predicting human behavior | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 59 predicting human behavior | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 59

ice cream soup, clarks and love the Wakefield Doctrine (and you’re going to work bright and early this morning?!!)

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

images-150

(I normally would spend a lot of time here,at the top of the Post, trying to avert misunderstandings on the part of Readers for the following, by pre-explaining and/or qualifying statement that I think might be mis…somethinged. But, today  no. Not this time).

clarks mean well. clarks try so very hard to:  do well, to live up to their potential, to not let their parents (and families down), to be good students, to not disappoint, to learn and be like others, earn a good living and support their families, to not be too distant and be the person that their spouse deserves, to learn how to act like others and not be so strange, (clarks) want to be accepted and will work and try without reward or reinforcement, towards this goal, needing only to not feel that they are being looked at and laughed at for being that ‘strange one’.

Had an interesting experience/reaction today. I often, when in a situation that carries the threat of un-wanted attention or un-earned rewards, find ways to sabotage myself. How I sabotage myself varies and is so innate that, in some circumstances, you would think I was doing it to myself on purpose! (lol*)  In any event, for reasons unclear to me, on this particular morning, I got mad at this self-sabotage. Now, I know what some of you are thinking, “…don’t you mean, clark, that you were getting mad at yourself”
Only at first.
And then, I was angry only just enough to disrupt the cycle, (which is often, but not always, possible to do). But that is not what prompts me to write this Post. What prompts me to write this Post is that shortly after this occurrence , as I continued to drive along in my car, I thought about my living with this kind of thing.  And, then I thought of the/a young(er) clark, experiencing something that while clearly a self-induced ….’thing’, and despite knowing that it is/it was,  all in my mind, (it) still happens.

…and a surprisingly strong feeling of sadness came over me.

not for myself, driving along in my German luxury car, working in a business that is challenging, enjoyable and rewarding,  but for that clark that I was.  and, (being in possession of the Wakefield Doctrine), for all the other clarks out there who have a similar experience. It really was quite a remarkable 30 minutes or so (see? I’m back to normal…I described it as remarkable).

As I sat behind the wheel, letting this emotion have it’s way, I thought   ‘how un-necessary’.  In the special mental/emotional shorthand we all have, I knew that somehow this self-sabotage was directly a result/consequence/offshoot of my efforts to learn my way out of being ‘the Outsider’.  and, while I do not, for a second, devalue the efforts that I have put towards this end, (as does every clark, everywhere to one degree or another), I felt sad that I could not somehow reach back to my younger self and say, ‘don’t worry, even though being an Outsider is not necessarily your first choice, you are doing good work and you can feel proud of the effort, independent of whether anyone else in the world acknowledges it. you are a good and sufficient person’

…this Wakefield Doctrine, man!  

(oddly enough, I was talking to Denise last night about how the Doctrine offers so many different ways to aid in the effort to self-improve ourselves, and that I have not even begun to scratch the surface, in these Posts.)

I debated with myself  whether adding a favorite music vid, (thinking,  ‘Werewolves of London’) would be too much of distraction from what I wrote, a typical clarklike effort to ‘hedge my bet with the world’… as much as the ‘smile of a clark‘  which we all recognize, the pressing of the lips together, a glance out of the corner of our eyes, all to make sure we aren’t smiling where we are not welcome.

…and I decided that it was.

 

* lol: ‘laugh out loud’ I am told that use of this…expression marks me as out of: date/touch/cool/current blog writing practices. too bad)

Share

TToT the Wakefield Doctrine (can’t decide to plug in famous Wm S. quote or not…. let me know)

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

Mid-Summer Edition of the 10 Things of Thankful.

dream1 article-0-084FB092000005DC-185_468x325

!)  Joy Christi for giving of her time and not inconsiderable talent on Thursday’s Guest Post Thursday Guest Post. She is a scott and we are very grateful that she consented to writing for our weekly series. While there is no pre-set theme or ‘organizing view’ being imposed on our Guests, there is nevertheless an understanding, on the part of Readers of all these Posts. The Doctrine maintains that it is possible to appreciate the world as the other person is experiencing it. Consider each Thursday an opportunity to see through the eyes of another, who, we are being given the advantage to know, is an Outsider(clark) or a Predator(scott) or a Herd Member(roger). Kinda like Doctrine practice, but with jokes and pictures and other things, but without, unfortunately team uniforms.

@) vidchats enjoyable chatation last night. Lizzi and I opened the evening on a more formal note, with her just in from a night on the town, still in evening dress. we were joined by Denise (going old school with audio only) then, a rather pleasant surprise…Jean!  followed by Laura  and zoe (all too briefly) and Michelle (from tomorrow) and finally Joy. fun, informative (we did hear from Christine who reported that she was either: a) driving on a van on vacation or 2) sitting in a Formula1 car, waiting to start the race…wasn’t too clear on that…

#) Cars

$)      dogs (Una, of course)

%)              video phones

^)                         and an enthusiasm  for an idea, (the Wakefield Doctrine), that overcomes all sense of what is ‘interesting to others’ (as opposed to) what is ‘interesting only to me’ (for a sleeker look to today’s 10 List…here is link to vid)

&)  (as I alluded to in this week’s vid entry (Item Number ^ above), I am constantly and permanently grateful for the fun that Lizzi and the 9 hostinae bring to this weekly exercise in finding the better side of life. In fact, I believe I made this point in a Comment to someone last week, to the effect that, though the idea of a gratitude-based bloghop is not unique, the attitude and fun that permeates the TToT is

*)  Secret Book of Rules (aka Book of Secret Rules)  I mentioned to L last night that there are more and more new participants this Summer. Which is a good thing. The questions about the BoSR are not un-expected and, in fact, welcomed.  ‘The Book’ is full of useful, fun, potentially-backfire-and-make-you-look-silly, clever and, at times life saving rules, exceptions, provisions and conditions that can be employed in the process of writing a TToT list. The only caveat, is that there are (said to be) Seven GuardVirgins who hold the power to judge the appropriateness of a Rule. Lizzi and zoe are our resident experts on these….. er  personages. Best check with them.  (you know the most fun about a lot of this bloghop? it’s discovering and coining words and such. I’m thinking of Sarah who, unless I’m mistaken, has made popular the reference ‘SGV’…. seems like a little thing, but cool nonetheless)

()  as always, I gotta cite my personal sine qua non…. the Wakefield Doctrine

!))  Hey!  new people!!  free tip on the BoSR (aka SB0R)….SR 1.3   (which states, in part: the completion of a list of Ten Things, may, in fact, be included and cited as an item of that selfsame list; provided that it isn’t used every week and gets, you know, like old….)

Ten Things of Thankful

 

 Your hosts

Join the Ten Things of Thankful Facebook Group


Share

too many connections, not (nearly) enough conclusions the Wakefield Doctrine (clarks or 2ndary clarks only!)

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

bella2 008.5

I want to thank Joy for her Guest Post Thursday’s Guest Post (‘scottian style!’)  as is clear both from the number of visitors (‘in the 100s’) and the Comments (‘OM-lol-G!’) yesterday was all that a good scottian Post can and should be… fun, exciting (‘…and a hint of come hither‘).    cool

Today is Friday. Friday is one of the days of the week that clarks love, fear and hate,

  • we love that it is neither weekday nor weekend
  • we fear that we will get swept up in hope (and we hope that we can let ourselves forget that we are letting ourselves be swept up in hope)
  • we fear that our expectations will be held against us

(Did I make it clear enough in the Title that today’s Post was really meant for clarks and any poor scott* or roger with an overly expressive secondary clark?)

Most of the time, at this point in a post-like-this-one, I’d be all qualifying and explaining and ‘hey-don’t-think-I’m-all-depressed-and-such. No, today I will not indulge in that. For one very good reason: a) the Title was clear enough for any Reader and 2) any of us who are not included in the ‘target audience’ understands the Doctrine sufficiently to not be overly concerned.

Since there is no such thing as a 265 word Post (at least not around here, anymore). Let’s end this Post on a positive note (lol, yes, new Reader that is a setup).

I was thinking,  about Sarah’s concern, expressed in a Comment earlier in the week, about (her) not ‘getting’/not-wanting-to-be-assigned-a-worldview/not-feeling-a-member-of-a-herd-that-she-felt-a-part-of this Wakefield Doctrine thing. I was trying to find the correct way to express the information that I knew would let her understand this thing and I found myself stopping (myself) and thinking, ‘stop it! there are three worldviews, remember, clark?‘. If Sarah were a clark, she would not be asking the kind of questions she is asking. then she must be either a scott or a roger. and, no matter which,  information is not what will help her with this matter.
The Doctrine tells us that we all live and think and act and feel and hate and fight and get confused in one of three worldviews. The Doctrine tells us that ‘it is about us, not them’.   This very simply means that, I need to put myself in her worldview in order to understand her question/concern/misunderstanding/feelings about the Wakefield Doctrine.
That is one of the implications of ‘the Doctrine is for me, not them’ that is often overlooked.   (I was talking to Michelle and Lizzi one Friday vidchat and, for god knows what reason, we got to talking about Michelle taking her father out to lunch. Her father is, according to Michelle, a scott. Michelle was saying how he seems to feel differently about going to a restaurant than she does, and I said, “when you are both standing across the street from the restaurant, the restaurant is experienced differently for both of you. the building (you are both staring at) manifests one way for you, the roger and another way for your father, the scott“)

…one of the main benefits that is the result of a proper understanding of the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine is that I know that you may be experiencing the same thing  I am, only differently and if I want to, I might be able to see the world as you are experiencing it.  This is not only the secret to understanding the other person, it is the secret to understanding my own life.

I mentioned a music vid. Johnny Winter died yesterday. So I’ll put up one of my favorite Johnny Winter tunes (from the early….yes, early) 1970s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osvDo1lqBxQ

* don’t worry Christine… it’s** not permanent, your world(view) will re-solidify after a while, as you get healthy’ed-up…and, yes! of course you will retain some of what you found (in your world) during your couchtime

**  your clarklike aspect coming forward making you see the world as a, ‘my-god-everything-is-something-else-sometimes-but-the-same-thing-other-times-how-the-hell-do-these-people-get-out-of-bed-in-the-morning?!?’

Share

Guest Post Thursday’s Thursday Guest Post the Wakefield Doctrine “…as through a glass clarkly”

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

0120021317_0001

there is an old saying, “the person first to have a question, is the last to accept an answer”. Today it says ‘clark’ on the cycle-schedule of Guest Posts and I am pleased and just a little bit intimidated to present our friend zoe as our guest writer.

I say, ‘intimidated’ not to imply that her personality is to cause a person to be on guard, I say ‘intimidated’ to imply that zoe is a person with such an interesting, varied, multi-faceted background/lifestory, that the thought of writing a proper introduction gives me pause. However, after much too long a time, I have finally come to understand and appreciate that relationships form (and persist) because each participant derives a benefit. (As a clark, I’ve never had trouble accepting  this truth, at least from my perspective,  that it applies to the other person? is what has taken time to accept).

Zoe is a writer of no small talent and a huge range of insights and information.  She writes weird stuff (the interesting weird stuff). Zoe has had a variety of professions and educations. She writes a blog ( ‘rewritten‘ ) and she co-created, with our friend Lizzi,  a poetry blog ( The Well Tempered Bards ). She has traveled and she has lost loved ones, she helps people, (by profession and by inclination), she deals with life (the good and the horrible) with a directness that is pretty damn inspiring and,  …and  she wandered into the Doctrine camp one day a couple of years ago.  (this was one of those meetings. no doubt on one of the bloghops, possibly the FTSF, more likely the TToT… I remember, because she began our relationship by asking some rather pointed, but graciously framed question about the Wakefield Doctrine and the implications of a certain aspect…and would I be comfortable clarifying one point of the concept of worldviews… she had my attention and the rest followed as naturally as you would imagine.

zoe?

A few years back I conducted an informal experiment.

When I took the job at the desk where I’m now writing this post, I began the ritual of a morning stroll before settling into work. What you should know is that although I live in a bucolic, somewhat idyllic environment, where I work is a whole different story. I’ve written a few posts about the street that houses my office and the people you’re likely to meet if you decide to walk there (1, 2). When I look back on those posts I described a fairly typical city street, “…lined with public trash cans, parking signs, and an occasional art installation… the air is visible as the heat emanates off of the cars that are parked bumper to bumper. There’s also a scattering of decorative plants bordering the sidewalks. They’re a fairly uniform group of saplings, all leafy, green and standing about 8 feet tall. Each is planted in a little square of dirt that was designed for the express purpose of appearing as though the miracle of life could naturally spring from cement.”

Because of the nature of my work (as a community health psychotherapist), I am well known by many of the people who live in the street or hang by the local bus station looking to score a fix for one of their various transgressions. When walking in town, I can expect to hear occasional greetings hollered from a distant corner or a vehicle passing. I have to admit that unless I’m with one of my peers, whom may be uncomfortable with such an exchange, I kinda like it. My secondary roger saves me from feeling as though I am standing out too much for the wrong reasons (i.e. I ‘m minding the rules of my profession and not crossing any therapeutic boundaries). My clark recognizes that it’s cooler not to fit in with the stuffy group. I’m known by my clients and colleagues for being a fairly laid back therapist who at the same time takes no bullshit. I like that M.O. I dabble in writing, but my writing background is in research. I am a clark with a secondary roger after all. And what would a good clarky-roger be without a research project? My rogerian aspect screams “ORDER!” while my clark mutters in the corner “Screw that, I’m just gonna go out and see what happens.” And that’s what I did.

After the one too many times of the roger I would occasionally walk with saying, “Doesn’t it bug you? It seems people are always approaching you, and they’re not the kind of people I would picture you spending time with,” I decided I would see how many people actually were saying hello on a regular basis. I wanted to know if these were strangers or did I really have some acquaintanceship with them. Turned out that many of the people saying “hello” were not acquaintances. This in turn, evolved into a desire to see if there was a commonality between those who did and didn’t say “hello.”

First things first, I ditched my opinionated walking partner. On odd days of the week I decided to initiate saying “hello” to people. On even days I would wait to see who said “hello” to me. This way I figured I would eliminate bias toward certain people being around on specific days of the week. (Yeah, I really did this. What part of secondary roger don’t you get? The only way I can explain it is, sometimes a primary clark just needs to know.) I just wanted to understand why some people would engage and others would avert their eyes as if they were trying not to notice the freak with the third arm growing from her forehead. It didn’t take long to realize that the people who were more apt to spontaneously say “hello,” or acknowledge my existence (whether it be with a smile or by verbally accosting me,) were not the well perfumed, or socially acceptable people you picture when someone says,“I work in the Berkshires.”

When doing any– but especially– informal research, one must make allowances for variables in the environment, but in the interest of not  unleashing my full clark nature I am going to refrain from the explanation. (Be happy! I just cut about 200 words.)

What does it all amount to? Hell if I know. What I did learn is there is a certain personality type for the person who is more apt to become a therapist, and my rogerian second definitely lets me fit in there. My clark, who prefers not to stand out, yet often feels overlooked in social situations, welcomes the inclusion in a subgroup of less desirables. Not only does inclusion appeal to my inner roger, but for a clark, that translates to belonging to a group in which I am needed, yet doesn’t make me feel like the weirdo standing in the corner. Why? Because the “group” doesn’t recognize itself as a “group.” What more could a clark ask for? I also learned that while my job often requires that I preach the need for socially acceptable behavior in order to belong to the larger herd, I fear I may be a bit of a hypocrite in that the inner struggle between clark and roger means I don’t always feel the need to practice what I preach.

Thanks for asking, Clark. I appreciate the forum. Sorry it’s so long…( Ha turns out I’m a clark after all!) L/Z

 

 

cabe3-0627121737a-2zoe

rewritten.com  
The Well Tempered Bards
Skippy: Tail of a Caniche

 

 

 

 

 

Share

2’s day the Wakefield Doctrine (ok, tried to publish this last week, liked the title and the video so I’ll try again 2day)

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

les-revenants-des-precisions-sur-la-prochaine-serie-de-canal-portrait-w532

(originally published January 24, 2010)

‘with apologies to Bob Newhart’

(…yeah, one of those Posts)

Hello?

Oh…hi!  No, not at the moment, just trying to come up with a new Post…

Post, for the Wakefield Doctrine…I thought you knew!  Yeah, we actually went ahead with the idea,  yeah online and everything!

(...Nah, not working. Too dated and self-referential. But, I’ll keep the video clip because, well, because it is Bob Newhart.)

here, let me get out of the block quotes……

ok, better!

To follow up on yesterday’s Post:

…you know how we’ll look at one person’s response to  a situation and think, “scott would have done this….” (or) “I’ll bet a roger would have made that come out differently” ?  (This) is a time-honored method used by many of us in our efforts  to better understand the Wakefield Doctrine ‘in the context of ‘real’ life’, however,  there is a flaw to (that) viewpoint.

Lets start from the start.  I ‘m a clark. I engage in a conflict-situation with another person, the outcome is…whatever it is. A clark will, for the most part, be resigned to trying to be satisfied with whatever the outcome of this interaction may be, but, those of us aware of the Doctrine, might also reflect on the exchange to the effect,  ‘well, a scott would have done this and that is why their results would have been (different) than mine.’  Wrong….or rather semi-wrong.

The error I am making in our example above* is that not that I know how a scott would have responded to our sample situation , we all know the scottian personality type well enough to know what they would do! ( “…final reports put the body count/number of broken hearts at….21 but authorities are not yet making an official statement.” )  The mistake I’m making  lies in focusing on what I know a scott (or a roger) would do in the situation that I experienced…when, instead,  I should be trying to understand how the scott (or roger) would have experienced/perceived the situation.  Let me restate.
You get home from the grocery store and realize that the checkout person double 
charged you for, at very least, 6 separate items. You get in the car and you drive back to the store. When you get there you see the Store Manager standing 2 aisles down from the checkout person that double charged you. That is the situation. We’re still assuming you’re a clark and you’re still assuming that something in the Wakefield Doctrine will let you get through this situation better by knowing how one (or both) of ‘the other two’ would handle this situation.  This is the point of today’s Post. It is not what a scott or a roger (or a clark) could do, it is ‘what do you see when they walk in the door of the supermarket?’)

I will leave it at this point for the benefit of our early-leave for-work-people to read and respond.

The situation as it manifests to each of the three worldviews would be:

  1. a clark would see:
  2. a scott would become aware of:
  3. a roger would decide to:

 *****
if there are any clarks in the Reader pool who would like to participate in the Wakefield Doctrine Thursday Guest Post Thursday as a guest post (writer), please reply by 10pm. if you are not certain of your predominant worldview and you would answer the following question(s) as ‘TRUE’, then you probably are qualified. The Questions:

  • you are pretty sure you understand the Doctrine but are not 100% sure, but don’t mind admitting it
  • you wonder if there is a part of this quiz that you may be missing, so you will wait and see if anyone else responds
  • you think you probably would enjoy the idea of writing a guest post, but are not sure if you might not mess it up, though if this question were posed (to you) in private, you would totally be confident in having something interesting to say

tick tock, binyons!  tick tock   (it is currently 6:22 pm EDST)

*****

* what example??! I don’t see no example, all I see is one person imagining meeting another person, something happening and then a lot of time spent by the first person thinking about…. oh!  that example!  ok, continue!

Share