the Wakefield Doctrine

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

This is the Wakefield Doctrine’s contribution to the Ten Things of Thankful (TToT) bloghop. A grat blog that asks the timeless question: ‘So?’* A voluntary compilation of the people, places and things that we find eliciting, prompting and otherwise gettin’ in our face with a sense of gratitude. (For the thing, not our face(s))

This is our list for this early-Winter week:

1) Una

2) Phyllis

3) the Wakefield Doctrine

4) safely over-exertioning

5) the Six Sentence Story bloghop.   Six Pix of the Week: ‘It’s Only Rock and Roll‘. by D Avery

6) the Unicorn Challenge bloghop. ‘corn Pick…. err Uniaminous… er. ‘Hey! Read This ‘un’   “Spawning‘ by Sally

7) Friend of the Doctrine, zoe, (also former host of the Six Sentence Story) has written a book. ‘Before They Met…‘ (listed over on Amazon, check it out).

8) tree removal… heavy wood sections from Point A to Point 2

9) something, something

10) Secret Rule 1.3

* not really coined by Robert Heinlein, but a stand-out usage in his seminal SF novel, ‘Stranger in a Strange Land‘.

music vids

*

*

*

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

Damn! This* is dry. Interesting. Bordering on witty, slipping into boredom.

See?!?! Right there!

ok. pencils down. No, this will not be on the text.

the Wakefield Doctrine is an additional perspective on life, the world and the people who make it up. It is both tool and map. (Not instructions or hot assistant wearing a provocative outfit/clothing). It is presented as a theory of personality though there is no particular drive to justify suppositions, validate inferences or don a cap and gown (or tweed sports coat with leather patches). The terminology is used to justifiy using the term personality types, of which there are three. clarks, scotts and rogers.

{Spoiler Alert! New Readers, if you’re hoping for a fun narrative, outlandish metaphors, out-fricken’-rageous descriptions of behavior set in a rhetorical setting like a turnip in a museum display of Fabergé Eggy-weggs this is not the post. Go back to this post… or this one. Read it. Come back and ask your questions}

The Wakefield Doctrine is but one of countless attempts to make sense of the world, the human condition and how-to-get-through-Life-relatively-un-scathed.

The Beauty-part of who the Doctrine is intended to help is that, (and thank god! for the concept of secondary and tertiary aspects), the only people still reading are those who have a certain quality: once referred to as ‘flexible intelligence’, at time derided as, ‘jeez will you ever stop dreaming and apply yourself‘ or, even, “No! There never was a place called Kansas. This is as real as it is ever going to get.’ In other words clarks (or scotts with a significant secondary clarklike aspect / roger with a significant secondary clarklike aspect).

scotts and rogers have no particular need for the Wakefield Doctrine. Why? Why should they? Go find your (favorite, longest-standing) scottian friend and tell them about the Wakefield Doctrine. Go find your leading rogerian friend (the one who will spend time with you without requiring the presence of others) and explain the Wakefield Doctrine.

The result? They will laugh. (And we’re intending to characterize this reaction as laughing / laughing.)

The reason? As scotts and rogers with the minimum level of clarklike secondary aspect they enjoy what you seem to get out of the Doctrine. But, on the most fundamental level, they’re fish puzzled by your fixation on this ‘water’ thing (or quality or secret insight), if only you’d keep a consistent description, but hey, that’s the thing they like about you. You’re so crazy …and you don’t try to compete.

So what the hell is this!!! ⇑ ?!?!

Thank god we sent away the New Readers!

Where’s the good-natured fun, the silly metaphors of the early years?

Here’s a question: (Despite the voice in our heads going all, ‘You know what they’re gonna say man’).  Do we look upon our change in writing style as a deficit or an asset. Clearly our posts are far more self-aware and, arguably less fun/funny. But, what about the New Reader? Do we assume they’ve grown up over the years or do we need to incorporate the early style into our current in the hope of providing an insight into our little personality theory that is sufficient to the task of providing enough for them to start seeing the clarks, scotts and rogers in their world?

… tomorrow we’ll return to the task of discussing why practicing seeing the Wakefield Doctrine at work in your own reality will dramatically enhance the benefits you derive.

ya know?

* renewed resolve to present the Wakefield Doctrine to a new generation of Readers

*

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

(so, the real question is: is that Prim-er or Pry-mer? Being a clark, establishing the answer, even at the cost of totally killing our opening hook is worth it. So hold on while we check)

ok, we’re back. appears to be ‘dealer’s choice’ on the pronunciation.

Let’s just assume that we’ve already shaken that random visitor, site-skimmer, bored-in-traffic, phone-in-hand Reader. We know, of course,  something about the people who become Readers, even before we encounter, exchange comments, or otherwise interact with them.

That said, we remind ourselfs that this Post is for them, not about them. What we know about Readers is not at issue here. What is, is writing a post that allows the new Reader to get the basic concept of the Wakefield Doctrine and begin to put it to use. One post. (The legendary, if not apocryphal Perfect Doctrine Post.)

The Wakefield Doctrine is a personality theory consisting of three personality types. Everyone exhibits the behavior and traits and irrefutable indications of fitting the description of the three:

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

It’s tempting to contrast the Wakefield Doctrine system with other, more….er rogerian personality schema by saying that the personality traits, tropisms and behavior of the mainstream guys like Oscar, Mayers, Briggs and Consonants, Allport, out our personal fave, Sheldon’s Constitutional Theory of Somatotyping (motto: “Not sure yet about ‘look-at-my-handwriting-Hamilton there, but Ben? total roger“). But we won’t. After all, this post is not about them.

where were we?

New Readers!

Yeah. well we’ve managed to shake the dilettantes, so let’s get down to the single binding concept of this here personality theory here. The real fun, the ‘hey! tell us how we can spot people by their personality‘, follows. We will provide plenty of descriptions, indications and ‘anyone doing this…’ guidelines in the posts to follow. However, it might be best you stop here and subscribe to this blog, so. you don’t miss nothin’

The Wakefield Doctrine is, first and foremost, about the relationship we, all of us, maintain with the world around us and the people who make it up. The Wakefield Doctrine says that everyone is born with the potential for (establishing) one of three characteristic styles of acting and interacting with the world. These are the three listed above, the clark, the scott and the roger. The Wakefield Doctrine will insist that everyone has a perfect personality type. The Wakefield Doctrine says that because we are not born with a personality hardwired, genetically-coded or even divinely destined to stand on the sidewalk with our two best friends and, observing a popular local restaurant across the street and a line of people waiting to get in and say: (a low-key clarklike suggestion, a happy and energetic scottian encouragement or a satisfied rogerian validation).

… ok. our current thinking on writing Doctrine-posts? Keep it short and to the point.

New Readers? Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine. (Don’t be alarmed if you think you see an increasingly distinct, purple and blue ink club stamp on the back of your hand. We know that some of you are thinking, “Sure, intriguing, but they aren’t so organized. One more post. That’s it.)