Whensday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

March 13, 2024 By clarkscottroger

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

Remind us to discuss the principle of ‘more words get you more words’, in the context of the practice of writing.

This is kinda a RePrint/placeholder. Tonight is post our Six Sentence Serial installment (over at Denise’s Six Sentence Story bloghop).

before that:

the Doctrine is for you, not them.

the way that we relate ourselfs to the world around us (and the people who make it up) is the heart of the Wakefield Doctrine

speaking of heart, we all know that rogers exist in a reality of emotion, right? welll add to that, the quality of atemporality, i.e. they are, in their world, freed from the chains of: ‘dude, that was six years ago, let it go.’ In a lesser dramatic manner, of the three predominant worldviews, one more prone to say, ‘what did you mean when you said that’ (being a student of the Doctrine, you will be the position to surpass on the ‘said what’ and go right to the ‘said when?’)

unlike pretty much all the other popular personality schemes, schedules, systems and insights, the Wakefield Doctrine is not a club-shaped mirror.

Barber of Seville? sure give us a minute to look it up and paste it here.

got it! (lol … sometime we surprise our ownselfs…. this post… the last line.)

Il Barbiere di Siviglia

December 19, 2009

(“La ran la le ra la ran la la.”)

Largo al factotum della città.
Presto a bottega, ché l’alba è già.
Ah, che bel vivere, che bel piacere
per un barbiere di qualità!

Ah, bravo Figaro!
Bravo, brayissimo;
fortunatissimo per verità!
Pronto a far tutto,
la notte e il giorno
sempre d’intorno,
in giro sta.

Miglior cuccagna per un barbiere,
vita più nobile, no, non si dà.
Rasori e pettini, lancette e forbici,
al mio comando tutto qui sta.

V’è la risorsa, poi, del mestiere
colla donnetta col cavaliere
Ah, che bel vivere, che bel piacere
per un barbiere di qualità!

Tutti mi chiedono, tutti mi vogliono,
donne, ragazzi, vecchi, fanciulle:
Qua la parrucca. Presto la barba
Qua la sanguigna. Presto il biglietto
Figaro … Figaro
Son qua, son qua.
Figaro… Figaro…
Eccomi qua.
Ahimè, che furia!
Ahimè, che folla!
Una alla volta, per carità!
Figaro su, Figaro giù
Pronto prontissimo son come il fulmine:
sono il factotum della città.
Ah, bravo Figaro!
Bravo, bravissimo;
a te fortuna non mancherà. ‘
(The above is from a Libretto from different source, if any Italian speaking Readers would Comment if above is even close to video lyrics)

I can explain! Really, I can give you a rational basis for todays…Post?

Look, some Posts are well planned and (hopefully) well executed expositions of an idea or a theme, something that says, ‘we have all been thinking about… now that you mention it… since you asked, the answer to your question is…’ A Post that answers questions or provides valuable information.
The previous Post (‘…Pulled out of San Pedro late one night..’) is a perfect example of a rational and reasonable little Post.

Today’s Post….maybe not as much.
But hey, there was the (…when the moon hit your eye like a big pizza pie…) that was a little bit of the, (as roger might say) ‘spontaneous conception.’ school of Post writing. And there have been other Posts that seem to show up in the morning, screaming like a chicken with it’s head cut off “…write about this…write about this!!” (Apologies to any PETA PALS, my sub-conscious apparently has managed to get an ‘outside line’, as we used to say in the day of rotary dial phones.)

But it is my Post and you are (my) Readers, so the least I can do is come up with some explanation as to why we are watching opera, lyrics in Italian, video with English sub-titles. Surely there is something in the path I followed this morning (to end up here) that will lend even the slightest patina of rationality.

No, no there isn’t.

So screw it. Here is how it all went down.
Minding my own business this morning and decided to listen to the ‘famous Barber of Seville song’. (There has got to be a secret ‘sons of Rossini’ sect out there planning to attack Warner Brothers and steal all the Looney Tune archives. Bugs and Company having single-handedly destroyed most of this (and other reasonably enjoyable) opera by having Bugs or Elmer (in drag no doubt) doing an acceptable (to my 6 year old Saturday morning cartoon watching ears) rendition of this and other Great Music.

Anyway, not really a fan of opera, but this particular morning as I listened to (Figaro’s Aria), I could hear lyrics! Not just ‘figaro, figaro’. Sure, the lyrics have been there all along, but this time I heard them. This Figaro guy, he was telling a damn story!

And whatever, sub-conscious energy switch was thrown, I was stuck.
I mean, it was instant the hell with work! Find out more about the opera, find a video, do whatever has to be done so that I can to do Post all about this fine piece of music.

So, here you have it. Figaro’s Aria with libretto included.

And, yes Figaro was totally a roger.

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: personality types, predicting human behavior, the Wakefield Doctrine, Understanding Human Behavior

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

March 4, 2024 By clarkscottroger

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

This Monday morning’s RePrint post is interesting. It is a point on the continuum of development that is the difference between, ‘Good-That-Explains-It*’ ‘Yeah, that’s the word we really wanted.’

In the first couple of years we, (using the 1st person), explained the perspective of each of the three predominant worldviews in terms of (our) seeing/experiencing the world. Everyone would see the world either as would the Outsider (clarks), the Predator (scotts) or the Herd Member (rogers) and act/react/develop accordingly.

This verb was replaced by various forms of the concept of relationship. Rather than our predominant worldviews being defined as the product of our perception, it became a manifestation of the relationship (more precisely, ‘how we related ourselves to the world’). This is ultimately much more useful. It’s the character of our relationship that determined our experience of reality. You might say, ‘how we saw was what we are’.

whhoah!! dudes, maximal gravitation!

Lets take a beat, post the RePrint and let the day unfold**

Pretty simple, isn’t it?

RePrint!

Friday -the Wakefield Doctrine- of pop quizzes and bulletpoints

March 13, 2015

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

Don’t Forget! This Evening… Vidchat at Seven! (‘An Evening at George and Jane’s‘) stop by! it’s hosted by clarks, so that means what it lacks in social status, (“I can’t believe you missed it last Friday!! oh man! everyonewas there!!!!”), is compensated by odd conversations, funny in an interesting way and (sometimes) totally outrageous!

I trust you all know that we’ve found the Wakefield Doctrine to be useful to (any) effort to self-improve oneself. I (further) assume that everyone recognizes that the Doctrine is ‘three things to three people’. (And) that, it’s not even necessary that you determine which of the three you are, prior to trying to using our little personality theory to help you in your efforts. Start wherever you are right now. After all, ‘you can’t break it and, you can’t get it wrong‘. Yep, we still maintain that assertion about the use of the Wakefield Doctrine.

You do know, don’t you, that we can tell which of the three you are, purely on the basis of which of the three you initially say you are…. lol (Hey! New Readers! We have a Rule about identifying one’s predominant worldview. It’s your worldview, so no one can say, ‘By Power of the (fill in something relating to your own worldview) I declare that you are a ….!’ Well, they can say it, and you can even ask them to say it, but no one has any authority to impose their opinion of your worldview (dominant, secondary or tertiary aspects). Doesn’t mean we’re not all willing to share our understanding of the characteristics of the three worldview that are critical to understanding and identifying a person.

For example: one of the more difficult ‘calls’ to make: attractive male person who appears very confident, even to the point of aggressiveness, is he a scott or a roger? You might think, ‘Very aggressive that must mean scott!’ ok… but you want to go deeper than that*
they’re being aggressive, fine! …with/at/towards who? Are they ‘playing to the room’ or are they focused on one person.
Now… (here’s a critical question), is it about them or the person they are focused on? What happens when they are rebuffed and/or told to go jump in a lake? Do they laugh or do they seem to be taking it personally?

another very common situation (more often when a person seeks to determine their own predominant worldview): you see a clark, i.e. the poor posture, the mumbling, the odd, (but interesting), fashion choices, but then this very same person, for a moment, holds the attention of the entire room…. you’re thinking, ‘maybe this is a combination type part clark and part scott‘! You’d be right…but with the wrong conclusion. We all have one predominant worldview, but also the potential to see the world from the perspective of ‘the other two’. For some of us, this ‘secondary aspect’ is so significant that we develop some of the behaviors and strategies and coping mechanisms of this ‘other worldview’…. and these behaviors come to the surface at times usually at times of stress or duress, ( ‘hey! I want ‘cha ta meet someone!! these are my two cousins, Stress and Duress…. aint’ they hot?! you ever wanna to have a wild night lemme know!).

so… bottom line on identifying a person’s dominant worldview: we’re merely trying to infer how that other person is ‘relating themselves to the world around them’. know this and you know them

OK! end of Post. Don’t forget to join us tonight.

….sure! there’s got to be something I can say that will change your life (or have an effect for even just a single moment in your weekend)….

clarks: keep in mind this little fact that is shared by clarks alone…. more often than we allow, ‘it’s them, not us! If you walk away from a surprise conflict (is there any other kind for us?) feeling bad with a tinge of guilt that it was your fault? it’s them not you

scotts: yeah… your gut on this one is right and even though you almost can’t imagine how that family member can believe something so wrong about themselves…. it’s true and….and, chances are they’re used to it, so you don’t need to do anything immediately but, definitely know that they will appreciate whatever you try to do, even if it is ineffective

rogers: give yourself a break…. no, really. while finding and living ‘the Right Way’ confers to others nearly as much benefit as it does to you… they’ll survive if you take the weekend off, hell, they’ll enjoy it and you’ll have a re-energized feeling afterwards

7:00 pm

EDT

* the process of identifying a person’s dominant worldview is a lot like an optometrist eye test. you start looking at the person through the lens of two worldviews (you always throw out the obvious ‘no way’…. in our example above where we said, ‘attractive….confident…aggressive’? the ‘no way’ is a clark which leaves you with scottand roger. From here, you go for more and more intrinsic characteristics and you’ll find that one of the views becomes less clear as the other becomes more and more focused.**

** this same process is used when you identify your own worldview

* to clarks, at any rate¹

1) it remains true that anyone returning to this blog more than twice is a clark or (a) scott/roger with a significant secondary clarklike aspect

** sure, extra credit any Reader who just now got a visual of:

the muy creepy box thing in the HellRaiser franchise
an automated mechanical-rabbit thing at dogtracks
the intro-scroll from the start of the first Star Wars movie

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

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

February 27, 2024 By clarkscottroger

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

So what if we say, the following is an example of a meta-Doctrine post?

Reader’s response (in reverse the traditional ordering):

rogers: well, I don’t know how to tell you this but, that’s not quite what is happening, it’s simply a normal RePrint post with a power chord on the first beat
scotts: (grin) lay it on me
clarks: I’m listening

A quik Wik:

Metafiction is a form of fiction that emphasizes its own narrative structure in a way that inherently reminds the audience that they are reading or viewing a fictional work…”*

Yeah we can live with that. But of the three, clarks clearly have a deep-rooted affinity for meta (hell, they live in meta-time, narrating a life in which the audiance, on average, really wants to like the play, but they have lives. Real-person lives.)

We were going to go for something profound, but time is not our friend. (Time is no one’s friend. Time is the original incubus/succubus of the spirit*)

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- “… of Mondegreen(s), reality and clarks”

March 19, 2019

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

Live! From the waiting room of a dentist office. George Michael is singing an example of ‘the writer not realizing the true power of his own work*.

Which surely leads us to the wonderful word/concept ‘Mondegreen’

(…back in real time. A little more to tell you about)

This post is so for clarks (and scotts and rogers with significant secondary clarklike aspects).

It wasn’t ‘Careless Whisper’ that made me appreciate how interesting being a clark can sometimes be. It was Electric Light Orchestra’s ‘Don’t Bring Me Down’.

So I’m sitting there waiting for my hygienist (who is a clark) to call for me, so I did what any (of us would do) I looked things up. As it was, ‘Don’t Bring Me Down’ played from the ceiling. Naturally I thought, ‘so who is Bruce?’ And went to wikipedia (the best thing about the internet, from a clark’s perspective) and looked it up. I cite:

A common mondegreen in the song is the perception that, following the title line, Lynne shouts “Bruce!”. In the liner notes of the ELO compilation Flashback and elsewhere, Lynne has explained that he is singing a made-up word, “Grooss,” which some have suggested sounds like the Swiss/German expression “Gruß.” After the song’s release, so many people had misinterpreted the word as “Bruce” that Lynne actually began to sing the word as “Bruce” for fun at live shows”

OK I accept that.

Now this is where the fun we have (as clarks) begins…. mondegreen?! What might that be… all blue in linkage.

A mondegreen /ˈmɒndɪɡriːn/ is a mishearing or misinterpretation of a phrase as a result of near-homophony, in a way that gives it a new meaning. Mondegreens are most often created by a person listening to a poem or a song; the listener, being unable to clearly hear a lyric, substitutes words that sound similar and make some kind of sense.^[1]^[2] American writer Sylvia Wright coined the term in 1954, writing about how as a girl she had misheard the lyric “…and laid him on the green” in a Scottish ballad as, “…and Lady Mondegreen”

of course!

I smiled (to myself). This is part of the better part of the world of the Outsider.

The fun and genuine pleasure in knowing the Wakefield Doctrine began when I heard my name called, ‘Clark?’

Given that we spend a few minutes twice a year together, naturally I had long since told my hygienist about the Wakefield Doctrine. And, equally naturally, by virtue of being a clark, she immediately ‘got it’.

So as I sat back in the chair this morning she said, “So whats new?”

I smiled the smile of one clark to another.

“So you know that ELO song… I forget the name, its the one where they say ‘Bruce’?”

She nodded “I know the one you mean.”

“Well I looked it up and there’s this thing called a mondegreen and it’s a term for the times we hear one word and substitute it with another thats different but makes sense in a weird way, ya know?”

She smiled and nodded in acknowledgement and appreciation for the concept.

“You realize, of course, the implications of this for how we deal with reality, right?”

She laughed out loud and proceeded to tell me what it was I was thinking.

Thats the fun of the Wakefield Doctrine.

* ‘Careless Whisper’ I would argue that Seether’s cover of the song is one of those rare ‘better than original’

*eh…. not really a punch in the face, but what can you do?

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: personality types, predicting human behavior, relationships, self-improvement, the Wakefield Doctrine

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

February 12, 2024 By clarkscottroger

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

Quiet, little RePrint post (to prime the rhetorical pump) a quick Doctrine insight and on with the show.

ok, ok, time is doing that thing, like with the blind date saying, ‘Be right back. No, don’t wait to order. Just a little thing I need to do.’

Time! That’s it!

(New Readers? Next in value to the fact that we live in only one predominant worldview but have secondary and tertiary aspects, there is a thing in the Wakefield Doctrine referred to as ‘the Everything Rule’, What it means is: if one, (of the three), can do it/have it happen to them/experience it, then the other two can and does. How that thing manifests, in a given personal reality, that’s the important part.)

Of the three predominant worldviews, clarks have the most developed sense of time. Not, the rememberance of time (aka historical record) and not the passage of time (that place between ‘Go!’ and ‘Stop’,) That’s all we’ll say at this point.

(hey! clarks! Take a look at the clock. Got it? Now, in fifty minutes ask yourself self “Now?’)

(scottian and rogerian friends of the clark here in this case? Go ahead, ask ’em!)

-the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘of clarks and pre-emptive denigration’

May 4, 2015

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

(Note for New Readers: the Wakefield Doctrine is about nothing, if it’s not about understanding ‘the way that we relate ourselves to the world around us’.*)

This concept of pre-emptive denigration initially emerged from a conversation about how clarks tend to laugh too often. No! yeah, I did so say that! And I mean it, even though I suspect that making this statement will generate multiple parentheseses and feet notes…*

clarks laugh too often and, these events of laughter, are (often) the manifestation of preemptory denigration. We (clarks) laugh, (and self-denigrate), to take the pressure off ourselves. A clark will, at times, take on a responsibility that becomes the focus of attention of the people around them. It may be at the job or in class or perhaps even calling out a teacher who appears to be singling out our child in a negative fashion. No matter what the individual circumstance, there are times that clarks find themselves the center of attention. Somebody out there want to tell the Readers what the biggest fear of a clark is? Anyone? lol…. no, don’t worry! I won’t insist on a Comment. lol. I know you know! lets give the others a chance.

New Readers: the Wakefield Doctrine maintains that we live in one of three worldviews (personal realities). The personal reality that we grew up in is referred to as our predominant worldview and is sorta what others call personalty type. We have clarks (the Outsider), scotts (Predators!!!) and rogers (people who live in the world as a Member of the Herd). The really tricky part of this Doctrine is that these personal realities are real. They are not: interests or inclinations, (they aren’t) tropisms or sub-conscious drives, nor phobias or likes and dislikes. The world I woke up to this morning is the reality of the Outsider. And my way of relating myself to the world today is the most efficient and effective in terms of successfully navigating the course of my Monday, May 4th. Oh, yeah!! one other thing. You’re born with the potential of all three. You live in only one, but have the potential to have the behaviors and strategies of ‘the other two’ at times and to certain degrees (most often at times of duress).

ok! times up! the answer? ‘scrutiny’. What clarks fear the most (well, not quite, what they fear the most, but the way that clarks express to themselves, what they believe they fear the most), is commonly called scrutiny.

….where does the time go?! Quick wrap up:

clarks laugh too often in order to ‘hedge their own bet’…. (ex: I will write a book about the Wakefield Doctrine. No, don’t worry I won’t mention names or addresses… ha ha)

clarks do not do this hedging because they don’t take themselves seriously enough, but because they take themselves too seriously

clarks, being Outsiders, have way too little sense of acceptable risk of failure (as defined by themselves, but ascribed to everyone around them)

the pre-emptive denigration? ‘I’ll give my best shot, hope you’re not disappointed’ ‘I don’t know, yeah I can try’ ‘Look, if this doesn’t work out…’ ‘Before I start, maybe I could ask a few more questions, you know?’

You know, this book writing isn’t as easy as it seems. (ha ha)

* and this concept is so key and so easily misunderstood, that I’ll point out that what was just said was ‘the way that we relate ourselves to the world around us’ not ‘how we relate to the world’. This is a very common mis-something…but that one little word, ‘ourselves‘ totally makes all the difference in the world.

** I will make this my last footnote, someone out there is absolutely correct. I do sometimes underestimate my Readers and do not have to explain everything. Although, in my own defense I’ll say, “I’m still striving for the Perfect Post, which, by definition, will be directed at the New Reader. But you’re right, I need to stop with the extra explanations.

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: clarkscottroger, predicting human behavior, self-development, the Wakefield Doctrine

TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine-

January 20, 2024 By clarkscottroger

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. Foundered by Lizzi during a lull in the Axis artillery bombardment of the Arden, this grat blog has everything one might expect, given the context and circumstance of it’s origins.

1) Una

2) Phyllis

3) the Wakefield Doctrine

4) writing and such (the ‘such’ being elaborated in detail in Grats 5 & 6)

5) the Six Sentence Story bloghop

6) the Unicorn Challenge

7) as the photo at the top of the post suggests, it is quite cold this Saturday morning. it will struggle to get out of the ‘teens (like, who hasn’t?) throughout the day today. subsequently, the Cro-Magnon Challenge has been postponed until the temperature moderates. Not only is the wayward bridge* locked in the frozen water, the wood of it’s construction becomes too brittle (if that word applies (wait! lemme go check….ok) the wood becomes fragile.

8) how fun is this internet? it’s like the biggest used bookstore/library in the world, right there underneath the keyboard. were we not a clark, we might be hesitant to mention (actually, revel in) the amount of time we spend checking on meanings and spelling of words and phrases when we write a post. damn. v fun.

9) something, something

10) Secret Rule 1.3

* wayward bridge… excellent story title, no?

music