predicting human behavior | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 13 predicting human behavior | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 13

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

June 28, 2022 By

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

Lets go try and find a reprint on the Doctrine and fairy tales, shall we?

ok.

kinda.

(In the context of the common misperception of clarks as the one (of the three) with the smallest-by-social-standing ego weight*, we’ll contribute something original. Well, as original as Heraclitus** might offer us cover for it being ….kinda original.)

Full Disclosure: Part of us feel it is shirking our responsibility to simply post what has been written, even with the understanding that old posts are new posts to New Readers. But, since we’re not against restating some of the more original insights and observations let’s run out a couple of the old favorites.

clarks abhor being the center of attention, but will not tolerate being ignored

a scott, alone in a room, isn’t

clarks are crazy, scotts are stupid and rogers are dumb

Reprint From April 2013

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

Melanie and Janine and them wrote a Comment saying how much they enjoyed our little look at the Fairy Tale ‘Hansel and Gretel’ and went on to say how they were looking forward to today’s Post as we continued our analysis of these cultural icons vis-a-vis the Wakefield Doctrine. Being a clark and all, I am certainly not one to ignore a request, even if I did have a perfectly good ‘re-print Post’ all set to go for today. It was a Post from the first full year of the blog, replete to references to the foreign exchange students at Millard Fillmore High and there might even be a mention of our favorite valedictorian, and all-around cool co-ed, Janie Sullivan. It (this Post that was to have run today), even had something resembling a survey meant to determine personality types. The writing is a little rough, but it was fun to read. (Have I indulged in being rogerian enough in my un-gracious acquiescence to Melanie’s and Janine’s request yet?) No? Well how about this: for a personality type that is hardly ever accused of wearing our hearts on our sleeves, clarks place the feelings of others way, way before their own. Even if the other person does not explicitly state that their feelings or emotional state are at risk, clarks will invariably think, ‘it would be awful if their feelings were hurt’ or thoughts to that effect. Simple empathy?  …or the hint of something deeper, something more inextricably tied to the worldview of the Outsider?  Well, think about it… but first a little Fairy tale Doctrine-style!

Jack and the Beanstalk: (that’s right!, this is a movie now), I guess I don’t have to expound on the role of Fairy Tales as indoctrination for the totally impressionable members of society. Well, yes I do. Ask yourselfs ‘who, of all the potential audience for these tales of violence, greed, subservience and rogerian membership is the one group (demographic, if you will) who has zero choice in being exposed to the sick, sick message that most of these tales are disguising?
Give up?  The most impressionable! the ages: (negative) six months (‘Look honey! I bought the complete Grimms Fairy Tale on dvd, so after the baby arrives, you can just hit ‘Play‘) to 18 months (“…leave the dvd running with the volume real low… it will lull her to sleep, it’s been such a long time, sure! leave the door open, we’ll only be a room away) to 2 years ( “would you read to the baby? I so have to get back to the gym  just take whatever you are reading and sit with her, put the dvd on and you can read your book and he will think you are reading to him…“) to 3 years (“…no dear, there is no such thing as a troll under the bridge, no matter what the big kids are saying“).

The victims are always the defenseless children. So, back to Jack and the Beanstalk. That is certainly an uplifting tale of triumph over adversity, beyond criticism or reproach, non?

(as always from Wikipedia*)

Jack is a young lad living with his widowed mother. Their only means of income is a cow. When this cow stops giving milk one morning, Jack is sent to the market to sell it. (“Carlos Castaneda wrote a series of books about learning about right living, in one of these books, he relates how a brujo offers a young man 2 gourds in exchange for help carrying them to market. The young man agrees and when the task is complete accepts his reward and takes the gourds and opens them. He sees only food and water, and, expecting gold or other tangible rewards smashes both gourds on the ground and walks away. Am I the only one to see the short-sightedness in Jack and his mom’s instant reaction to the change in the cow?”) On the way to the market he meets an old man who offers to give him “magic” beans in exchange for the cow. (Chase Bank is currently advertising a wonderful new feature of their credit cards…direct deposit of paychecks. That’s correct, you can have the ease and convenience of having your earnings be transferred from your employer to Chase, as the radio ad holds, ‘leaving you time for the important things in life’)

Jack takes the beans but when he arrives home without money, his mother becomes furious and throws the beans out the window and sends Jack to bed without supper. (“…what a bitch! you sure she isn’t really Jill and this is a way messed up couple and she has, like family issues and maybe a substance abuse thing going? rational response to a disappointment, Mom!”)

As Jack sleeps, the beans grow into a gigantic beanstalk ( lmao…not even going to go near this one… hey! Janine! …you got any Reader overview on this? ). Jack climbs the beanstalk and arrives in a land high up in the sky where he follows a road to a house, which is the home of a giant. He enters the house and asks the giant’s wife for food. She gives him food, but the giant returns and senses that a human is nearby:

Fee-fi-fo-fum!
I smell the blood of an Englishman,
Be he alive, or be he dead,
I’ll have his bones to grind my bread.

However, Jack is hidden by the giant’s wife and overhears the giant counting his money. Jack steals a bag of gold coins as he makes his escape down the beanstalk. ( As well he should! He was a guest in the couple’s house, given food and shelter…of course he would steal from his hosts)

Jack repeats his journey up the beanstalk two more times, (!!!) each time he is helped by the increasingly suspicious wife of the giant and narrowly escapes with one of the giant’s treasures. The second time, he steals a hen that lays golden eggs and the third time a magical harp that plays by itself. This time, he is almost caught by the giant who follows him down the beanstalk. Jack calls his mother for an axe and chops the beanstalk down, killing the giant. The end of the story has Jack and his mother living happily ever after with their new riches (Happily) (ever) (After) ( magic beans = 1 cow, giant beanstalk = hyperactive hormones, opportunity to steal = the hospitality of non-larcenous childless couple,  live happily ever after =Priceless)

… forget  the analysis, if there was a full-grown blue-fin tuna in my 3′ above ground pool and you handed me a fully loaded shotgun… it would be less obvious than the message of greed and avarice and violence and self-gratification at any and all costs than this child’s tale. I mean, really. lol  luckily, we have the Wakefield Doctrineto make sense of it all!

Oh yeah… who’s who? Jack is a roger, his mom is a scott the giant is a roger and the giant’s wife is a clark

…now go to sleep, tomorrow is almost here

 

* not a ‘real’ term or concept in mainstream/popular psych, not even those fine folks at Oscar Meyer Pick-a-Number, Any-Number School of Personality

** one of our favorite old, dead guy quotes: “No man person ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s they’re not the same man person.”

 

ed. You know, we’ve never had a problem with Readers getting all escited about stuff in these post, getting worked up to the point of writing aggressive and critical comments. Too bad, in a sense, as that takes a much larger readership than we’ve had to date.

Yes,I did edit a timeless quote. And it set off a discussion in our head about…. “Wait a minute! You can’t do that. And, besides, its a fricken pronoun. And… and! that’s the cultural context the guy wrote it in. You think you’re doing something special? Making a statement? When you write your own timeless truth, then you can use whatever fricken pronouns you choose to… but if you want to use a quote, you should leave yourself out of it.”

…as you can see, the argument did not sway me.

Why? (Permit us a way-typical style of answering), we choose to replace the gender-specific pronoun with a …whatever pronoun for one reason:

  1. Dagwood Bumpstead
  2. Andy Capp
  3. Jackie Gleason and Frankie Fontanie

We plane to refrain from googling the above ‘reasons’ for now. Hopefully they, (the search returns), provide enough information for you Readers to get a sense of ‘why’.

Let us know in comments and, what the hell, if we continue on in this: ‘Dude! Lighten up, it’s a blog and a quote, chill. Have fun. We know the Doctrine is meant for fun, even if it’s explicitly stated to be gender, age and culture neutral.’

 

 

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

RePrint Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

June 20, 2022 By

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

Lets keep it simple this Monday. A brief intro/exegeis*

Glad you mentioned it. One of those Doctrine descriptions: a clark abhors being the center of attention but will not tolerate being ignored.

From June 20 2010

 

…(a) Dude!!!  (b) oh man! no frickin way (c) Jay, call me what you want, but you gots to see a doctor!..

(Now that we have had our little Sunday morning humor.) We are entering the week of the 26th of June, which means the week of the Firstaversary of the Wakefield Doctrine…yay

(Which might as well be the topic of today’s Wakefield Doctrine, Lesson of the Day.)
When it comes to celebrations in general and anniversary(s) in particular… clarks do not enjoy them, scotts doand rogers make them a part of their life.  In terms of adding to our understanding and use of (the Doctrine), what does knowing this do for us?  Two things: if you are curious about yourself, you can consider the reasons and ramifications of (your types) response to these events…which pretty much makes you a clark; if you are curious about how the other two relate to celebrations then, that makes you a clark (or possibly a momentarily bored scott).  Let’s look at the easy one first.

rogers love anniversaries, cause they are the benchmarks of tradition, the markings of history, all the things that make up the world (as a roger perceives it);
scotts like anniversaries and will glady accept an invitation for a simple enough reason, contained in one word: buffet
clarks do not like celebrations and/or anniversaries in general because they are affairs that by their very definition celebrate fellowship/shared experience/belonging

(…are we almost through here?…I have an Invitation to the Sherwin Williams Wall Paint Exposition…”Drying through the Ages“…have to pace myself here…)

Lol.  Yeah sometimes it do get a bit tedious…

…speaking of tedious…actually speaking of nothing to do with this Post, I have made ‘pop music’ a project.  That is to say, I (recently) made a conscious decision to acquire a taste for pop music.  Now this is such a clarklike thing to do that no further explanation should be required.  But I will anyway, cause we gots way too much white space still left.

The thing of it is, both scotts and rogers live in real worlds, to wit:
scotts one of appetites and aggression and rogers, damn! rogers live in a perfect world, each and everyone one of them. ( …ok the paint drying exhibit will wait…how can rogers all live in perfect worlds?…huh?… ) Well, I’ll tell you.  Rogers perceive the world in terms of what is quantifiable, accountable, provable. That is why they make such good engineers, accountants and doctors and priests.  ( …hold on! I get the engineers and accountants, I will even give you the doctors…but priests? tell me how the representative of a religion is the same as an engineer… go ahead…I’m waiting… )

Here it goes…rogers believe in the quantifiable, the measurable.  They believe in tradition and history and the preservation of culture and… religion.  While not  scientifically provable as say engineering, (religion) is totally quantifiable.  For example…the Ten Commandments (not Six for the children and Fourteen for adults in business) Ten.  That is the quantifiable way to live a life.  And since “organised” religion is a part of all civil society, rogers are the ones who will be found in the position of Keeper of Rules, Dispenser of Wisdom.   ( …perfect world….rogers….the point?… ) Oh, yeah.
The point here is, the only way a person can maintain the fiction of a quantifiable world is to limit the world to quantifiable things and then forget that they set the limits!

Thats how rogers can live in a perfect world. ( …oh-kay….and this has to do with Pop Music…how?… )

rogers live in a quantifiable world, where all is understandable, all is predetermined.  clarks, on the other hand, live in a world that is unquantifiable.
clarks being the creative one of the three, allow for any and all possibilities, choosing to believe in anything and subsequently believing in nothing.
clarks can wake up one day and say, “Pop Music really kind of sucks.  A lot of people seem to like it though, I guess I better listen to it and acquire a taste for it”.
(scott: “wtf! that don’t make no sense at all, you don’t like then it is not likable! wtf!!). ( roger : “well I can tell you why you should like the likable things and as for the unlikeable things, well there just is no need for them…lets talk about me…)

The project has been successful.  I can listen to Pop Music with a sense of appreciation (“sense of appreciation”  what a clark!! ( roger and scott))

Well, thank you Miss Sullivan for your help in finding the topic of the day.

And to close, Mr. B!  Do you have some music that might illustrate the point here today?  (oh, sorry about the harsh reference to you and your by-now-totally-aging scottian-wife-who-must-be-so-not-liking losing her youthful powers).

* no, you’RE absolutely correct, we can’t resist using a cool word whenever possible. And, to the roger out there: as a matter of fact, we did look it up. We spend a lot of time with dictionaries and other reference sources, that’s have the fun (lol**)

** back in the days of today’s Reprint, we became aware of a certain skill-deficiency when it came to the writing. Being a clark (note: a clark possessed by an interestingly intense, pervasive, and good-thing-this-obsession-wasn’t-like-for-chocolate-or-jogging, drive to bring the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine to as many people as possible… anyway, one of the things we got a kick out of was making up words. (To our credit, they were in such a context that the Reader would figure out what we meant. To their credit, they laughed with good-natured enjoyment). Where were we? Back up to the initial asteroid.

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

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘The devil, you say?/ The devil, you say’

June 7, 2022 By

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

Speaking of the the Everything Rule… (well, we were yesterday).

So here are three movie actors playing the role of Satan/the Devil/Lucifer

Can you see how the predominant worldview of the actors results in a different depiction of this rather culturally-durable figure?

Anticipatory Response: the Everything Rule states: “Everyone does everything, at one time or another.” In terms of the perspective(s) of the Wakefield Doctrine it simply means, there is no such ‘thing’ as something that is of the exclusive domain of a clark (or) a scott (or) a roger. We all exist in what is safest to refer to as a common reality*. “That is something only a scott would do.” “Acting like that is so rogerian, too bad I’m a clark, I’d love to be that self-absorbent.”

To account for what is often very different ways, (among the three predominant worldviews), we employ the ‘manifest’. “Hey! I need a finish carpenter, do you know any rogers in that part of the business.”  “The award to the top real estate agent in the office, this year is a tie! It goes to rogerian male and scottian female!”

‘Yeah, but, you’re talking about actors playing parts. They are working from a script, thats not the real person being the devil. Blame the writer.’

We’ll let the New Readers find their way to reconciling the person and the role, at their own pace. The journey is the trip.

But! Lookee here! The role of the devil as (manifested) ‘delivered’ by a clarklike, scottian and rogerian actor.

We’ll let you sort ’em out.

*

Predominant worldview 1 (Robert DeNiro as Lucifer)

Predominant worldview 2 (Al Pacino as Satan)

Predominant worldview 3 (Gabriel Burns as the Devil)

 

* while predicated on the concept of personal reality, and much as we’d like to see it, just because our reality is personal to us versus your’s to you, sorry, no secret ability to fly or be invisible or be emotion-proof.

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

RePrint Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

May 9, 2022 By

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

 

Full Disclosure: When we find ourselfs, unceremoniously dumped at the foot of the on-ramp to Highway Workweek, we assume we’re in no condition to get a ride. So, many Mondays (as Glen used to say, “Hey!! Many Mondays!! What a great name for a rock group!“) we go in search of a post to reprint. One good reason: 1) takes the pressure off to be clever at the start of the week, b) usually, the act of cutin’ and pastin’ generates a new insight into this here personality theory here.

In any event here, from 2014:

…sorta, but this one is making an effort to blend in, pass as a 'real person'

…sorta, but this one is making an effort to blend in, pass as a ‘real person’

At the heart of the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers is personal reality(aka worldview), as in: the reality of the Outsider (clarks), the life of the Predator (scotts) and the world of the Herd Member (rogers). It’s cool that, while this idea is somewhat more exotic a notion than say, ‘measure twice / cut once’ or ‘a stitch in time / saves nine’ or even,  ‘easy come / easy go’, I haven’t heard any objection from Readers on this personal reality thing being too weird. Having said that, I have been remiss, of late, in not emphasizing how ‘real this reality is’ (for the individual).  I will say here that a great deal of the benefit derived from using the Doctrine to help navigate through everyday life,  is a direct result of knowing that ‘the other person’ may very well be looking out on a world, while very similar to the one I’m experiencing, is not, necessarily exactly the same as mine. Why is this so important? Because it allows us to accept the behavior and motivations, impulses and actions of the people in our lives, at times when we would otherwise, be scratching our heads and saying, “Why on earth would they go and say a thing like that?”

Most of us compare/judge/assess/evaluate and otherwise try to make sense of the behavior of the people around us, on the basis of our own standards and understanding of the world, reality. This is quite natural. After all, we’re  all living in the same reality, right? So,  in any of life’s never ending supply of situations/interactions/conflicts/opportunity(s) that calls for a deliberate response, everyone else should chose the same course of action right?   sure all the time… just yesterday, I was standing in line at the supermarket checkout (3rd back from the Cashier who had the Dr. Who teeshirt on under one of those bib-vest/things that the produce managers used to wear with like one of those Dyno markers in a holster, (this girl didn’t have one of those, but she did have a phone with ‘Metallica’ embossed on it), and she also had a streak of green color in her hair and lots of what looked like magic marker for eye shadow, making her look a lot like Lizbeth in the movie, ‘The Girl with The Dragon Tattoo’ (the original version with Noomi Rapace, of course))..  anyway, as I was standing there I see some woman walk up and cut in line, which is totally ….not a nice thing to do.  Of course, most people, at least those not familiar with the Wakefield Doctrine, would be inclined to think, “how rude! who would do such a thing”. Those (of us) having the Doctrine as a tool, we’re, all like,  ‘awright! cutting in line! roger or a scott or even a clark?‘   …as result,  we are not bound up in an mental internal conflict of understanding how a person could be so rude/can’t they see that everyone is waiting in line politely/don’t they know the rules?!….

The goal of today’s Post is to remind us all that:

  • if the cutter-in-line is a scott, then what he/she sees as she/he approaches the checkout area is: a portal to the freedom of the parking lot, like the savannah in early evening full of passion, promise and opportunity, and lying between her/him are hyenas, wildebeests and maybe (it’s a little hard to tell from this distance) the leader of another pride that…. but there is the promise of the parking lot…. time to pounce/attack/charge!
  • if the cutter-in-line is a roger, then what she sees as she/he approaches the checkout area is: a properly ordered row of humans, being assessed (of the) value of their food choices, but!  there is some disorder…the second person from the back, seems to be not paying attention to anything… looking around and joking and…totally insulting, lagging behind in the forward (orderly) movement of the line! that is an affront, an insult and they clearly need to be shown the proper etiquette of line sex (i.e. the ‘intercourse’ of the super market, step an extra step closer to the person in line, reach past them to get the divider for the groceries…. (if signals are positive) touching the person’s food items, ‘are these your pears? they look delicious’  …)
  • if the cutter-in-line is a clark, then what he sees is the parking lot beyond the glass and an increasing need to find a bathroom/what she sees is the parking lot beyond the glass and an urgency to get home for a few quiet moments…putting away groceries, luxuriating in the sense of home… before the ‘better half’ gets home and decides: a) to point out what the produce reminds him of and putting those away can wait…a couple of minutes, anyway or 2) ask why she picked ‘that brand’ wasn’t’ she aware of the latest Consumer Reports and, anyway, why are the tomatoes stacked on top of the onions

 

Congratulations! You have totally made it through the First Post of Neutronium Week at the Wakefield Doctrine… I totally am looking forward to your Comments and Remarks and such

 

1)  “…to refer to extremely dense substances resembling the neutron-degenerate matter theorized to exist in the cores of neutron stars;”  (wikipedia and them)  which, of course, is our clever reference to the light and graceful writing style often encountered in these pages

 

*

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

…fffFriday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

April 29, 2022 By

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

Was going to do a ‘Phuhket Friday’ post. Search as we might, just could not find the previous post(s) using that, oh so clever,…. err misnomer*

I know it was from the ‘Snide Period’ which ran, like, between 2011 and the end of 2012. That was a fun time here at the blog. A post a day. Not the slightest concern with quality of writing or rhetoric, just the exhilaration of discovery… uncovering the manifestations of the Wakefield Doctrine in the average day. We wrote because there not only was much to say, to share with Readers, but it just made sense. To write it all down. Totally a gift. Never was an effort.

It’s fun, though, even when I think, ‘Really, another Reprint?’ This happens. We consider the Doctrine as it relates to those of us who enjoy it’s benefits and the world that surrounds us. (lol… clark much?)

But it’s Friday, so lets get all Fridistic on the up-coming row of hours.

For the last day of the traditional Work Week** lets get all bullet-pointy. For the three predominant worldviews, Friday is:

  1. clarks(Outsiders) the hope of sneaking into the party under the cover of raucous rogers and free-falling scotts. clarks believe that Fridays are like practice quizzes in school, the fear of getting too many correct answers is greater than getting too many wrong and, not even on the scale of dreaded-outcomes, the disappointment of realizing neither;
  2. scotts(Predators), you know how, in, like the Olympics, some athletes like, jump up in the air from a standing position as a way to stretch before actually competing? thats kinda Fridays for scotts. What with the Predator being their behavioral metaphor, they’re jumping like that to get a better view over the surrounding territory, trying to identify the type of prey they’ll soon be enjoying;
  3. rogers(Herd Members) because they’ve earned it. No, really. Go ahead and disagree or mildly challenge that assertion/assumption and you will be doing your rogerian friend a favor, they always welcome a challenge as that is invariably the simplest way to orient the Herd on their position, aka the center.

(ok… promised, or inferred reprint from 2011)

*

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

(Funny thing about producing videos for Video Friday, sometimes the idea for a video is fully formed and all the effort is easily directed at execution, i.e. taping and up-loading and editing. Other times there is not the slightest hint of an idea or topic and we simply do something and post the results. And then there are the times….)

The video Post intended for today’s Video Friday post will not be seen today. Last observed floating into the ether, all attempts to download, re-load, upload or otherwise publish this 20 minute exposition on the value and utility of the Wakefield Doctrine have met with failure. Further efforts to re-create, simulate or otherwise try to salvage the video have been postponed indefinitely.
Instead we will have an encore1 presentation of the wildly popular…Saturday Night Drive  Episode…

Well, that certainly was refreshing!

(….the Post Title?  Why do you think it should have anything to do with content?  …oh!  You are a new Reader…that makes sense… I can see why you might wonder if there is a connection.  Funny you should mention that… )

How To Tell (if you are in a converstion with) a clark:

  • measuring the level of eye contact involves the use of imaginary numbers and the ( negative of ) the square root of pi
  • the density of verb modifiers ( both legitimate adverbs and illegitimate-made-up-adverbilizers ) is higher than Lindsey Lohan at the Norml Annual Lifetime Achievement Awardssss
  • seemingly random references in support of the main topic of the conversation, (op. cit.  Gibbon’s Rise and Fall of the Klingon Empire)
  • the ability ( and willingness )  to continue a conversation that was interrupted 4 months ago…
  • for conversations involving 2 clarks, the tendency to ‘bump into each other’ (conver.. uh sorry…conversationally) speaking
  • funny, funny asides…totally without regard to the seriousness of the conversation… ( “hey, she always said she would die of cancer…joke’s on her, no”? )

The Post Title refers, in a general sort of way, how each of the three personality types view dreams…  further questions on this topic should be addressed to Molly  (who is  said to be considering the position of HeadMistress of the (new) Wakefield Doctrine Early Ed Program…)  of course, if your questions are of a more…dynamic  nature ( relating to dreams and such )  you might want to ring up Ms. AKH.  …and if you are in a total rush and just want the ‘down ‘n dirty’  try  Alx C.  that boy will set ya straight on what to dream about and how to not get caught doing it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AH8-DZ2W17c

1)   encore (interject) 1712, from Fr. encore “still, yet, again” (12c.), generally explained as being from V.L. phrase *hinc ad horam “from then to this hour” (It. ancora “again, still, yet” is said to be a French loan-word).

Whenever any Gentlemen are particularly pleased with a Song, at their crying out Encore … the Performer is so obliging as to sing it over again. [Steele, “Spectator” No. 314, 1712]

*

* no, not a rogerian expression… closer to a scottian word rassle

** yeah, we know! as dead as …well, dead (lol)

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