clarkscottroger | the Wakefield Doctrine

TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine-

June 10, 2023 By clarkscottroger

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

This is the Wakefield Doctrine’s weekly contribution to the Ten Things of Thankful bloghop on this occasion of the Tenth Anniversary of the grat ‘hop that Lizzi created.

Very good thing. Very good writers. Very good benefits results from the practice, (manifested in these weekly posts) of appreciating the perspective of gratitude.

Like any good sitcom, come ratings week (or Summer doldrums) who doesn’t like a flashback?

1) First TToT:

June 2013

2) Thanks to our co-hostinae down through the years for keeping the quality in the Very Good/Mature Expression of perspective. (It’s not like the Titanic sank only because it hit an iceberg. Rumor has it the man-at-the-wheel had developed a bit of a pinball jones before the maiden voyage.)

3) Una, Bella and Ola

4) To bring in something personal to anniversary. I enjoyed the earliest days for two reasons: 1) how Lizzi actually started this here ‘hop here and b) the story of when I got to know Christine.

We met Lizzi in the comment streams and FB hangouts we frequented soon after starting the Doctrine blog. I immediately sensed her predominant worldview and naturally began to converse (in comment threads) like I knew her for years. Not long afterwards I got a comment from a Christine (from the Midwest, no less) and I smiled at the first sentence. “I saw your comment. What is your blog about. Lizzie is a friend of mine. It seems like your blog is about personality types. Did I mention I am a friend of Lizzi?‘ My smiled broadened as the perspective of the Wakefield Doctrine on the world around me and the people who make it up was, once again validated. (As you can see in the links of the reprints here, Christine was one of the original co-hostinae.)

I have the memory that, upon advice of a trusted friend, Lizzi started writing posts listing 50 things to feel grateful for. Yes, no! That’s not a typo. Fity items in a single list. And she did for quite some time. All before she became ‘the blog’ to be seen at among the virtual crowd I was tolerated by. Those were days when there were less comments per post than the eventual number of cohosts. That is Will. And one of the reasons, imo, there is still a TToT

September 2014

6) Phyllis and cottage

7) (The last reprint. We promise. Went looking for this one ’cause it’s almost entirely a vid post

July 2016

8) A thank you to Dyanne for keeping the lights on and a special thanks to Kristi for remindereing us of the one of the special qualities this ‘hop has through all these years.

9) Total grats to all the hostinae (and Mimi) down through the decade. ~~Couldn’t~~ wouldn’t have done it without you. [And Lisa, ’cause being on WP, her link is the simplest path to join in the ‘hop.]

10) Secret Rule 1.3 “the approaching conclusion of the list, is a very valid Grat and is surely meant to be Number Ten

music vids

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: clarkscottroger, personality types, self-improvement, the Wakefield Doctrine

TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine-

June 4, 2023 By clarkscottroger

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

This is the Doctrine’s contribution to the Ten Things of Thankful bloghop.

Reminder! Next Week’s TToT will be different from every other single TToT installment in a fundamental sense, beyond intellectual (or) emotional measure. Stop over at Kristi’s for the 911… 10-4… 411!? (Hint: it could be like every high school reunion you never actually attended… cause you know, that was in the past, I was someone entirely different back then, why would I want to wake those ghosts?”)

lol. Fortunately for us and, in no small part accounting for the remarkable longevity, (not to mention continued vitality), this ‘hop has been hosted by some very talented writers and bloggers who, for reasons you’ll have to go to them directly for, the Doctrine has always been made to feel welcome, here, among the ‘real’ people.

1) Una

3) Phyllis

8) the Wakefield Doctrine

7) the upcoming blogoversary of the TToT

3) the lack of snow (Despite a thirty degree drop in temperature at the end of the week).

45) the liberal standards of conformance required for participation*

18) the time, work and effort on the part of Kristi in keeping a proper focus. anniversaristically-speaking

0) something, something

33) the Una garden (to the dismay of the local deer population, we have made the decision to surpass on the vegetable garden and go for the simple aesthetic of flowers and such)

10) the Book of Secret Rules (aka the Secret Book of Rules)

* see Grat 18

Music vids

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: clarkscottroger, personality types, the Wakefield Doctrine

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

May 9, 2023 By clarkscottroger

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

So, about that ‘Everything Rule ‘.

Thing was, in the early days of this blog, we would get questions to the effect, ‘My husband always does (this) whenever (that) happens.’ Is that scottian thing or what?’

Of course, being the early years, we were all about describing the three predominant worldviews (clarks, scotts and rogers) in as many ways possible. In context, in theory, in principle, hell, in fairy tales and opera (operae?).

It was understandable that New Readers, when hearing about the affinity of the scottian personality for the occupation of police person, would be tempted to think that there were activities and attitudes, predilections and preferences that were characteristic of one ‘personality type’ and not the other two.

Note: as so often has happened in these pages, the questions, (from Readers), provided an opportunity to explain and otherwise illustrate aspects of the Wakefield Doctrine that may have been underserved. In this case, the reality of personal reality. The early focus was that our personal realities were simply that, that zone between us as individuals and the greater world that was unique to each and every of us. This approach was to be supplanted/enhanced/made-way-easier-to-visualize by the notion of relationship, i.e. the character of our relationship to the world around us and the people who make it up. You know, the relationship inherent in those who are Outsiders (clarks), Predators (scotts) or Herd Members (rogers).

the Everything Rule (‘Everyone does everything at one time or another’), reminds us that this personality-type system is not the product of a cumulative score where behaviors are tabulated and the number at the bottom of the column corresponds to a type.

No.

No, the membership in (one of) the three personality types, (predominant worldviews), is simply a coherence that indicates one over the other two. The easier way to get yer head around this relationship is found in our favorite metaphor of the eye exam. Consider each of the three predominant worldviews as a lens. In the course of a typical ear examin, the patient is asked to look at one set of letters and asked, as the doctor changes the lens on individual eyes, which provides the clearest view.

roger–scott ‘which is clearer?’ —<click> roger–clark —<click>

Getting off topic, (lol like that ever happens) and besides if you haven’t left by now you’re starting get the idea.

So, before providing a Reprint in which we describe the three personality types of the Wakefield Doctrine, lets conclucde this discussion of ‘the Everything Rule’.

The answer to our platform question at the top of this post?

No, there is nothing in one of the three that is not in the other two. It comes down to manifestation, how does a thing manifest when the person relates themselves to it (the job, the task, the avocation/occupation, hobby or love interest) and the world around them. ‘Everyone does Everything, at one time or another‘.

*

Of language and Laniappe(s), the Wakefield Doctrine…. lets get this thing going

February 19, 2013

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

As promised, today’s Post examines the (use of the) metaphor of ‘fluency’, in the context of developing the efficacy of the interpersonal tools that are inherent in the Wakefield Doctrine. Lets go to our little friends at Wikipedia for an outline of the commonly accepted meanings of this fairly cool word. (oh yeah, turns out this is Part I of what seems to be a much more involved topic than I originally imagined.)

Language fluency is used informally to denote broadly a high level of language proficiency, most typically foreign language or another learned language, and more narrowly to denote fluid language use, as opposed to slow, halting use. In this narrow sense, fluency is necessary but not sufficient for language proficiency: fluent language users (particularly uneducated native speakers) may have narrow vocabularies, limited discourse strategies, and inaccurate word use…

In the sense of proficiency, “fluency” encompasses a number of related but separable skills:

Reading: the ability to easily read and understand texts written in the language;

Writing: the ability to formulate written texts in the language;

Comprehension: the ability to follow and understand speech in the language;

Speaking: the ability to produce speech in the language and be understood by its speakers.

Reading Comprehension : the level of understanding of text/messages.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluency )

So what is it we are trying to say? (ha, ha… a little linguistics joke. After all that serious rogerian time what with the Wikipedia and such, I went and implied that I was not sure: a) what I was trying to say, b) whether or not you were capable of understanding what I was saying or c) both of these statements.)

At first I thought it would be pretty straight forward. The goal of developing fluency (as used in this context) is, through understanding the language of all three personality types, to allow you to shape your message in such a manner, that the likelihood that the target of (your message) will comprehend it as you intended. That’s a goal that is both reasonable and ambitious and worthwhile (in terms of the effort necessary to accomplish it.) So how do we do this thing? It would be best to start with the basics.

The Wakefield Doctrine…all people are born with the capacity (and capability) to perceive the world in one of three characteristic ways and at an early, early age we all pick one of these three ways to relate to the world and this becomes our predominant worldview. All of us retain the capacity to access the worldview of the ‘other two’, non-predominant worldviews. These three worldviews are:

the perspective of the Outsider, the clark personality type maintains a quality of separation from others, from the world around them, even from themselves

the life of the Predator, the scottian personality type is the person who, ‘lives through action’, aggressive and impulsive, a scott stands out in a crowd like a Ferrari in a Kia car lot

the roger who is emblematic of the (natural) drive of humans to associate, congregate, analyze and dramatize, rogers form the warp and weft of all human societies

Since each of the three personality types relate to the world around them in characteristically different ways, it is only reasonable that they will seek to communicate with that world in characteristically different ways.

clarks you know one of the funniest, weirdest things about clarks? (ok, a couple of funny weird things) it’s the percentage of time they will use the impersonal pronoun when talking about themselves!! damn! them people is strange… Interesting note: to the un-trained ear, both clarks and rogers will be characterized as having a ‘rambling conversational style’. But if you listen closely, you will hear that (the) clarks are rambling because they are discovering inferences and implications that were not apparent at the start of the conversation, that would enhance the understanding and appreciation of the topic. A roger, on the other hand, will sound like they are rambling because they are attempting to add new information that they feel further supports the initial topic. (nothing new or original, simply more corroboration for the point they are trying to make).

scotts, as we all know are all about short, declarative sentences. Noun, verb, object. Thank you very much. And, of course, the archetypical Interjection: ‘Hey!’ is always good. Mostly it is whatever demands action. Recently I witnessed a person get complimented on a new ‘hairdo’ the scott approached, conveyed positive response to ‘the look’ and simply said, “Look at you!”

rogers, as befits the personality type that most exemplifies the interactions of members of the herd, speak in terms that carry information not limited to the immediate subject, rather they will expand upon the initial topic, “well, we were all at the Calypso Club last friend for Jimmie’s Birthday Party (he threw his own party, can you believe that?) and Ms. Delguidice was there…dancing with a girl! Well, she was kinda cute and she was telling me how much she admired how far I have come in the Company in such a short time. Who did you say you knew that I knew?”

While it may be easy enough to imitate the language of the three personality types, the path to true fluency entails finding a way to see the world as (they) see it. Only by doing this can we truly understand their language(s). And only by acquiring this level of understanding can we claim true fluency.

(to be cont’d…. Part II ‘What do you mean, it’s more than vocabulary??! Rosetta this…)

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: clarkscottroger, personality types, self-development, the Wakefield Doctrine

TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine-

April 30, 2023 By clarkscottroger

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

This is the Wakefield Doctrine’s weakly contribution to the Ten Things of Thankful (TToT) bloghop. Created by Lizzi R. one breezy April day in a thatched-roof cottage in the village of Parsley-and-Sage; in the county of Cottage-Cheese, UK, few were surprised at how quickly it grew.

Following is the Doctrine’s Grat List:

1) Una

2) Phyllis

3) the Wakefield Doctrine

4) the Zombie Christmas Project: Chapter Sith (things are not looking well for our sacrificial fir).

5) the Six Sentence Story bloghop

6) agent rejection letter that was awfully well-written. on a whim, I sent a query letter for ‘Almira’ to an agent. (In part because his name was Farley. lol)

Dear Clark –

Many thanks for writing. You have an interesting story to tell and there’s a lot to like about your approach. But in the end I’m afraid I didn’t come away quite fully convinced this was something I think I’d be able to represent successfully. I’m sorry not to be more enthusiastic but thanks nonetheless for giving me a chance to review it and best of luck in finding it the right home.

Best,
Farley

Chase Literary Agency

7) Hypograt: Don’t get us wrong! The above is not anywhere near as fun to have read as: ‘Send full manuscript’. That being said, gratistically-speaking it does remind us of that famous story of the explorers and the tribe.

8) something, something

9) Una’s garden:

10) Secret Rule 1.3 …from the Book of Secret Rules (aka the Secret Book of Rules).

music vids

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: clarkscottroger, personality types, the Wakefield Doctrine, three personality types

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

April 25, 2023 By clarkscottroger

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

…we were referencing the concept of secondary and tertiary aspects (in the Wakefield Doctrine).

Early on in this blog, the effects of ‘the other two’ aspects provided a proper answer to those who would ask, “Most of the time my son-in-law behaves in manner very much that conforming to the personality type of a clark. But then, not often, but frequently enough, he gets all sentimental and… well, like one of those rogers. You know, very social, quite analytical. So which is he?”

So the thing about secondary and tertiary aspects: we have the potential, but unlike that fact that we grow up and develop our social strategies and style of interacting with the world, a significant secondary (or tertiary) aspect is not inevitable. Especially to a noticeable level, evident in the person’s behavior.

There are some people who manifest their predominant worldview with no sign of a secondary or tertiary. Poster-people for the three predominant worldviews.

The thing about secondary aspect, (especially), is that they (the behavior, attitude, traits and social style that are a person’s response to a given personal reality, i.e. the Outsider(clarks), the Predator(scotts) or the Herd Member(rogers)) tend to manifest only at time of duress. In a bad spot, nothing the person does helps, emergency behavior. Just a flash of behavior that is in contrast to the person on a day-to-day basis.

There is also the case of a significant secondary aspect that is aroused by something within the person’s life that is of standout value. I am an example of that.

Running out of time.

here, read this:

Hey! wait! wait a minute!!

the second topic should be, ‘Fine!! I get there’s a secondary and tertiary aspect. But, by definition (and future RePrint post) the ‘other two’ may be difficult to distinguish from each other. How do we do that?”

“Enough of the theory!” the Wakefield Doctrine “…the real world, tell how it does us any good in the real world, holmes”

November 20, 2013

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

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. clarksneed 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.