clarkscottroger | the Wakefield Doctrine

if ‘a picture is worth 1,000 words’ and ‘actions speak louder than words’, then today’s Post might best be read while sitting down…the Wakefield Doctrine

February 28, 2013 By clarkscottroger

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

Lets get started!

A video Post for today. The highlights are:

Readers are reading and some are even Commentationing
this blog could be better organized, a layout/structure that is geared to the First Time Reader
there is no such word as Commentationing
while the fact that: ‘everyone has a predominant worldview but always retains the capability to see the world as the other two’ remains a core concept
of recent times, the role of (a person’s) secondary aspect is beginning to be better understood and subsequently is way useful to know when first learning about the three worldviews
(this ‘better understanding’) involves recognizing how (one’s) secondary aspect colors the possible solutions to a given problem
yes, we are going on just a bit with these technical things
of course we still do
(if you were able to supply the question that is implied in the previous bullet point, we so want to hear from you!

Well, given that the Video is… minutes long, let’s wrap the silent portion of this here Post here up.

Here’s a fun thing to take away from this Post! Sometime in the course of your day today, the thought will pop into your head, “this is what those Wakefield people said might happen! Holy: a) Moley b) shit c) Toledo! What was it they said to do next?!?”
If that happens, lets us know.

We’ll wait here.

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

You can’t spell synergy without the ‘sin’ in scotts, ‘whyyyy’ in rogers and the clark in clarks, the Wakefield Doctrine Sunday Edition

February 24, 2013 By clarkscottroger

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

Synergy: a) In the context of organizational behavior, following the view that a cohesive group is more than the sum of its parts, synergy is the ability of a group to outperform even its best individual member; 2) Group Polarisation is when individuals in a group begin by taking a moderate stance on an issue regarding a common value and, after having discussed it, end up taking a more extreme stance. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergy …sort of)

Great Drive* last night. In attendecito: Jennifer, Cyndi, Molly and Denise. Topics flew like empty promises at a High School 5th Year Reunion.

Topic: Cyndi brought up the rogerian resistance to decisiveness, particularly in the context of staff meetings, this lead to a discussion of the style of management as manifested by the rogerian worldview; Molly, asked about aggressiveness as manifested by rogerian males versus females… in a word we tooled around the Wakefield Doctrine (metaphorical) Campus, like it was the Thursday night before Spring Break.

But of particular interest was the matter of scotts, (and as a subset to this discussion), the techniques employed by clarklike females when managing scottian men, then it got interesting! I would tell you all about it, but you really should have been there, the synergy referenced in the Title of today’s Post was very much in evidence. It was fun. Not to leave our ‘non-calling-in-to-the-Drive-my-god-how-simple-can-it-be-?’ Readers without at least one insight into the ways of clarklike females and scottian males, I simply say: ‘rolled-up newspaper‘

There were questions about how to identify scotts (and the other two) from physical appearance and it got me to thinking to write something on the primary identifying characteristic of the three personality types. So… to the bullet-list machine!

clarks: posture-challenged (particularly the males), slow of movement and clearly relaxed when seated (whatever the antonym for fidgety is that would be clarks sitting); it is said that ‘the eyes are the window to the soul’, well with clarks simply look for the person with the ‘far away’ look in their eyes (very far away)
scotts: the eyes are totally the first thing to identify them, but if the saying above is true, then you might want to brace yourself before looking in that window; scotts tend to be athletic and/or sexy, given to rapid and semi-graceful movement, (if they are male), languorous movements if they are not, the second most obvious thing about scotts is their self-confidence, very socially active, ( scottian men are funny, scottian women are sexy) and on the mercurial end of the emotional expression scale
rogers: they make up the majority of the population (both genders) so if you know a person is not a clark or a scott then they must be a roger.

This is Sunday, so out in < 500 words!

Doctrine-favorite band, Halestorm to provide the closing tune.

* The Wakefield Doctrine Saturday Night Drive, of course!

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

lets get a (re)Overview of this Personality Theory …this Wakefield Doctrine

February 12, 2013 By clarkscottroger

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

Three things to remember:

how a person relates (themselves) to the world at large results in what we call a ‘worldview’ (which amounts to a ‘personal reality’)
everyone has the potential for relating to the world in one of the three characteristic ways and while everyone does settle into one ‘predominant’ worldview, the other two ways (of relating) remain available throughout life
clarks are the Outsiders (clarks think), scotts are the Predators (scotts act) and rogers are the Herd Members (rogers feel)

There. The Basics of the Wakefield Doctrine! Everything you need to know when you are looking (at) yourself.

Next: the Characteristics of the three worldviews.

clarks: the Outsider, view the world as would any rather intelligent, fairly resourceful, not so aggressive explorer would. The goal for most clarks is to learn the information that they surmise was made available to every child (they may have been in the bathroom at the time of the ‘how to be like everyone else’ lesson) and therefore be in a position to continue their lives in as close to a satisfying and fulfilling manner as possible. In the meantime, clarks will spend their time on the fringe, they will cultivate friendships with scotts and rogers to help pass the time and to get them into the better clubs. clarks are the truly creative of the three personality types which sounds cooler than it actually is, as most expressions of extreme creativity are, as a rule, met with scorn, disdain and disregard (not to mention, not paying very well). clarks take un-selfishness to a near psychotic level, valuing loyalty over any other ‘common emotional experience’, they will be the best, of the three personality types, to have around at times of emergency, they make excellent school teachers (female clarks: grade school, male clarks: late high school, college). The saying is ‘clarks live quietly and leave a well-preserved corpse’

scotts: the Predator, view the world as any well-armed, well-equipped conqueror would. The goal for most scotts is to live life to the fullest, everyday, up until someone forces them to stop. scotts are natural leaders, with the qualification that those who follow scotts do not have any carefully thought-out expectations as to where they will end up, (when the scott becomes bored with the leadership-thing). scotts crave attention the way that most aerobic lifeforms crave oxygen, so much so, that a scott will settle for any kind of attention, up to and including: derision, laughter, scorn, hate, love or passion….all the same to a scott. female scotts created the stiletto heel industry, single….er, handedly, scotts, both male and female are attracted to rogers as their preferred form of nourishment. scotts do enjoy the company of clarks, as clarks are neither prey nor predator (at least, most of the time)…scotts are just out for a good time, a loud time, a passionate time. These are the people that they say, ‘live fast (with as many partners as possible) and leave a burnt out shell of a corpse’

rogers: the Herd Member, rogers view the world as does the Cleric standing behind the Conqueror and is salivating at the prospect of bringing salvation to an entire race of indigenous peoples. rogers are the reason that we have: civilization, healthcare, culture, jihad(s), jetliners that hardly ever crash, a banking system (that will on occasion, crash) law and justice, witch burnings and the commercialization of the arts. rogers provide stability to the human experience at the cost of innovations and creativity. after a the scott has raped and pillaged and burned the new continent and moves on, the rogers will organise and provide relief to the survivors, provided they (the survivors) are willing to accept the lord and god and the rules and the life that he (the roger) is so kind to bring to a people, so obviously in dire need. These people! these are the ones we say, ‘live moderately and imagine how many people will attend the funeral of the corpse that proves you lived‘.

Hey, congratulations!! You’ve made it this far. A bonus you have surely earned!

Ways to identify them clarks, scotts and rogers.

clarks: dress is very, eclectic with a shading towards long coats and dark colors but! the male clarks will do something weird and outlandish with some feature of their dress, i.e. outlandish colored socks or ties , the female clarks, preferring the couture of the House of Androgyny… will favor the slightest touch of metal or ink, perhaps a contrasting color in the hair, a little purple or orange to bring out the highlights…oh! bad posture is a sure indicator of the clark personality type

scotts: the eyes! you will always spot the scott by their eyes. A scott will, (hardly ever), be observed not paying attention to their immediate environment. They are also very animated in movement, the male scotts in near constant physical motion, the female scotts will have the males (rogers and clarks) in motion on their behalf. scotts are easy to spot

rogers: well dressed…like a Thanksgiving turkey Dinner in House Beautiful, the rogerian female will have all the right accessories in all the fashionable shades, the males rogers will be spotted by their prediliction, not yet fully understood, for hats! and facial hair and corporate logos, wherever tasteful, of course!

And, finally a little music!

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

the Wakefield Doctrine… “the heck with the boring stuff, what’s this about Eve being a clark?!”

February 6, 2013 By clarkscottroger

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

Yeah, that last Post was boring. The first Comment was not… the first Comment was:

OK. I get it. Satan is the scott (are we really surprised? LOL), the (vain) muscle man – the roger which leaves the female as the clark. What gives? Why is Eve the clark? I’ve got an inkling (think self sabotage).

(Thanks, DS#1 Now this is the kind of question/topic that makes writing this blog so much fun!)

Lets get the party started with some bulletpoints:

the Serpent (Satan) as scott…anyone doesn’t get that right out of the box we need you to a) read the section on clarks, scotts and rogers, one more time or b) quietly return to your favorite blog ‘crocheting sex toys with Eloise’ or Powertools.girls.loudcars.com
Adam as roger …hey, it does not take an advanced degree in Wakefield Doctrine to see this ‘so I will be so much more the first Man if you tell me how smart I can be’ that quality is virtually an epigram of the rogerian worldview.
Eve as clark now there is the topic!

(3:15 pm …to be continued!)

OK where should we start? Justify calling the Serpent the scott here or why Adam was such a roger?

Well lets start the Tale of the Garden of Eden:

The serpent, “more wise than any beast of the field,” tempts the woman to eat “of the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden”, telling her that “Ye shall not surely die” and it will make her to be as god, knowing good and evil. After some thought about “the tree to be desired to make wise”, the woman took of the fruit and did eat. She then gives the fruit to the man, who eats also, “and the eyes of the two of them were opened.” Aware now of their nakedness, they make coverings of fig leaves and hide from the sight of God.

God asked them what they have done, and man and woman defer responsibility. The man blames the woman for giving him the fruit, (“The woman Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me the fruit of the tree, and I ate”), while the woman blames the serpent for seducing her to disobedience (“The serpent beguiled me and I ate”). God curses the serpent “above all animals,” causing it to become an eternal enemy of the human race. God then passes judgment for the disobedience of the man and woman, condemning the man to sustain life through hard labor and the woman to create new life through painful childbirth (our friends at Wikipedia, who we give money to every year): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve

For our purposes, lets leave God out it¹ for the purposes of this discussion. Lets get all capsule description of our three personality types:

clarks: emotionally independent, strong-willed (in a secret, non-confrontory-way), focused on family and near-psychotically un-selfish
scotts: smart, (in a strictly practical-applications-way), loves to sell, resistant to authority-for-the-sake-of-authority, and near-psychotically fixated on here-and-now gratification
rogers: very aware of appearances, naturally attuned to working within an organization, emotional to the point of vanity and near-psychotically ambitious, in a non-confrontational sense

On second thought, let’s not leave God out of it! Here’s the Wakefield Doctrine take on this very, very familiar tale.

Satan is just hanging around, everywhere except in Heaven. This is fine by him, ’cause the host of angels and archangels (and cherubim… could ya gag?!), they were totally boring and the only ones with a sense of adventure got kicked out of Heaven along with him. Satan thinks, “...this ain’t so bad! Don’t be nobody telling me what to do!”
But like all creatures, Satan has something that he fears more than anything, so like most of us do, he chooses not to to think about it. Satan has always been a big non-fan of thinking and introspection, “Live large, make noise and let ’em know you’re here!” has always been his motto, if asked (and he will volunteer it, if he is not asked). In any event, Satan is beginning to get that feeling. It is the worse thing he can imagine, but fortunately he is not overly imaginative. But try as he might to pretend everything is fine, the bad thing is getting closer. The bad thing is to be ignored. (Better make that two bad things, we need to include that horrifying emotional response to being ignored: boredom.) Like it or not, (not!!!) deny it or not, (deny!! deny!!!) Satan is beginning to get bored.

God, on the other hand, couldn’t be happier ( of course! frickin rogers they always do that, ‘why, what could possible be wrong? Why aren’t you self-absorbed sufficiently to feel that there could be nothing that would make this moment any more perfect?‘)
In any event, God decides to create the world.
Fine. …then he looks and thinks, ‘sure, but something is missing!…ahh! moving parts!’
So God invents all the animals and fowls and everything in the world.

Looks around… still something missing. The animals and fowls and such are all like, ‘hey man! thanks! this existence thing is cool!’ God hears their thanks, but still something is missing. After all, they’re animals! Then he realizes, the only genuine compliment, the only feedback that means anything needs to come from a being that He can identify with… not these animals!
So God creates Adam. …still, something not right. (He can hear the snickering and the catcalls from somewhere On High, “...hey god, more is more… yo! Supreme Being! the Baroque Period ain’t for another 5,730 years!” … “yeah, don’t forget that this one goes to 11” …tee hee“)

God is beginning to get a little impatient. He knows that he needs another creature, but frankly the act of creating Adam took a lot out of him and besides, to be honest, now He is getting a bit bored. The thought occurred to ask Lucifier for some input, but then remembered that he had banished him for some Great Sin that escapes him at the moment. “Always gotta push things too far, hell of a frontman though, dude knows how to party...”

Desperate to finish His Work, God looked at Adam and thought, “Hey, great basic design, maybe if I just add some fins and some extra taillights...”

(to be cont’d…)

1) as everyone knows, the God of the Old Testament is totally a roger, interestingly enough, ‘the God’ (aka Jesus Christ) is way, way clarklike and scotts? We all know where our scotts show up, major world-religion wise!

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

Video Friday the Wakefield Doctrine …the late day edition, in video form, no less!

December 28, 2012 By clarkscottroger

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks and scotts and rogers…of course! )

It’s like the guy just said, that Doctrine is so… fun(?) yeah, ok… different (?) lets have a show of hands! anyone doesn’t think our little personality theory is a teensy bit on the wild side? and …useful (?) hell yeah! but in fairness to some new Readers, the ultimate maximization of the inherent values of this particular self-improvement theoretical methodology is still not as clearly defined as it might be.

But then again, the Wakefield Doctrine has always not been for the masses, the great tides of Readers in search of diversion, distraction and other (mental) palliatives. Granted that the blogosphere is sort of the Sam’s Club of Homegrown Literature, Information and Advice. And, granted many Readers are not anxious to take up company with a theory of personality that requires a great deal of talent and effort from those who would benefit by its insights. But then again, whata ya gonna do?

Be sure to call us on the Saturday Night Drive tomorrow.