predicting human behavior | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 20 predicting human behavior | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 20

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘of renewal and resuscitation’

October 5, 2020 By

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

That, when I begin to type my standard intro-line (‘Welcome to…’) the WP autocorrects no matter what letters I use shouldn’t bother me; that, sometimes, I let it, should.

We could consider the role of ‘energy’ in the quality of our daily lives, and by ‘we’ I mean ‘me’ and by ‘consider’, I mostly mean, ‘the Reader reads’ and by ‘the Reader’, well, that where things get interesting.

After all, one of the beauty parts (as Lou Collins would’ve said) of this world of blogs and blogging is that we have all the benefits of companionship and friends and such that is available in the ‘real’ world, without the responsibility and emotional upkeep that the mundane requires of it’s participants.

‘Communication is the problem to the answer’ suggestive? Sure. A description of the goal of the Wakefield Doctrine? Kinda*

At the heart of the Wakefield Doctrine is the simple (but very difficult to acquire) power of perspective.

ok. enough of the ‘hey!! write one of those ‘oh-my-god-I-can’t-believe-you-made-that-connection’ posts that were the style here, back in the heyday** of the Wakefield Doctrine.

(This post is the result of a October 4th Resolution*** to write more, with the goal being of a certain clarklike characteristic to expend effort in a cart-horse manner. lol)

The Wakefield Doctrine is a perspective on life, the world and the people who make it up. Grounded in the notion that all of us are born to experience the world in one of three characteristic manners, as the Outsider(clarks), the Predator(scotts) or the Herd Member(rogers), this personality theory offers an opportunity to see the world as the other person is experiencing it. The key premise to this, ‘personality theory’, is that reality is, to small but perceivable degree, personal. What makes one’s reality personal is the character of the relationship between the individual and the surrounding world.

The Wakefield Doctrine maintains that the most useful, (and, fun), way to characterize the relationship is, as mentioned: Outsider, Predator and Herd Member.

For reasons not yet understood, we all settle into one of the three realities, (predominant worldviews), at a very early age. Although we never lose the capacity to experience the world as do ‘the other two’ we proceed to grow, age, mature and otherwise develop our style of interacting with the world in response to the character of our world. One might say, I have the perfect personality type, given the nature of the world I had to contend with as a child:

  • clarks growing up in a reality in which they are Outsiders, learn to avoid the spotlight, while at the same time, searching for the missing piece, the one bit of information they apparently lack, something that clearly, most everyone around them were taught, given how comfortable they all seem with each other… they all belong. Outsiders do not.
  • scotts live in the world of the Predator where life is threat and reward, pleasure and discomfit, win and lose, a simple life which does not provide a whole lotta time to reflect on the meaning of things that do not appear to be chasing you or are not running away,. Predators live for the day, not so much philosophy as strategy.
  • rogers are a part of a complete and wholly quantifiable world, growing up, the Herd Member does not spend time hiding from others or chasing others, rather they spend their time learning the ways of those closest, this learning is not a discovery of something new as it is practice of something, (a Way of Life) that is tried and true.

Thats all we have time for today. However, the effort has, for me, already been rewarded. (Besides the tuneage)

Hey! Tell your friends you’ve come across a really fun personality theroy.

 

* but not really

** thanks to our friends at etymonline for:

heyday (n.)
also hey-day, late 16c. as an exclamation, an alteration of heyda (1520s), an exclamation of playfulness, cheerfulness, or surprise, something like Modern English hurrah; apparently it is an extended form of the Middle English interjection hey or hei. Compare Dutch heidaar, Germann heida, Danish heida. Modern sense of “stage of greatest vigor” first recorded 1751 (perhaps from a notion that the word was high-day), and it altered the spelling.

*** yeah, I agree, doesn’t quite have the gravitas of ‘New Year’s Resolution’ but then, as the old trope would hold, ‘Its New Years Day somewhere, or, at least, sometime’

the above tune started us off on this post, the following is soundtrackistic for the post that picks up where the strikethrough ends

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

TT0T -the Wakefield Doctrine-

October 4, 2020 By

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

Autumn’s arrival, like the first doubts about a loved one, spreading its russet tendrils; smothering the lively colours of summer’s joy.

 

This is our weakly contribution to the Ten Things of Thankful (TToT) bloghop. It was created by Lizzi and is currantly* hosted by Kristi.

The theme is gratitude, the (rhetorical) convention is a list of ten and the constraints are imposed by the individual. What more could an individual, caught up in the fun of seeing thoughts take on form and shape, ask for?

A total license? Why not? See Item 5

For the Wakefield Doctrine, the following represent things the existence of which inspire and incite the state of gratitude.

 

1) Una

2) Phyllis

3) the Wakefield Doctrine because it is a perspective that celebrates, (and facilitates), additional perspectives. and who wouldn’t benefit by additional perspectives, am I right? (lol… exactly!)

4) technology which provides almost enough distraction to make it through contemporary times un-scathed.

5) the Book of Secret Rules (aka the Secret Book of Rules) Simplest Description I’ve encountered: Like The Key of Solomon ( מפתח שלמה), ‘ceptin ya don’t have to wear silly clothes, fight off Pharisees or caliphs and while it won’t let you double your bank account, you can do anything else, provided you write a credible citation.**

6) Serial Stories: the Whitechapel Interlude and the Case of the Missing Fig Leaf

7) the enforced writing practice that comes as a fringe benefit to participating in the Six Sentence Story ‘hop. It’s fun, challenging and good for ya writing chops.

8) THIS SPACE AVAILALBLE (for anyone out there, reading while perched on a rail section of a socio-econ-geo-cultural division marker, curious? Want to try this bloghop out? But not badly enough to commit to a full post? Send in one of your Grats and I’ll post right here. See how it feels to see your thoughts in oled lights.)

9) our Friday afternoon walks (Una and I go around the block… at an invigorating 9 miles-per-hour)

10) Secret Rule 1.3

 

music

*

*

 

* canning season joke

** Secret Rule 7.2.4 ‘if they ask or, [I]f you find yourself backed into a corner, by a Reader wanting a ‘just, please, explain this Book, do you, like, make it up as you go along, or what…try the old superlative category and, by the time they read the footnotes1 you’ll be long gone

1) …exactly! the coast is clear!

You are invited to the Inlinkz link party!

Click here to enter


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

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

August 17, 2020 By

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

Looks like Summer is showing signs of breaking out in terminal autumn. Nothing un-ignorable as of yet… the beginnings of fade, individual leafs and such at this point. However, the overall effect is to leave one vulnerable to a did-I-really-see-that glance, maybe shifting your eyes as you drive, trying to locate an odd sound and when you return to the road ahead, it seems a bit more distant than you recall.

But enough of this ‘psychoanalyzin’ and dramatizin” as a certain woman from my way-distant past used to admonish we students.

This is still the Wakefield Doctrine blog. And it’s primary purpose has not changed. The reason for the blog is to make the incredibly useful perspectives it offers available to the largest number of people possible. To this end, is a more personal and specific goal (or, as I mistyped, gaol, which makes for a satisfyingly obtuse wordplay*).

The challenge I long since accepted is this: write a post that allowed the Reader to understand and apply the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine after reading it once. Whether or not, especially, if not, they’d encountered this blog prior to reading the post. This would be ‘the perfect Wakefield Doctrine post’. Still working on it.

(what? now?!?! it’s like, ‘five to’ you-gots-to-get-to-the-real-world!!)

(damn, that old saying is still true***)

The Wakefield Doctrine is a perspective of the world around us and the people who make it up. Based on the notion that all of us are born with the capacity to experience life in one of three characteristic ways: as would an Outsider(clarks), as a Predator(scotts) or the Herd Member(rogers). Each of these three inform the personal reality of the individual and, at an early age, we all settle into one, (and only one), of them. While we never lose the capacity to live in the world of ‘the other two’, the context in which we develop our style of interacting with the objective world, (aka personality), is reflected in which of the three worldviews of the Doctrine we exhibit.

When we learn the qualities of the three predominant worldviews, we’re in a position to know more about the other person than they know about themselves. The reason for this: by knowing the nature of the three realities, we can know how the other person is relating themselves to the world around them. (Not, ‘how the other person is relating to the world around them, but how they are relating themselves. Critical difference.)

By observing the relationship of, (the other person), to their world, we are then able to know most of their personal qualities, predilections, foibles and ….and favorite colors! (no, not this last****) And, of course, the more we know about the other person, the more we can predict how they act and interact. And, of further course, the process of learning more and more about another person requires us to identify with them. If we have the faith/self-confidence/desperation to put ourselves at risk by identifying with another person, our self-understanding can only grow.

Lastly, by attempting and failing to write the perfect Wakefield Doctrine post, we cannot help but to self-improve ourselfs.  Seeing how, having all three qualities within, by identifying with clarks, scotts and rogers, we must come to accept the good and the bad of the totality of ourselves. Not easy. Always beneficial.

Hope you enjoyed this post.

Don’t forget to share it and send it out to wherever you can, who knows who might read it and, rushing to their phone/computer/fax machine, sending the message, “By George I think I’ve got it!”

 

* jar, jar** as Friend-of-the-Doctrine, Clairepeek used to say/type

** her native language was Norwayian…. or..to play it safe, Scandinavish… (sorry, Claire… let us make it up to you in our music vid.

*** ‘When the Master is still in the bathroom, the Student walks to the front of the class and shares what they know‘

**** just a little personality survey joke

 

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

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

July 20, 2020 By

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

Know how cool the Wakefield Doctrine is?

…besides knowing more about the other person than you have any right to, given that you saw them for the first time as they joined the raffle ticket spaced line at the supermarket.

It, the Doctrine, not the line at the supermarket, also allows you to better know your-own-self.

How? (You ask, rather rhetorically, seeing how you’re ‘out there’ while I’m still here typing. Hell, I haven’t even hit Publish yet. Damn! This is metaphysical gold!)

New Readers: If you’re here for the first time, we’re serious with the single word question. While it normally requires more than one data point* to figure out a person’s predominant worldview, aka personality type: clark(Outsider); scott(Predator) or roger(Herd Member), the process is simple.

Learn the nature of the (three personality types) relationship to the world around them along with their overt characteristics. Then, when you’re standing in the line, eliminate the one that, ‘There’s no fricken way they’re a ….” That leave two worldviews. Now observe as much as you can, without getting creepy or arrested, and one will make more sense than the other. Another analogy:

The three worldviews are distinct ways a person sees, (actually, the right word is ‘experience’), the world around them. Think of them, (the worldviews), as lenses at the optometrist and see which one produces the clearest, truest image. You know, “Look at the image. Is this one [click] clearer than [click] this one? Now, how about [click] this one?” Thats how we determine the worldview of the people around us and get a secret box-seat to their lifes and times and such.

Back to our special quality.

The cool thing is how the Doctrine, even as it allows us to better understand the world and the people who make it up, is a tool for self-improving ourselfs. And the key to this lies in the stated ambition/goal of learning and applying the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine, ‘How do I relate myself to the world around me.’

As always, this: I said ‘How do I relate myself…’ I did not say, ‘How do I relate to the world around me.’

Know the difference and the pilot light flashes green and you in business.

(Useful, btw, in any situation, not just figuring out another’s predominant worldview. If you find yourself in a conflict with someone, something, some event in the ‘real’ world, ask the question: How am I relating myself to the world around me.**)

 

* ‘ceptin, maybe a scott, specifically ‘the eyes of a scott‘ One of the more fun and amazing things about this here Doctrine here.

** don’t forget to use the correct wording! a short cut will only reinforce the problem.

 

 

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

Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

May 27, 2020 By

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

 

To paraphrase an old saying, “When the teacher is in need of re-energizing, people will ask questions’

Friend of the Doctrine, Mimi, had a question in her comment on yesterday’s post…(the one that was, actually, an eleven minute video of me talking about a doctors visit and the Doctrine (of course)

Mimi: “Do Scotts get easily offended that other people have different opinions? Is that part of conquest, to make everyone think the same way you do? If so, that would explain a lot about a person i know.“

Good question for two reasons: a) the basis of understanding of the above is true of scotts requires appreciating how they (scotts) relate themselves to the world around them and, 2) the answer will enhance (your) facility at identifying the three personality types in your everyday world.*

In a sense, the best answer to Mimi’s question is ask, are we sure they’re a scott. This (question) is the foundation of good Doctrine practice. And, to try to keep this ‘answer’ intriguing, I will add ‘the reason this is good practice is because applying the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine is a lot like playing a musical instrument (including voice).

All people have the power to do things that will offend others. Which is almost the same thing as saying, ‘Everyone can take offense at the action of others.’**

(btw: my favorite approach to a quick read of a person’s predominant worldview (i.e. Outsider, Predator, Herd Member) is: eliminate the obvious, no-fricken-way-theys-a-clark/scott/roger right off the bat. The resultant, side by each comparison, simplifies the process, thereby speeding it up.)

Seeing how its rare that, after eliminating the obviously-not personality type, we’re left with a clark and a scott, lets assume you gots a brother-in-law (or whoever the putative scott in your question is) who might be a scott or a roger. Comparing the scottian worldview (Predators) to the rogerian worldview (Herd Members), what are the big differences? For rogers in a social interaction, everything is personal but not necessarily important; for scotts every interaction is important but rarely personal.

Being the Predator, a scott is ever alert1 to the people in their environment2 Now, lets say there’s one person who is standing out from the crowd, offering high volume opinions. This is where the fun of the Wakefield Doctrine really is,

…imagine the African savannah… maybe its mid-morning. The lion is in the shade of a Acacia tree. A slow-moving herd of antelopes passes by, a dusty flag signals their leaving the watering hole. The lion has fed her cubs, who are now dozing. Suddenly there is laughter in the distance. Hyena!! The lion notices and watches. The hyena is young, hungry and not too bright. The lion and lioness mate drop soundlessly to the ground, and step out of the shade, in clear view of the approaching animal. The hyena’s friends convince him to back away quietly. The lion and lioness return to the shade.

So! The answer is: ‘No a scott will not be offended (if by offended you mean, ‘take it personally’) at virtually anything anyone says.’ They, (the scott), might, if they’re bored enough, engage the person, you know, to have a little fun with their clearly outrageous opinions. This serves two purposes: its amusing and might cause one of the crowd to step out into the open… you know, the chase is everything.

The Everything Rule says: ‘Everyone will do everything at one time or another.’ Turn that around and say, a scott might encounter a person who offends them. The difference between a scott and a roger or a clark is that, by and large, offense is much more personal for them than it is for a scott.

 

* Mandatory Wakefield Doctrine User Warning! Experience has shown that once you see the clarks, scotts and rogers in your world, you may become unable to not see the clarks, scotts and rogers in your life.

ya know?

** who said that? Cynthia? Denise? Lizzi? …. “The Everything Rule!! The Everything Rule!!” You are all correct. Mimi is asking the question, lets let her come to the conclusion on her own, thank you very much.

1) one of the easiest and surest identifiers is what we refer to as the scottian gaze, the way all scotts have of being aware of their environment, they are never not paying attention

2) handy tip for identifying the scott(s) when you’re at a gathering of people you really don’t know: the scott will, interact with everyone there, will be confident and will ‘push everyone on the shoulder‘… figuratively (mostly lol). A primary drive for scotts is to establish ranking (their social ordering being that of a pack) wherever they are, even if they’ve been there before… the shoulder pushing (or comparable challenge) is how they accomplish this

 

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