Personal | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 6 Personal | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 6

Finish the Thought Friday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

January 20, 2018 By

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

Today is Saturday and so we’ll hasten to complete a Finish the Sentence Friday post and then write us one of them TToT posts.

Last week, as you will recall, we combined our participation in the two bloghops into one long, and somewhat perplexing (to some of the newer Readers), post. The thing is, Kristi and Kenya and them, have altered the format and so, each Friday the ‘theme’ is different. Which should be an interesting change. Unlike winter. Sorry, getting ahead of myself. (Ayiiee, when you consider the theme of this week’s FTSF, and that last sentence, surely you recoil in empathic horror or lean-forward in identification with the conundrum I almost put myself into… have I lost the thread?  Good! Back to the intro).

This week the theme is Stream of Consciousness (in general) and our feelings towards Winter(specifically?) Here, let me let Kristi tell you, I have to go find a timer…

In the new format, which I host with Kenya from Sporadically Yours, each week is a little bit different. Week three of each month (this week), is a stream-of-consciousness post where you write for five minutes (or more) and just post. That’s it.

And yeah, yeah, yeah… I ended up adding some photos because I couldn’t NOT add them, but we promise, you’re free to edit as you’d like but editing is unnecessary.

Finish the Sentence Friday is a link-up where writers and bloggers come together to share their themselves with a particular prompt (different formats each week of the month). If you’d like to participate, join our Facebook group. Link up your prompts below! Please no “link dumping.” If you include a link, comment on other posts.

OK, I got the timer… not ready?  no problem I’ll wait…. (Why no! I don’t think that ‘preparing to engage in a stream-of-consciousness activity’ is contradictory. Have you talked to a clark recently? lol  Old joke: Q: “How can you tell when a clark is engaged in stream of consciousness? A: “His/her lips move.”)

Some of you might be thinking, ‘Did they just imply that they need to prepare for writing a Stream-of-Conscious post? Isn’t that kinda self-defeating?

Yes and No* lol

So I have my timer ready and, in case this ends up too jabberwockerish, I’ve put a photo at the top of the Post that says it all.

(go)

There is nothing I enjoy about Winter. The photo above illustrates its nature better than I can describe it: cold, life arresting and yet taunting in what it is that it (Winter) holds in its inhospitable grasp.

alright!  What 4 minutes left? damn!

hey! wait… this just in. Una enjoys the snow! And, now that I think of it, so did Bella and Ola. So it is not that the season itself is bad, it’s simply that I am not inclined to embrace its character and nature. I had a video up last weekend that shows how much fun Una had with the snow. (link here).

Boy, my five minutes have about lapsed. I got a feeling that I do not want to reflect on the implication of that! lol

So this week, my Finish my Thought Friday is: ‘…because Una enjoys the snow.‘

But now that I think of it, she enjoys all four of the seasons. That’s why she’s my role model. Una, as do her kind, has a natural appreciation for ‘what is’ as opposed to ‘what it should be/might be/supposed to be’. That’s not a bad reminder to me today when it’s too damn cold outside to remember that I’m able to go there and prove how right I am about that assertion and what a total gift that is. And, since it’s never too late to engage the present, I will stop with the stream of conscious writing and try to have a stream of present day.

Don’t forget to stop by the others (to my figurative right, left and above)… there you’ll find insight and reflection that will surely carry through your weekend.

 

*hey! one of the earliest tests for determining if a person is a clark is found in the simple question: “How much is Two plus Two?” a roger answers “Four” without the slightest hesitation because, well, that’s the correct answer. a scott might say “Four” or he/she might reply, “Who wants to know?” a clark? we’re inclined to answer, “uh, under what circumstances?”

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

January 1, 2018 -the Wakefield Doctrine-

January 1, 2018 By

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

‘Una and Phyllis sitting on the bridge at the pond on a single-digit temperature afternoon.’
(landscape orientation)
Three quarters of the photo is of winter-bare trees, background woods and a snow-covered bridge identifiable as such by the repeating divisions of the top surface, as the snow is so light and dry as to allow the gaps between each plank to show dark. Una and Phyllis are in the lower right quarter of the photo. Una is the triangular shaped fur-covered lifeform who appears to be smiling, if for no other reason than she has the quality of living in the moment. Phyllis is the blue, black and grey shape to Una’s left. Phyllis is smiling as she is practicing the way of life that permits such a response, despite the conditions of the external world at the moment.
I am behind the camera assuring both that ‘that’s a great shot! it’s a wrap’.

the Wakefield Doctrine is a perspective; inherent in all perspective is a new way of understanding.

the Wakefield Doctrine is a tool; (one definition) of a tool is, ‘an artifact created to enhance and multiply the intended effect of an effort’.

the Wakefield Doctrine is fun; fun has been defined as ‘the byproduct of relating ourselves to the world around us in a manner that meets the external demands of the world while leaving the opportunity to be creative‘.

Thanks and a big shout-out to Friend of the Doctrine, Cynthia for her ‘first of the year clarity statement’ Which simply means that, as a clark, she has captured the spirit shared by all clarks.

Two and an eighth clarks….*
Cynthia and Una and John.
Una is sitting in her chair at the head of the table. Cynthia is standing to Una’s right. John is on the left side of the table, mostly ‘out of frame’.
No one is looking at the camera.
…of course

As per the above definition, the work in the Summer of the years past illustrates that one (circumstance’s) effort (and labor (and expenditure of energy)) is fun when those involved contribute (creativity includes assembly) to producing a thing of utility and value.

And so, in the time that unfolds into the next culturally arbitrary division of time aka the ‘New’ Year, we here at the Doctrine will take up our friends challenge to have an effect on the world by finding ways to become a more and better self.

(Clearly that admonition is hypo-grammatical both literally and figuratively.)

The third ‘definition’ of the Wakefield Doctrine above mentioned fun. It is. Fun. For example, from one of the earlier posts in the blog, a discussion of jobs.

All jobs, employment, occupations, avocations, professions, missions, crusades, escapades and ways that we chose to earn money fall into one of three categories:

Scientist, Salesman and Machine Operator.

  1. Scientist is (for our purposes) the one who wants, no, make that needs to discover the unknown and upon discovery wants to share it with others. clarks, it has been noted elsewhere are the creative one of the three, creative in the purest sense of the word.
  2. Salesman is the one who wants to change others, to get them to conform to his/her will.  A scott will get others to do things just because if she is the one directing others then no one is directing her.
  3. Machine Operator is a person who believes that the only tasks worth doing is the one with a defined set of variables, anything from engineer to accountant to musician.  Rogers tend to be the most excellent of musicians from a technical standpoint. (If you had a band comprised of a clark, a scott and a roger, the scott would be the ‘front man/woman’, the roger would play lead and the clark would play rhythm (but also be the main songwriter).

So get out there and look around.  What do you like to do for work or for fun? I guarantee that whatever it is, it will fit into one of these three jobs and more than likely it will correspond to whatever it is you are (clark or scott or roger).

 

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

FTSF -the Wakefield Doctrine-

December 7, 2017 By

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

Today we head over to the most excellent of bloghops, Finish the Sentence Friday. Hosted by Friend of the Doctrine, Kristi and (for this Week) Hillary Savoie.

“Can you say, ‘ello there Miz Kristi, Ms. Savoie? Sure you can.”

The way this bloghop works: participants are invited to complete the sentence, the fragment of which is provided. Each week a different sentence fragment. When (participants) complete the sentence, in the manner of their choice to whatever length they deem proper, they add them to the list of posts to be found at Kristi and Hillary’s blogs. That way all are available for reading, hence the term, bloghop.*

I will join the others and invite you all to join in this week’s ‘hop. It’s fun and it’s interesting and, if you’re into the stream of consciousness school of post writing as am I, you might be surprised at the post that sits on your screen and dares you to hit ‘Publish’.

The Sentence to be completed:

“When it comes to belonging…”

“…the concept tempts me to believe that I know how might a blind man or woman feel, surrounded by well-intentioned people earnestly describing Niagara Falls and with each new narration of the experience, I smile in their direction and nod at the descriptions and metaphors, analogy and examples.”

The above is my immediate ‘Finish’ Arguably that makes it the most honest completion of this week’s sentence. I do, however, have a second, perhaps more… fun Sentence completion. But first a little backstory and, hopefully sufficient context to make my post more…fun?

The above complete sentence is what I think about ‘belonging’. My perception of myself, (hey, all the rest of what follows is an elaboration of what those four words imply. Not so much that the words themselves explain anything as it the way I describe the process underlying my response), is that of an Outsider. For me, the world is ‘out there’ and I am here. (One of the ways to spot an Outsider, aka a clark in the Wakefield Doctrine system) is to say, ‘Every day I wake up and try to figure out what I’m going to have to do with the world out there.’ It’s been my experience that a lot of people do not make that distinction between themselves and reality. They tend to be the people who belong.

Now the follow-up Finish (of the Sentence):

“…the closest I come to belonging is when this topic comes up and I sense others, who hesitate and look around the group, quietly, un-noticeably before responding. At such times I believe I can see the rainbow in the mist at the edge of Niagara Falls, if only for a second.”

 

 

 

* sorta… I suspect the etymology is far more involved (and interesting) than my suggestion, seeing how no one actually ‘hops’, not that that’s possible, being a medium that does not permit direct physical interaction. ‘though, that being said, there is nothin in the rules that forbids participants from hopping, at least that I’m aware.

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

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-‘the Everything Rule’

December 5, 2017 By

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

The ‘Everything Rule’ states that, ‘everyone does everything, at one time or another’.

While it might be tempting to think, “oh ho! Your rule there allows for exceptions to your three personality types schema. And, unless the Herd disagrees, your Rule supports my contention that I am not a clark or a scott or a roger, I am something that is all three. So much for your ‘live in one characteristic reality’.”

The Wakefield Doctrine maintains that despite living in only one of the three worldviews, we retain the potential of all three personality types. The value in the Doctrine in the arena of self-improvement rests quite solidly on this premise. The reason being, a lifetime of practice notwithstanding, we all have the necessary ‘range of response’ (to the world and the people around us) that is at the foundation of the three personality types.

The thing is, when we talk about personality types here, what we really are referring to is our (individual) efforts to develop strategies and skills to successfully navigate the world (physical and social) we find ourselves waking up to every morning.

Damn! too many words. Too roundabout and vague. Better access my scottian aspect.

We all need to interact with the world and the people around us. At a very early age we discover (and develop) ways of behaving that secure us what we desire and learn (and refine) strategies that help us avoid what we do not. As we mature, our world expands, our knowledge and abilities grow and our behavior and interpersonal strategies become more sophisticated. Up to a point. Most of the time.

Bottom line is that for the Wakefield Doctrine, ‘personality type’ is not a list or schedule of traits, impulses, desires and guesses on a long survey with multiple choice answers. It is the style of interaction what works for us in the world, as we experience it. The nature and character of the personal reality in which we grow and mature, drives the development and our ‘personality types’ are merely mirrors of the conditions of that reality.

If we grow up in the personal reality of the Predator, then we damn well better be quick to respond and slow to reflect. If we find ourselves in the world of the Outsider then we surely will learn to keep a low profile and learn as much as possible as fast as possible, the better to understand how to act like the real people that surround us.

Pretty simply, isn’t it?

So, back to the ‘Everything Rule’. It’s not that there are scottian jobs or rogerian interests or movies that only a clark would watch. Actually there are…all three. But although some (of ‘the Everything’) is more in sync, harmony, complimentary (and complementary) to individuals of each of the three types, the fact is, everyone does everything. The very useful and productive use of the ‘Everything Rule’ is as a reminder to take advantage of the perspective that the Doctrine makes available.

We use the term ‘manifest’, i.e. how does that job manifest to that person. This is nothing less than trying to see the world as the other person is experiencing it. Huge ambition. Incredible rewards.

It’s not, ‘seeing through the eyes of another‘, that’s too prone to seeing what we’re experiencing. What this exercise entails is to imagine what being a…. cook in a restaurant is in the world of the Herd Member, or working as a physician when you’re a Predator or being on stage in front of the entire school when you grew up an Outsider. Put yourself in their world and you will have a sense of how things manifest for that person.

Sure, most cops are scotts. Well, duh, the job description: put shiny metal objects on your body, have the right to drive as fast as possible while making a lot of noise, chase people with impunity and when you catch them put them in restraints…oh yeah, shoot off a gun …whenever.

Sound like any personality type you know? However, there are rogers and clarks who end up in uniform, one of the boys (or girls) in blue. Of course, their worlds, their personal realities cast the fun parts of the job in entirely different light. As a result, the rogerian police officer ends up being an administrator and Chief or Sergeant and the clark tries for Detective and ends up teaching Law Enforcement in the local Community College.

You get the idea.

If you have any questions about the ‘Everything Rule’ be sure to write a Comment.

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

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘..of occupations, avocations and worldviews’

November 21, 2017 By

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

(Refresher: the Wakefield Doctrine maintains that we, all of us, are born with the potential to experience reality, (and the world). in one of three characteristic manners: as does (an) Outsider (clarks) or a Predator (scotts) or the Herd Member (rogers). At a certain early age, (the Doctrine tells us), we settle into one of these three ‘worldviews’; we become clarks or scotts or rogers. We do not lose the potential to relate to the world as do ‘the other two’, they are available if we but find ways to access them.

The Wakefield Doctrine wears the label of ‘personality theory’, but it really isn’t. What it really is, is a perspective on the world, the people in our lives and our ownselfs. The Doctrine is a tool for adding to, enhancing our understanding (of the world and the people and ourselves), but has little interest in any whys or wherefores. The goal is to add to our understanding and appreciation of ‘how we relate ourselves to the world around us‘. (Not, ‘how we relate to the world around us’, rather ‘how we relate ourselves to the world around us’. Big difference.)

And so, since it, (the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) is nothing more than an additional perspective, what good is it?*

The cool thing about self-improvement and the Wakefield Doctrine is that we don’t have to acquire anything that we don’t already possess. Thinking that you need to learn to be more demonstrative, more accessible on an emotional level? No problem, your rogerian aspect will totally help. Need to temper your temper, pre-empt your impulsiveness? You have a clarklike aspect. Feel like you want to task risks, leave behind the caution and conservativeness? Just check in with your scottian aspect.

So it’s all there, provided you can let it out. And that will be the topic of our next post.

 

 

*  The extent to which a new idea is accepted and embraced by others is very much influenced by the claims made by the originator (of such ideas). It is not about providing the answer to the ‘what’, as it is about making the answer to the challenging question of ‘what’s in it for me?’ immediately clear. Even more so, it depends upon providing this information cloaked in the appearance of being widely accepted and incontrovertibly true and certain. (Which, for one of the three worldviews, is a totally redundant description).  If this is a valid observation1, my own predominant worldview is very much a factor. Not in a good way. Let me explain2.

It will help to consider this: there are three jobs/occupations/avocations/hobbies/styles-of-effort-to-influence-those-around-us. (Yes, just three).

The three jobs are: scientist, salesman and machine operator.

The scientist is concerned with a world of ideas, reveling in explanations and laboring to refine proofs of principles that underlie the workings of the world and (especially) the people in it. The salesman lives for the people they encounter each day, it is not simply about getting them to buy his/her product (or service or convictions or willingly-submit-to-whatever-it-is-the-salesman-wants…at that particular moment), it is about the interaction/negotiation/the ‘Close’. The machine operator lives for the precise execution of rules and laws, relationships and ideals, they find joy (and frustration) in learning the correct way to do job/cook a meal/build a society/live life.

As you’ve probably guessed, each of our three ‘personality types’ is more appropriate to one of these jobs than the others3.

  1. clarks (Outsiders): scientists. if you think hard and observe the world around you, the rules that people follow to feel a part of the group will become knowable. (Career recommendations: school teacher (elementary or college), nurse (pediatric or geriatric) sheepherder, librarian, counselor (effective but not successful), one-term politician)
  2. scotts (Predators): salesmen… I don’t really need to give examples here, do I? The guy on TV, the politician, the early developer in school doesn’t care if you buy or not (well, sorta) that they get to try to get you to (buy what they have/believe what they want you to/do what they feel like doing is what life is all about. (Career suggestions and ideas: cop (or robber), surgeon (but not physician and totally not an oncologist), nurse (charge nurse) teacher (High School industrial Arts, Gym or French…)
  3. rogers (Members of the Herd): machine operator.. precision is the result of following the rules and precise application of the rules is how you get to that point, there is a right way to do everything (add and subtract/machine aircraft parts/play in a symphony/treat cancer/live life… being the best among many is its own reward. (Careers: Accountant, attorney (prosecuting) physician (oncologist), chemist, scientist, philatelist, chef (but not cook), firefighter politician (successful, multi-term)

That’s about all we have time for today. Thanks for coming by.

….the point? My misgivings about how I present the Wakefield Doctrine? Wellll I guess to learn the answer, you’ll just have to keep reading the posts.

1)  see!?!?! damn!

2) enough with the explanation!! tell ’em what it’ll do for them!

3) the Wakefield Doctrine has something called ‘the Everything Rule’. It states, somewhat obviously, that ‘everyone does everything, at one time or another’. What that means is even though the most effective police (in the present culture) are scotts, that does not mean that there are no clarklike or rogerian police men and women. And, chemists are more likely to be rogers, yet you can find scotts and clarks in that profession. (look for the exploding laboratories). The point is, how well one does in a profession or job is very much related to how (that) job or profession manifests to them. One of the reasons that rogers make excellent accountants is that, for them, the world is quantifiable and knowable. So working with numbers is a joy, in and of itself.

 

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