predicting human behavior | the Wakefield Doctrine

-the Wakefield Doctrine- (as a personality theory), it’s not only fun, but it helps one develop oneself*

May 20, 2015 By clarkscottroger

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

You know, this Wakefield Doctrine really can be fun, provided you’re the kind of person who has: an active imagination, self-confidence (mostly relating to matters intellectual) and find playing with curious and different ideas and satisfying.

However, (the Wakefield Doctrine), when it come to the useful part, (i.e. ‘the Wakefield Doctrine is a unique, useful and fun way to better understand the people in our lives‘) can be a difficult taskmaster. If you, (and by you, I’m pretty much talking to predominant clarks, and/or scotts and rogers with amped-up secondary clarklike aspects*), have the outlook on life that insists that self-improvement is the best investment of your lifetime, (assume that I mean a wide variety of the manifestations of this all too under-accentuated aspect of human nature… i.e. the need for betterment, in all the ‘-lly’s’ (physically, spiritually, mentally) you might come up with. Of course, I recognize that, if you have been to this blog more than twice, I’m, ‘preaching to the elect’.

The cool thing about our little personality theory is that, when you start to see the world (and the people) around you in terms of clarks, scotts and rogers, well it’s pretty much a case of, ‘in for a penny, in for a pound’. Because, once you get to this point, the perspective pretty much starts working on it’s own. You’ll see people acting a certain way that causes you to think, ‘what a roger!‘ or, ‘she is such a scott‘ and then you’ll realize that the behavior that triggered this understanding is nowhere to be found in these pages! Congratulations, you’ve reached the next level! You’re understanding ‘how the person is relating themselves to the world around them’! Now you’re ready to concentrate on ‘seeing the world as the other person is experiencing it.’ And this step is what separates the Wakefield Doctrine from most of the other, more normal approaches to self-development. When you set out to ‘see the world as the other person is experiencing it‘, you are leaving behind the limiting conceits, such as, ‘well, maybe it’s their lack of education’ or ‘clearly she is being stubborn, I told exactly what to do to avoid that heartbreak’ or ‘god! that new manager, he really has it in for me’ and being open to the idea that we, all of us, experience the world in one of three characteristic ways:

as the Outsider (clark) the world is a separate thing/place/people, we are fine except for that one thing, we know that there is something that everyone (except for us) knows about life and, if we’re careful and don’t get in the spotlight, we’re surely able to discover, learn it and then be able to become real people…
the Predator (scott) woke up this morning to a bursting-with-life, brimming-with-opportunity world where we need to be on the alert, ready for anything, living right now and when things get frustrating we will attack (it) or run away (from it) but we.will.not.stop moving/living/loving/protecting/eating… until it’s necessary to sleep and then there’s tomorrow!!
Members of the Herd (rogers) are not in a hurry, but often impatient. We know that everything is connected, except those parts/people/activities that seem to be apart and when we are confronted with them (these parts/people/activities) we do our best to understand how they connect to what we know is the Right Way (and the connections are there…pretty much all the time, it’s just a matter of taking the time, making the person investment in appreciating what it has in common with…. well, everything

Time for work.

Thank to Dyanne for a Comment that is sure to end up a Post. (Lets phrase it as a riddle: ‘why is a shy scott like a writing desk?’)

(and) thanks to Kristi for the Winnie the Pooh reference… it’s clearly a ‘raising-small-humans-centric’ cultural reference…. but, damn! there’s a bunch of different examples of the three worldviews there, in 100 Acre Wood! In fact! (see? this is why it’s not all that difficult to write posts ‘on the same subject’ countless times), maybe, among the characters, (of 100 Acre Wood), we might find illustrations and examples of the effect and influence of secondary aspects (on) the predominant worldview!! Tying in with what Dyanne said!! cool!

* btw our condolences, granted, a little bit of the Outsider worldview makes a scott curious and less likely to eat things when aggravated and a touch of the blue monkey** can result in a roger who actually sees and hears strangers speaking… but it’s not overly predominant-worldview enhancing to have a secondary clarklike aspect.

** blue monkey.. there was this famous sociology/psychology*** experiment back in the 50s or 60s where they took one monkey out of a troupe of monkey and painted him blue and (then) returned him to his friends and family… needless to say, things did not go so well. those sociologists (and psychologists) back in the day could be a bunch of right bastards, empathy with experimental subjects-speaking, that is

*** what? well, maybe not that famous

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

Tue Comments -the Wakefield Doctrine- …and Tue answers (plus…)

March 24, 2015 By clarkscottroger

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

(from this weekend’s ‘hop… a comment from Lizzi regarding a statement that was made about (a) clarks capability to engage in social interaction. the block quotes being the thread)

Lizzi:

“…the thing we don’t have, is that natural inclination to participate in the commerce of social interaction ” ORLY? (L.)

“But…I LOVE making connections and talking to people. Perhaps I’m more scottian than I think.” (L.)

I did not say ‘make connections’ I used the words: ‘…participate in the commerce of social interaction’ (c)

we clarks loves to make connections… we are better at it, (making, discovering, illustrating and generally, pointing out to anyone near, the connections that exist between all things), than scotts and rogers are, if for no other reason than the fact that we are on the outside looking in/over/at the world. Who better to see connections, than the Outsider? (And, yes, I do note that you used the word ‘make’ we’ll come back to that.)
‘commerce‘ in the above statement is meant to imply an exchange that occurs between people when interacting within a social context. It’s said that, ‘clarks think, scotts act and rogers feel’ and, from this, we can view this (social) exchange as a bartering among people. a scott will (offer) to do things: play games, yell at people, chase down those who would flee, make people do things… a roger is aware of the things that people feel attachment to, fear the effects of, or covet a place that another may occupy… and a clark, well, a clark knows stuff, creates (that which did not previously exist) and, above all, clarks see the inter-relatedness (the connections) among the parts and things and people of the world (all three worlds, if we’re to be accurate).

Trouble is…. clarks give their thing of value away for free. a clark is said to be the most generous and (willing to) share of the three personality types, ( “...hey did you know? …hey, I learned the coolest thing the other day, …by the way, you want to hear something really neat?“) which one might conclude is a good thing. Unfortunately, not counting gift-giving, most people do not place a large value on things that are offered without a price. In this ‘commerce’ of social interaction there is (a) bartering going on and clarks suffer from 2 very significant weaknesses:

we learn and know and discover things, (mostly the connections among things), and recognize the limitlessness of this ‘commodity’ and are not concerned with getting an equal value in exchange (because we can always find more)
we do not (normally) demand the highest price in exchange of what we offer (in this commerce), because the one thing a clark fears the most, avoids at all costs is ‘scrutiny’ (and, yes, I will stop at this point and let the questions create themselves)

…so, that is a little additional Reply to our friend Lizzi’s Comment

******************************************

Denise:

“this morning my question concerns rogers…..what happens when a roger loses his/her “rogerian expression” (not through choice)?” (D.)

good question! in part because (the) ‘answer’ is an illustration of how the Wakefield Doctrine offers multiple uses, (i.e. fun and insight), for all of us. It, (the Wakefield Doctrine), is a metaphor and it’s an analog that allows us to see the world from another perspective. And, because we have these additional perspectives, we can frame our understanding different ways (fun)… ‘she is such a scott! you could see her nose twitching as soon as she stepped into the meeting hall full of engineers!‘… ‘I saw two clarks engaged in a conversation the other night… I’m pretty sure I did, but, of course nothing, including the logic of their exchange, can escape the gravitational pull of the black hole of two clarks in conversation‘ you know, like that!

so Denise’s question can be interpreted as: can a person lose the realness of their personal reality? This can also be framed as: does the set of strategies and coping mechanisms that are the product of our growing up and developing in one of the three worldviews (that of the Outsider/clark, the world of the Predator/scott or the reality of the Herd Member/roger) eventually wear thin, become less and less the personal expression of how a person relates themselves to the world around them… can age (or circumstances) diminish the clarity of expression of (a) person’s personality type?

the best answer must start with a question: what is the ‘rogerian expression’? (The short, but nevertheless useful answer is: ‘the rogerian expression is that which makes a roger feel as an individual while remaining a part of the Herd (which, by definition, does not recognize individual individuality…. ‘) lol yes, more to follow.

****************************************

from the blogger formerly known as zoe (tbfkaz):

When I started reading Denise’s question and your answer I thought you were gonna answer the question ive been asking since I met you! Did you answer it? I think you may have avoided it and reworked the question! E for evolution. …can life circumstances cause a personal evolution into another predominant personality type? Not just we all do stuff sometimes. ..???????? Whaddya think?

No, no I did not. Where I am heading, (with Denise’s question), is a consideration of what ‘the rogerian expression’* is and what happens when it diminishes (as has been observed in aging rogers), all in the service of a better understanding of a) the nature of the three worldviews and, 2) by inference, what is the potential value to self-improving ourselves? are we to gain by better understanding of (the) characteristic of (one of) the three worldviews .

But, addressing what I hear is your question…. can we move, evolve or otherwise go from worldview-to-worldview, personality type-to-personality type? the current answer is, ‘no’ the current answer will have to wait for later in the day, as it is quite involved (i.e. I don’t have the rhetorical skills to concisely express the idea that these worldviews are real, the world is as described, it is not my ‘choice’ to act as would an Outsider…. my acts (as an Outsider) are appropriate to the world, the reality that I am experiencing today, (in fact, the reality I was faced with as a small, young life form)…. having said that, there is an argument to be made for ‘catastrophic’ changes in one’s life and, therefore, (possibly), a change in the character of a person’s predominant worldview. You might be thinking, “yeah, sure, but what about your much-vaunted secondary aspects, what about those? huh? well… answer me, dammit!!!” (lol) the key element to our ‘behavior’, is the energy that is involved…. (no, the following probably will not make any, ‘standalone’, sense….), if our behavior is not related to the world around us in a way that produces/conducts/returns energy, then it is a fad, an affectation and has nothing to do with a worldview…. (more to follow)

you know, I was just re-reading this Post and next month’s ‘Apples-to-Zuchinni Blog Challenge’, will be very productive provided the right words are found. Clearly there exists a need for a comprehensive yet simple outline of our little personality theory, especially now with newer Readers such as Val and Lisa and them joining us in our pursuit of better understanding the world around us. ya know?

* not to be confused with ‘a rogerian expression’!

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

phfridae wapup -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘Friday, the most sought-after day of the workweek’

March 20, 2015 By clarkscottroger

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

Hey, before I forget, tonight in a box at the bottom of this here Post here, I will paste in the link to the Friday Night Vidchat. Click on the link and provided you have downloaded the google hangout app, you will be on line with the Wakefield Doctrine and them. (Depending on who else stops in), you will have an enjoyable and interesting time, courtesy of 21st Century technology.

short, little post this morning. 1 request and 1 cool insight into the rogerian worldview.

I’m leaning towards doing the ‘3 to Bee Blog Challenge’ this coming April (April motto: ‘yeah, go ahead dream…she’ll forget you by Memorial Day‘*) and my theme will be the Wakefield Doctrine. The question I have, does anyone know of anything like a word generator that can produce random words, but allows one to enter the first letter? (My second thought is that I need to approach the month as, ‘The ABCs of the Wakefield Doctrine’… which, if I’m successful will leave me with something useful at the end of the Blues Challenge…. your thoughts?
ok, so we all know that the Wakefield Doctrine provides a description of the three worldviews, (personal realities) of clarks, scotts and rogers… and (these descriptions) are accurate and detailed enough to permit us to …kinda scare people with our insight into their personal lifes (true story: back in the beginning of my blogging, when I met someone online who I knew their worldview from chatting with them** I’d sometimes say things like, ‘I know what’s on the floor of your bedroom closet’ (this being a clarklike female) and I’d describe the clunky but oh-so-comfortable boots and the sensible but worn shoes for work… etc and 9 times out of 10, they’d be all, ‘hold on! how can you know that‘ (eventually more reasonable people around me at the time, Denise and Molly, said, ‘uh, clark? maybe you might want to lay off on the ‘I know you’ thing until they get a little more comfortable with you and your Doctrine thingie…’ (lol and yes, I did take their advice) anyway… back to the rogerian worldview. While we know enough about the personal reality of our rogerian friends to identify other rogers, there is a level of understanding that we can only acquire by inference. A good example is ‘referential authority’.
(I just ran out of time. I’ll try to link to the post that initiated this insight and I’ll certainly try to carve out the time to add to this Post. Failing that, I guess you’ll just need to join us on the vidchat tonight.)

*************************************************************************************
* https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/gqpcmemltfmmek2vipvh477oeia *
* *
*************************************************************************************

* seriously, I have no idea

** well, yeah… it is possible to infer a person’s predominant worldview on the basis of the written word and/or chatting on line… just takes practice, yo

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

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘if everyday of the week were Tuesday, there would be no wars’

March 17, 2015 By clarkscottroger

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

No! I’m actually serious. Consider your day right now. You’re over the strain (for some the assault) of the beginning of the workweek… you’ve given up your hold on the weekend. You have your job, you have your classes, you have the home-to-make tasks… and, maybe for just today, you kinda think you can handle it! Hell, there’s a good chance that you’ll find yourself, maybe not enjoying it, but at very least, having a good feeling about what you do during the workweek. And the people you work sit by side with/ sit in class alongside/ talk to and instruct and raise into adults they’re not so bad today, are they? We all have workweek days and we all have weekends (maybe minutes at a time, maybe a lifetime’s worth), but Tuesdays are the day of the workweek and when what we do (during our workweek) looks and feels and gives us the most of what we thought it would when we started out, new in the job/first day of class/infant brought home to build the family…

So, if the world could just make itself see everyday as a Tuesday, there would be no wars.

What does this have to do with the Wakefield Doctrine? a lot…

(I have to interrupt myself, this and the previous Post this week, were started at my usual time of day for writing Posts, i.e. 5:30 am, however, today I thought to try to complete the Post(s) in the later morning. It is now 5:30 pm so I need to wrap it up. What’s interesting is that when I write about a Day, it is the day (yet) to come, not the day that has passed… I suspect I may need to work on my scheduling.)

… a lot and nothing. The Wakefield Doctrine is not an answer, it is, however a very cool set of questions. And, even as a set of cool questions, it is not the implied answers, (to these cool questions), that is the value of learning this thing of ours, it is the process of asking… that is where the benefit of the Wakefield Doctrine can be found. Simply put: every time I use/play with/look through/use as a inter-personal Cliff Notes/ or otherwise use the perspective that the Doctrine offers, I learn something about myself. There’s an old saying, ‘every window is a mirror’. To use the Wakefield Doctrine is to accept yourself, (the good qualities and the ‘oh-no-way-I’m-like-that‘ parts); when you set out to see the world as the other person is experiencing it, you will run into yourself. But that’s a good thing….not always comfortable, but good.

what time is it?

…oh! oh! vidchat this Friday…. we usually start at 7:00 pm (which as we all know is ‘are you still awake British Meantime’) but if anyone knows that they will not be able to join us until a later hour… lets us know! Adjustments and accommodations will be made.

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

4th Day -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘lets talk …get them clarks up here for a moment’

February 26, 2015 By clarkscottroger

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

While the subtitle of today’s Post hints at a topic understandable only to odd-at-heart, there is much that can be useful to our scottian and rogerian Readers. Please, stay with us. While you may be a person living in the world of the predator (being a scott) or comfortably grounded in the reality of the Herd (as a roger, it’s tough to imagine a World without Rules, isn’t it?), you do have a secondary clarklike aspect. I say this with certainty, because I have gone out into the world and spoken of clarks, scotts and rogers to …well, to scotts and rogers who have only a predominant worldview (without any significant secondary aspect) and I’ve felt the stares and ‘that look’* The look from a person who knows they are dealing with an Outsider. So, if you’re a scott or a roger and you’re still reading, then you have a significant secondary clarklike aspect. So what? Well, you’re not the only person in your life are you? … oh, sorry roger, let me rephrase that… (lol just a little joke for Michelle and Kristi and Phyllis and the other rogers who not only enjoy our little Doctrine, but are invaluable to our efforts to know all three personal realities. The point is, there is always something of value when we manage to ‘see the world as the other person is experiencing it’.

….to our Post.

hey clarks. what’s worse about those days when you wake up and your creativity drive is somehow ‘on 11’? is it the fact that you have a ton of ideas that you know you don’t have time for or is it that foreboding feeling that something bad will be the end result? I mean, it’s not like we hate the feeling, but we always wonder why it only happens sometimes and, hardly ever, on purpose. The other thing (about clarks)… the worse it feels (inside) the funnier we can be (funnier being defined as making other people laugh… for whatever reason, the quick and clever asides and observations seem to be of a way higher energy level when we are heading towards that dark place… life can be frickin hilarious, no?)

Anyway, short post. non-clark Readers? this post should provide two things of value: a) an increased sense of the world of the Outsider (’cause, like we implied a little earlier, you’ve got some of that your-own-self and 2) parents? you clarklike children… they get like this too but, you probably already have a sense of that (by virtue of being a parent who has enough on the ball to be reading the Wakefield Doctrine) but… a tip: the eyes. Watch their eyes. It’s been said that, when you’ve studied the Doctrine long enough, you will be able to spot the clarks (and the scotts, for that matter) on the basis of a photograph of the person’s face…. and it’s true. You can. or could, if you want to… (bonus hint: the fear is the easy thing to spot (in the eyes of the clark)… the ‘distance’ is less easy. There’s something in the eyes of a clark, that if you look you can see that they are somewhere else… not necessarily all the time, but it’s quite clear that they do leave the world as you know it. (Kind of the opposite of the eyes of a scott, when you think about it!… with scotts, the totally distinctive characteristic is that they are totally there…. in the present …alert.)