predicting human behavior | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 4 predicting human behavior | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 4

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

November 13, 2023 By

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

I was going to begin a conversation with today’s post. About podcasts and new content and how to reach the masses.

It surely would have been a good post.

Maybe I’ll write it tomorrow, you never know.

But the sun is rising faster than it should and a day is growing it’s connections towards us. (Like one of those super-slow motion films of ice crystals forming as the temperature declines or, better like, back in the sixties when they developed super slow motion photography of a drop of milk.)

But it’s here. Time to paste.

So, before we hit ‘PASTE’, any thoughts on the topic of advancing the goal of telling the world about our favorite little personality theory?

(when) …clarks are too helpful, scotts are too energetic and rogers are too involved’ the Wakefield Doctrine (they don’t call this Monday for nothing!)

April 1, 2013

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

clarks are too helpful  …wait a damn minute! thats just plain wrong, right? you’re simply trying to be clever, aren’t you. Well, it won’t work this time, we know that we don’t feel that we owe anyone anything and so when we are tying to help people out, it’s simply because we enjoy doing it, why would you go and try and assign some sort of ulterior motive to this, that’s just mean and if it’s one thing we really hate, it’s people who are mean. So stop with the trying to under-mine our efforts to improve ourselves, we didn’t do anything to you. Now you’ve gone and wrecked it and made it look like we were showing off or something, that’s just not fair. …you better stop that or something bad might happen

scotts are too energetic …fuck you! you really think your mind games are gonna work? you think we’re stupid or something? you people make me laugh, with your ‘oh we should all just try to learn to improve the way we are‘… you are the way you are, get over it! and if you think you can make fun of us and, even if you do, if you think that that changes anything, you better think again…we are the ones that get things done, and if we didn’t step up every time one of you ‘rogers‘  or  (what is it?) clarks… if we didn’t step up this would be a sorry place to live in, you’d be all cryin’  ‘my car won’t start’… I don’t know how to build a deck, I lost the instructions!! … ‘that guy is being mean and I can’t convince him to leave me alone‘  gimme a fuckin break,  you people are boring me out of my brain… if you don’t start acting for yourself, I’ll just find someplace where they are all weak and passive and touchy feelie  just you watch me!

rogers are too involved …alright, you can save yourself the effort, I know what you’re doing, I really admire the core idea that you have here, but trust me, a little goes a long way and I think I owe it to tell you that you have lost the handle on your idea or theme or whatever the heck you think you’re doing here. I know! let me save you the trouble, I’m a roger and I’m a big fat bully and make your life so uncomfortable and your friend over there is a scott and she’s going to make me sit up and beg for a treat, I get it. But don’t you think I see what you’re doing? and listen, it’s not working, you will always need me to pay attention and you will always need me to find the easy prey when you’re all tired. I don’t care…you’re wrong, I don’t feel either good or bad about your Post today, so save it for one of your other types.

* We’re back. I agree (whichever clark was thinking: “Just keep writing. The path has a way of becoming apparent far more quickly when one is already walking than it does for those how sit and hope for it to appear.)

thx

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

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘…once more, from the top.’

November 6, 2023 By

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

This RePrint post is fun and on the money in a (slightly) intense, ‘are-there-total-strangers-reading-this?’ sorta way.

Two notes before we flip the switch on the WABAC machine*: 1) this is from the earlier days, before we discovered the more economical, if not surely more elegant, concept connecting the three personal realities: clarks (Outsider), scotts (Predator) and rogers (Herd Members); the concept is relationship. (More informatively: ‘How we relate ourselves to the world around us and the people who make it up.’). And b) the key is still the same: the Wakefield Doctrine is an additional perspective on the world and, as such, is a tool for understanding (and, on occasion, having fun),

ed. Damn! Just noticed the date on this post. Way early in the checkered past of this here blog here.

*

“…and thats why he’s so mean!*” Hey! wait just a minute!

November 13, 2010

Welcome  …etc

I want to apologise to any Readers who have found themselves saying, “hey I’m not looking for a comedy blog or a music appreciation site, I don’t really need the wryly witty musings of a frustrated writer!”  This morning I find myself sitting at this computer saying to myself,  “where did I get off track“?  Vanity apparently is so more insidious than I would have thought. Staring at the monitor, drinking coffee and while waiting inspiration a Post to show up (…a lot like taking a copy of the New York Times into the bathroom, you really hope that it will not be necessary, but are resigned to the fact that it will), I caught myself critiquing ideas in such terms as, “nah, that’s not funny“, ” yeah but, they’ll never get that TV show reference“, and “I think I might get away with that“.
The question rose in my mind, quite without welcome, “just when did I stop trying to present the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) as a new and exciting way of thinking and instead decide that every Post that showed up on the site had to be amusing“? Now don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with being amusing.  If we were to meet in person and hang out, you would find yourself laughing at least once;  but the question I cannot avoid asking myself  is, “What is that I think people are coming to this blog for?  Funny/wacky/weird Posts or are they here to learn about the Wakefield Doctrine?   Well, the ‘sign on the door’ says that this is the Wakefield Doctrine,  it does not say ‘the Entertaining and Random Musing and Literary Stylings of…”
I realized this morning that the Readers who have come to this blog over the last 12 months did so because they were interested/curious/intrigued by (this) idea  of ours. The idea, quite unique and definitely worth investigating,  that there really were three personality types and that the description of the three types was kinda fun and funny, but mostly, this Wakefield Doctrine actually worked, it delivered the goods.

The problem may not been all strictly the price of vanity, ( “hey! great Post!” “where do you come up with those videos“, “that picture on the front? funny!”), in my own defense I will say that a part of my motivation for trying to be amusing and funny  is simply that I am  a clark. And we (clarks) like nothing more than to know things, lots or things, different things and most of the time useless things!  It did not take long to see how well received some of the funnier Posts were and it only made sense to try to write more of those and to try and not be so…dry…pedantic…clarklike! But in all fairness, a huge  part of my drive to write whatever I thought would get read came from the fact that the Wakefield Doctrine  is fun.
We (Progenitors and DownSprings) do laugh when we get together! People who learn about the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers do get excited about seeing it work in real life.
In a way, glenn was half right (as usual) when he complained recently that these Posts have lost the spirit of the early days of the Doctrine blog, that in losing this supposed spirit of subversiveness the whole thing was in danger of losing relevancy. To a small degree I agree, the early days of the Doctrine did have a sense of stick to basics, i.e. clarks create, scotts sell and rogers gather the masses. That, by the simple fact that none of us had ever tried to create something like this blog,  everything was new and exciting and risky. (Of course, life is like that its ownself! And while one might argue that uncomplicated, unencumbered and un-restrained child is the epitome of spontaneity, I would just as soon trade in some free spiritness in exchange for not thinking that reaching into my diapers and throwing feces at asserbys is the height of humor. But that’s just old clarklike me).
In any event, it is time to get back to the basics. This is not to say that  we  be returning to the writing style of the first Post(s). There have been changes in how these Posts are presented, changes that not only make  reading them more enjoyable, (the the photos and the videos), but also make the writing of these things less than a total chore.
Sorry for getting dazzled by the bright lights, the fame, ‘you like me, you really, really like me’… I believe I understand now where I have gone off track.

My job is to tell you about the Wakefield Doctrine (theory of clarks, scotts and rogers).  The goal of this blog is to show (a) way to view the behavior of those people (in our lives) that will help you to make sense of their behavior. I will present the theory and the Doctrine and you will find it helpful and usable and fun (or not).  We will leave the charm and  psychotic-affability to the rogers and the scotts can take care of the leadership and seduction-as-an-end-in-itself. Both are blessed with talents that only they enjoy.

But it is Friday Saturday. Enough with the lessons ‘n learning. Well, maybe a little learning.

Here is a quick ‘elevator-ride’ description of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers):
…picture a large parking lot, maybe one quarter of the spaces are taken, mostly towards the stores…there is a red ball in the middle of the open space the ball is rolling with the wind, stopping, rolling again with each vagrant breeze…
a scott will notice it first and be immediately on the alert, he/she will simply stop in their tracks and look around, trying to see the cause of the ball’s motion; they need to know  is it a threat or not? that is their priority. (If it proves to be harmless and they have the time and/or an audience,  the scott will pick up the ball and throw it)…(thereby establishing their dominance, lol)
a roger will eventually notice the ball, if there is a pause in their conversation with whomever they are talking to, they too will look around the parking lot, but unlike the scott they will look only at the other people, does the ball belong to them? do the other people fear the ball?, who seems to be in charge of determining the ‘threat-level’ of the red ball? If no one emerges as being in charge (a scott) or the other people are not showing any interest, the roger will put it all out of their mind and get back to their busy lives, (if asked they will blame the ball for making them late)..
a clark will notice the ball………. eventually, (once they notice it) they will immediately try to determine how the other people in the parking lot are regarding the ball, the main concern for the clark is determining if the ball belongs to anyone in the parking lot or if there is a danger that someone will blame (the clark) for taking/stealing the ball, if a crowd has gathered (rogers) and if there is no one in charge (scotts) the clark will speculate aloud about the possible origin of the ball,  if however,  the clark comes upon the ball and the parking lot is totally empty, the clark will still speculate about it’s origins (aloud or silently, depending on mood) will look around to see who is secretly watching, consider taking the ball home but will leave without it.

The Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) can tell you about people in everyday situations. You will be better able to predict the behavior of others using the precepts of the Doctrine. There is a bunch of information relating to a description of the three types that you need to know, but for today this little example will serve to answer the question: ‘what good is this thing, this Wakefield Doctrine’? In the coming days we will try to present descriptions of what makes the clarklike person a clark, a scottian man or woman a scott and how to identify the rogerian personality.

*

 

*them geniuseseses Jay Ward and Company back in the Before Time

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

TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine-

October 1, 2023 By

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

Chodský pes breaking the time barrier in suburban backyard.

 

This is the Wakefield Doctrine’s weekly contribution to the Ten Things of Thankful (TToT) bloghop. Cited by Guiness as ‘the clearest demonstration of the carrying Power of the internet, the low bar to admission and testimony to persistence-in-the-face-of-indifference’; this hop invites one and all to share the people, places and things that have recently inspired a sense of gratitude.

1) Una

2) Phyllis

3) the Wakefield Doctrine

4) bloghops: they’re a way of nudging oneself down the creativity path when, as must happen, we become used to the wonder of reality-creating words and start to think that the TV* will provide diversion, entertainment and wonder for us. This week we participated in the Six Sentence Story and the Unicorn Challenge ‘hops

5) you know how, every now and then, life shifts in such a manner that you think, ‘You know what would be nice? A nightlight. And, not just a little glowey bulb in the wall but something that would, when you wake at unfamiliar hours of the night, would allow you to acknowledge a benign presence and go back to sleep?’ Sorta like watching the LPGA on a weekend afternoon, but more nightish. Welll  We found a youtube channel that you will want to stop in at: Action Kid. (We won’t take the fun of discovery away but two words: clark. How do we know? Learn by trying yo. Watch and come back and share your opinion. )

6) The aforementioned technology that has given rise to the blogosphere and the reality referred to as the virtual world.

7) The positive side of the annual death of human-philic weather (aka Summer): is the population of EMLC** outside is way diminished. Mr. Chainsaw (chainsaw motto: While easily the most dangerous hand tool available for purchase without training or mature-good-sense, the only requirement to operate one is the willingness to hold the closest thing we have to an actual, in-the-real-world Tasmanian Devil at one’s side while climbing over bushes and uneven terrain. Advanced students of the Raging Science, will, of course, seek to enhance their credentials by climbing small trees and/or balancing on deadfall while operating), where-were-we? oh yeah! the requirement of owning and operation is the arm strength and mental ability to pull the pull-cord to anger the plastic-enclosed Devil or failing that, a nearby ‘adult’ to help.)

8)

9) something, something

10) Secret Rule 1.3

* or whatever it’s referred to nowadays

** Extremely Multi-Legged Creatures

music vids

*

*

*

*

You are invited to the Inlinkz link party!

Click here to enter

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

RePrint Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

August 21, 2023 By

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

A fine hat for your own damn scottian head.

 

Sure! One of our favorite ‘bands’ is Pompaloose they do this mash-up thing so damn well.

Almost any Reader would not be remiss for suggesting the idea of a post mashup. In theory, all posts should have a level of internal congruency despite the passage of time. Other than, of course, the level of skill/sophistication of writing. Plus a few developments in understanding our little personality theory: the Everything Rule, Referential Authority and the general shift from relying entirely on defining the predominant worldviews as personal reality; rather, to simply describing them as the characteristic way ‘we relate ourselves to the world around us and the people who make it up‘.*

(As early/old a post as possible)

who are these people?

August 20, 2009

With a basic understanding of the characteristics of each group (clarks, scotts and rogers), anyonecan understand everyone else!  You will know how those around you will  act in virtually any situation. Finally you can understand what has never made sense to you about the people you work with, live with and/or are friends with. The answer to the question, ‘Why on earth would you do that/say that/feel that way?’The three  ways of perceiving the world are referred to as: clarks, scotts and rogers. We all begin life with the potential of all three types. At some point we become predominantly one.

The Wakefield Doctrine is based on the premise that  behavior is a response to  perception (of the world). That we choose how to perceive the world means that we acquire a characteristic way of seeing the world and that leads to characteristic behavior.

We become clarks, scotts or rogers.

 

If you are a first time visitor, above is an outline of the ‘purpose’ of this site. (Despite the title, please avoid the ‘FAQ’ page and the ‘So, Which Am I?’ page, until you get a sense of what this Wakefield Doctrine nonsense is all about.)

(quick intro…)

A clark is the person you have to make an effort to notice. In high school the clark is not clearly of one group or another. Not popular, not a jock, not a geek, not a hippie not one of those who seem to always be standing next to their cars in the student parking lot. In a workplace environment same thing happens, the clark is seen in any setting but is not a part of any of the normally identifiable groups. The thing about clarks is that they will be seen at one time or another in all of these groups! Not as a member, but apparently a part of whatever the particular situation is; clarks will be found in association with the ‘leader/alpha’ of whatever clique or social group. But only in a ‘situational’ sense, definitely not a member of that group.

A scott is the person you can’t not notice. In high school the scott is the class clown or leading hoodlum or the captain of the sports team or the head cheerleader. The scott is popular, the entertainer, the joke teller. In a workplace environment they are also the leaders, but limited by the extent of organizational complexity, white collar or blue collar the scott will lead as a pack leader. Scotts are not good managers, they require a great deal of freedom and latitude. A scott might be a ceo or an owner, but only if it is ‘all his’. Truly an example of a ‘cult of personality’.

A roger is/are the masses. The people who make up the circle around a high school fight, the people who know what you did last weekend and tell the other people at the office. In a workplace environment rogers are the middle managers or that person in charge of supplies that has always been there and insists that they follow the rules (always refers to it as ‘I call this the bible’ lowercase).  Rogers are the members of the cheer leader’s squad, the football team. Rogers are the crowd, the mob, the congregation, anywhere there are people with a common interest, most of the members will be rogers. They form the social fabric in every society.

So, hopefully your curiosity is piqued. Look around the site, look around where ever you are and you will them.

 

P.S. Given that this is a new site, there is a better than even chance that you are a clark. (and, yes, I know you have a system like this with different words etc).

 

Hey! Tough month for content, that August. Went through ’em all, couldn’t find a post what sounded congruent to the above (post).

On a personal note** Looks like the rate of posting is currently on par with the early years. hunh.

Lets close-out with some sort of point/lesson/morel1

OK

what? damn! you’re correct, the next topic should be a contrast, ‘as in the intro to olden essay question: ‘Compare and Contrast’

will get right on it! See ya tomorrow. (which provides the music vid.)

 

* if this reprint doesn’t pan out, this would make a legit topic for today’s post, i.e. ‘Which is more useful: Personal Reality or Relationship?’

** yeah, right!***

*** well, as we type it, we suspect that this particular self-dep joke has less force than one might assume (assuming one’s current self-image is accurate and not chaotically-anachronistic along predominant worldview patterns)

  1. ha ha

 

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

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

August 1, 2023 By

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

Alright!

Who said, “Hey! Can you please find and post an old post today? We’d really like something from the era, more technical than readable and one where the focus is on ‘the other two’*.

Can you do that for us**?

Yes. Yes we can.

Guess what?

We’re outa time. (Yeah, all of us tipped out of true vertical by the application of aviary plumage.)

Be sure to return tomorrow. Same URL Same IP address and we’ll have a post from August 5, 2014

 

* a Doctrine phrase that refers to the ‘remaining worldviews’, after (an) individual’s predominant worldview is accounted for. This concept is important as it allows a deeper understanding of seemingly contradictory behaviors. Example: as Readers of this Sunday’s TToT post know, we went to see Lyle Lovett and his Large Band on Saturday. Lyle is, (imo and for instructional purposes only1, a clark with a secondary scottian aspect and a significant rogerian tertiary.

Well, had a New Reader been sitting next to us at the concert, they might’ve commented, (aloud as they probably wouldn’t have a keyboard…)

…Wait! What the hell!! omg!

We just ran into a fact-of-life as we typed that last semi-jokey characterization of a person recognizing the clarklike demeanor of Lyle.

Damn (* cont’d) we just came face-to-face with the reality of the passage of time. Specifically, when this blog started in June 2009 cell phones were available and used. Not, however, to the degree of pervasive-to-the-point-of-supplanting-traditional-modes-of-communication. (Semi case-in-point: our seats at the concert were 2nd row center mezzanine. A totally clear view of the ‘floor seats’. People without cell phones were the exception. A sea of TV-blue-glowing rectangles.)

So my joke was anachronistic. Out of date in a critical detail. So what.

We’ll tell you what.

We value comments from Readers who have recently joined us. This ‘recently’ is very relative, of course. We’re using it to compare those who started reading when the intended RePrint was new (2014) and those who have found us, say, in the last two, three years. Our mind goes to Mimi, Nick and them.

While they totally get the principles of our little personality theory, so much so that, more often than not their Comments generate new posts and Doctrine discussions. But on occasion there is something, more likely than not a reference to one particular stage or another of how we describe the Wakefield Doctrine, that they will say, what is (fill in the blank). Denise and Cynthia and Phyllis will not wait for me to write an update and just state: ‘You know, you haven’t reminded us that ‘the Wakefield Doctrine is gender, age and culture neutral’ in, like an age.”

The thing is, I don’t always stay mindful of the new (and newer) Readers.

Probably a classic mistake, i.e. forgetting that every Reader has not been here since the beginning.

And that’s the ‘learning moment’ for me this morning.

The joke about the concert-goer not having a keyboard with them implies that my ‘story premise’? / ‘narrative assumption’? or whatever the cool, Greco-Roman term in rhetoric that identifies this effect of the passage of time for a writer. Might as well start a post with “And Nick doffed his stovepipe hat as he handed Mimi down from the landau.

But, bottom line: thanks for the opportunity to remember what I occasionally  forget.

The Wakefield Doctrine, as an additional perspective on the world around us and the people who make it up, is meant to be used and enjoyed today. Whatever our circumstances may be, there is an opportunity to see the people around us as clarks, scotts and rogers. We do that and maybe, just maybe, we won’t find ourselfs saying, “What the heck! I really thought I knew them better than that.”

 

  1. one of the first ‘rules’ here was to the effect that one person cannot tell another person what their predominant worldview was, at least not with any force or authority. We do, however, for instructional purposes and practice (and fun among whatever group has gathered), try to figure out if a stranger is a clark or a scott or a roger. Good clean fun, ya know? But, in no way binding upon anyone.

** your hypothetical Readers! well, duh!

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