctrine says, “hey, there are three personality types in the whole damn world”. You and the person next to you and the folks back home can be seen as being one of these 3 types. They are clarks, scotts and rogers. Figure out which the person is and you will know a whole bunch about them. Figure out which of the three you are and you will not only know a whole lot about yourself, but you will be able to change whatever things (about yourself) that you have been trying (unsuccessfully) to change.

Really.  It’s true.

Of course, there’s a lot more to it than that, but for that you have to read more of what we have to say. But to get you started we will say this, the Wakefield Doctrine is gender and culture neutral and if you find yourself saying, “Hey, Mr Wakefield, sometimes I’m one of those scotts and sometimes I feel like one of those roger people.” To you we say, “whats the matter with feeling like a clark?, huh?”  (oh yeah, clarks not do that “I feel like” shit, do they?)
Anyway, we would say, “Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine! You have all 3 personality types, of course, but you are mostly one of the three. Don’t worry about it.

Besides we like to think this Doctrine thing is a lot of fun. We might be talking about someone in the news and one of us will turn to the other and say, “Obama….what a roger!” or we might say to each other, “You know those Progressive Insurance commercials on TV? That Flo person, how much of a clark is she, huh?” So this is not just a website you go to and take a test and find out that your personality type is INTP/otter-with-malamute tendencies, hell no! We have fun because we see clarks and scotts and rogers out there in the world and they act just like the Wakefield Doctrine tells us they should act! And it’s getting like we don’t have to make any of this shit up anymore…the clarks and the scotts and the rogers prove that the theory is totally true. Try it your ownselfs!

Today I have copied a page out of the Table of Contents to show that the personality business is not all dry boring, reading stuff! Clearly we like to borrow stuff, here at the Doctrine. So it should not surprise anyone how we went an sort a used Jeff Foxworthy’s “you might be a redneck…” thing. But hey if it makes you laugh, then you will be learning the whole thing about which are clarks and which are scotts and which are rogers.

You immediately stop surfing the channels when you come upon a show that uses only black and white documentary photos and film…you might be a roger

You totally love Christmas lawn decorations and cannot imagine having too many lights… you might be a scott

You find a flier stuck under the windshield wiper of your car and you take the time to read it… you might be a clark.

You are asked a question and you start to answer with “in the beginning…”  you might be a clark.

You are addressed by the wrong name and you answer to it without correction… you might be a clark.

You are building model cars/ships/planes, you always put the extra parts  back in the box along with the re-folded instructions for future safekeeping…you might be a roger.

You think that Slacker was the greatest movie made in the 90s…you might be a clark

You think that Borat was one of the funniest movies of the year…you might be a scott

You think that the 107 episode,  Directors cut, 15 DVD un-abashed edition of the compilation (with Writers notes (including what he had for breakfast) and voice-over reading of the credits by someone who knew someone who was a re-enactor who actually got hurt at an event) of all Ken Burns films, PBS episodes and commercials that last longer than most readings of the Iliad is the greatest film of all time…you might be a roger

You have any inclination to wear hats for a fashion statement (for male rogers only) or a ‘fanny pack’ (either male or female rogers), or  any clothing designed specifically for riding a bicycle (branded or un-branded)…you might be a roger.

You happen to be at a golf tournament and feel that it is expected of the members of the gallery to yell anything (including but not limited to “get in the hole”)…you might be a scott.

You are contemplating a project of any sort; a new deck or a term paper, writing a resume or planting a garden and you:

…you look forward to making the list of things you need to buy/gather/acquire first more than anything else…you might be a clark

…you must know what your friends on the ’do it yourself’ shows have done, that is what you want…you might be a roger

…CONTEMPLATE? PLAN? I JUST FINISHED IT! FUCK YOU!! IT’S DONE NO THIS IS FINE THE WAY IT IS… you might be a scott

So, there you have it. You laugh…you join…pretty simple, isn’t it?

 

 

* if they’re laughing (in a good way), chances are they’re’ a scott; if they’re dreadfully concerned and sincere then you got yourself  a roger talking and if they preface it with ‘I know…’ and propose an enhancement, you’re dealing with a clark. damn! (further explication available upon Comment)**

** if any Reader shouted-out ‘the Everything Rule’ you’ll get a free DocTee***

*** Limit one per winner, quantities non-existent

Share
Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , , ,

MondayReprint™ -the Wakefield Doctrine-

July 24, 2023 By

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

Two Gold Stars today: a) to whoever shouted out, ‘Ya shoulda been doin’ that Trademark shit from the second post here!’ and 2) ‘Too bad your tertiary rogerian aspects is so weak!!! and c) ‘Starting with that 2 answers schtick’

Be that as it may. At least the phrase/name, ‘the Wakefield Doctrine’ is somewhat protected.

But, as often happens, this warm-up to a RePrint has triggered a thought as to a useful topic.

So I was talking to a scottian friend last week. (New Readers? There is a certain affinity that exists between male clarks and scottian females that is quite instructive and useful. It might even have an inference in today’s discussion. But, if you want to know more, you can either do like everyone else and read a buncha posts or write in a Comment your question. Maybe we’ll answer it.)

The topic we ended up discussing* was the Wakefield Doctrine’s value in the matter of self-improvement. This, btw, was a higher frequency topic in the early years. We enjoy the fact that, from last week’s conversation, it remains as pertinent as it was back in the early years.

So, she, (my friend), said something to the effect “So-and-so is going through a difficult time. I wish I had her capacity to leave the future to itself as she is, I’d be stressed out as hell trying to do something.”

We agreed with her. Such is the nature of our scottian brethren. But that choice of words triggered my response: ‘If you want those qualities, you must start with realizing that you already have them. It’s just a matter of accepting them’.

the Wakefield Doctrine maintains that we, all of us, grow up and develop our ‘personality types’ in response and reflection of our personal reality. Wether we find ourselfs in the reality of the Outsider (clarks), the world of the Predator (scotts) or the life of the Herd Member (rogers) doesn’t matter. We practice and refine the social strategies suited to our world. We call this our predominant worldview. In a cool sense, we say, your personality type is perfect! For the world that you grew up in. An Outsider doesn’t benefit from moving fast, they want to avoid immediate attention. A Predator does not succeed by stopping (frequently) to introspect on the reason they are chasing this Prey at this Moment. The Herd Member does not need to surprise anyone with their opinion on this or that, they, (everyone else), are already on the alert for a forthcoming insight on the efficacy of a given action.

The thing of it is: while we have one predominant worldview, ‘the other two’ are always there. Dormat**  Discrete** Deferential**

(lol)

Gotta wrap this up… The cool thing the Wakefield Doctrine offers to those who would self-improve themselves is that, no matter what the: ‘improvement’/’I-really-want-to-be-able-to’/’Why-can’t-I-be-more-like’ we do not need to learn it. We have it within ourselves already. This is huge. Most times, people be, ‘Sure you can do that. I don’t have a clue how you could do it. I’m not likely to learn that anytime soon. I’ve been this way my whole life.’

Well. You’ve had the potential to relate yourself to the world around you as would a clark/scott/roger all along. You just haven’t practiced. (As, see above, is quite appropriate.)

… now, we do realize that scotts and rogers are pretty much good enough at what they do to not to need a Wakefield Doctrine Self-Improvement Program.

Thing of it is, if you’re you’re a scott or a roger and you’re still here, guess what? Your secondary aspect is clarklike. And, being that, a part of you are thinking: ‘Ya know, if we took this to heart, maybe we’d have an edge’ or ‘Those Doctrine people do seem to have something… besides, change a couple of nouns…who’s to know?’

 

There you have it. The Wakefield Doctrine Guide to Totally Fun and Efficacious Self-Development. Imagine for a second, your relationship to the world around you and the people who make it up is that of:

  1. the Outsider (clarks)
  2. the Predator (scotts)
  3. the Herd Member (rogers)

…ever thang else will take care of itself.

 

 

*(lol Three Gold Stars if you’re a New Reader and you just shouted, ‘The fricken Doctrine! What else!?!?)

** Doctrine jokes from way back… ask the old Reader next to you

 

’cause of the ‘joke’ ‘maybe we’ll answer your comment’ the following:

Share
Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , ,
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »