predicting human behavior | the Wakefield Doctrine

Guest Post Thursday!! the Wakefield Doctrine (“yeah, pretty cool, non?”)

May 15, 2014 By clarkscottroger

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

(In my first version), of this intro, I did a longish, semi-clever set up about going to a party and meeting someone who was the kind of person that I never have gotten to know, were it not for the party-anything-is-possible-with-sufficient-energy. If I ran into this person in a non-party situation, I probably wouldn’t have the nerve to introduce myself. Jean would have been that person… a party during high school years (damn! no way!), college? (well, maybe I might …given the pharmaceuticals available) or in an adult work environment (nope! back to, no way).
But this is the blogosphere. All of us have the opportunity to feel connected and protected, (here), the shy are brave and the confident are relaxed and so I have come to know Jean Yates, our Guest Writer. I feel fortunate for having met her, for a number of reasons that should be apparent when you read her post below. (Jean writes a blog, “…there’s Beading to be Done” that (somehow) manages to combine craft expertise, artistic insights and humor…yes, in one blog.) Go there. read. Without further adieu, lets give the floor to Jean.

Dear clark, I have never written a guest post before. I am doing this because I support you and everything you are and do. If you don’t want to use it, you don’t have to. If you want to analyze it, go right ahead. I wrote it with my eyes wide open. What you do with this guest post is actually the part I am looking forward to. xox jean

Hi! “It’s the jean show!”, as my husband Jim would sigh. With resignation. Jim is a clark. Funniest guy in the world; also terribly shy*. Very competitive, but you wouldn’t realize that unless you got him into a situation where you had to play any sort of game with him. Then he would crush you. That must mean–or does it?– that he has some scott in him? Or is it just that all three types can be competitive…they just go about it in a different way?

Jim and I once had to meet with a psychiatrist, an appointment we had to keep as the parents of a son who needed an evaluation. The shrink would not set foot in a room with our son without a 700 dollar visit with us, first. We were sitting in our chairs facing the guy, and suddenly the doctor turned to Jim and said, “You do realize you are severely ADD, don’t you? You have been shifting around in your seat, tapping your feet, and looking out the window the whole time we have been talking, here.” Jim replied, “Well, actually I have found what you are saying pretty boring, and I am in construction so I am looking out the window because I am checking the job they are doing resurfacing the asphalt on your parking lot, and I am also listening to the trucks on the main road as they accelerate because they are a lot more interesting to me than you are.”

I thought it was very funny and almost worth the money we were paying the guy to “fix” [clap clap] our kid.

The doctor also turned to me (what the heck?) and said, “Are you sure you are Bipolar I, as I see you have written here? Because you really don’t present as Bipolar I to me.” Strike two. I went back to my own doctor, and checked. He reminded me what I was like after my one manic episode in my forties. People, I am indeed Bipolar I, but ( I know now!) I am a Bipolar I SCOTT. Sometime if you would like to know what it is like to be crazy and be a scott, I will tell you. When they fixed me up with Lithium and Valium and sent me home, I decided never to fall apart again because I needed to be here 24/7 for my kids. But I had fun while it lasted. It was like a trip to a different world.

As for our son the psychiatrist was purportedly seeing? He is still not “fixed”, but he is a lot happier.
By the way, he is a clark.

What is it that I think makes me a scott? Am I showing off, to be proud to be a scott? Yes! Are most of my friends clarks? Yes! Do clarks have mystique and charisma? Yes! …Whereas scotts are gawky open books, and resemble human golden retrievers when they are not on a hunt for a romantic partner? Yes..and…no?

And what of rogers? From the perspective of a scott: Try getting into the most haute social clubs without a roger member escorting you in. Try getting a loan! Try getting a second opinion! Try getting some attractive curtains!!! I mean, seriously!!! Rogers are great at stuff like that. Look around people, when we have our video chats! I rest my case! Get a roger to help you DECORATE!

However, who has the best taste in music? Probably not a roger. Maybe not a scott…well, maybe occasionally a scott! But maybe not.

I was born on the East Coast. I was trained and taught all the rules. I am glad that my rogerian mother with a strong secondary clark aspect was able to bring me up to behave properly, because it afforded choices to me I would not otherwise have had. Plus some money for a while, which helped me pay all those shrink bills.

But then again, when I turned my back on that group from which I came, I was proud of myself.

I knew exactly what I was leaving behind, and when I made this choice it was as if a burden had been lifted off my shoulders. For every Muffy, Rigden and Tibby I walked away from, I gained more freedom. I gained more freedom and the power to make choices and mistakes and screw ups which I OWN. That freedom from “what will everyone think?” is priceless to me. I will never care what everyone thinks, because I have to care what I think.

So yes, I am an outsider too, but I choose this. I choose my destiny.

I prize integrity, loyalty, intelligence, a good sense of humor, curiosity about everything in the world, food, knowing how to cook good food, any sort of creativity, originality, and great hair.

Jeh

* Jim wants to state that for the record “he is not shy!”.

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

Wensday* the Wakefield Doctrine (“…I had a clever title in mind, discovered I already used it, should I be concerned?”)

May 14, 2014 By clarkscottroger

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

Lets mark today as the imaginary start to a hypothetical new approach to writing this here Wakefield Doctrine blog here, ok? (As zoe put it, in a Comment yesterday, “…am I to infer from this post that you are rounding a corner of starting the maiden voyage of writership of this here Doctrine? How very exciting….” ). The ‘writership’ she alludes to is my renewed effort to organize the presentation of the Wakefield Doctrine in a form that will make it more user-friendly and more accessible to a wider demographic of Reader. These Posts will remain essentially the same, targeting the new Reader, I will always include a definition of the Doctrine and an example of the nature of one (or all three) of it’s worldview.

The biggest ‘change’ is that I am going to have people writing Guest Posts here! And, …and! as is obviously appropriate, to start us off will be Jean from ‘There’s Beading to be done!’, writing tomorrow’s Post. she is one of our favorite scotts, here in the ‘sphere and I’m totally looking forward to it.

I had a Post that I wrote Sunday, I kept the draft form of it, intending to post it today. Unfortunately, drafts have a built-in ‘spoiled-by-date’, pretty much one chance to sit down and complete/edit/add-something. If the draft doesn’t turn into a published post, it ends up in the trash. So anyway, I had this draft Post going into yesterday, I still liked it, even found a music vid that I really liked for it. But, this morning I sat down and looked at it and thought…’nah, gots to go’. But I did keep one line and the video. Both are at the bottom of this Post.

before that,

hey! new Reader!! no, I mean the person behind you… of course I mean you! You’re still reading and it’s been about 300 words. Guess what? We know something about you already. (yeah, yeah, of course this is a trick to keep you reading… no! I don’t mind, that thought just confirms what we already know.) Still here? great. While I don’t have time to tell you what it is we know about you, I will say this: either you are a clark or your secondary aspect is clarklike.

pretty cool, no? (yeah, I know that doesn’t mean anything yet.) …the Wakefield Doctrine maintains that we all are born with the potential to grow up, develop and live our lives in one of three characteristic worldviews,** that of the a) the Outsider (clarks), b) the Predator(scotts) and c) the Herd Member(rogers). While other personality theories will be asking you at this point about your likes and dislikes, favorite colors and worst nightmares, the Doctrine is different. All we do is say, ‘here are the general characteristics of the three personality types (clarks, scotts and rogers)’, they act the way they do because of how they relate themselves to the world around them’. Figure that out about a person and you will know more about them than they know about themselves. Lets put it another way: using the descriptions of the characteristics of the three worldview as guides, try to ‘see the world as the other person is experiencing it’.

..ok one more and that’s it! ‘clarks think, scotts act and rogers feel’

Interested? Sure try going to ‘the About page‘ or… given that the chances are you’re a clark, try this page.

better yet, you think you’re a clark? then you’ll know all about the post I didn’t publish on the basis of the following:

“…and I embarked on a path that is terribly familiar to my people… I began to worry about fear

( what the fuck is wrong with me? ) “

* that is the way you’re pronouncing, right?

** personal reality… you know “hey! how was the party? a) it sucked b) it rocked c) it could have been better

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

TToT the Wakefield Doctrine (Saturday the someteenth…. Happy Sunday Day!)

May 10, 2014 By clarkscottroger

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

Item 1: Item 2: (and) Item 3:

Item 4: the discovery the 30-45 day lag in seasons. It’s made the weather much more tolerable. ( A Doctrine Note: of the three personality types, clarks are the ones that need to understand. This need is very simple, i.e. it’s about understanding the un-understood. Does not require a correct explanation, just one that is credible to us. This requirement applies across the spectrum: feeling sick, trying to get the new gas grill to light, getting turned down by a girl, getting turned down for a job, getting excessively (and obsessively) hit-on by a guy, having the family members give you the evil eye…. all are made better (well, more tolerable ) by the existence of an explanation) In this instance, if we think that the weather is perfect, but the calendar is running slow by 30 to 45 days, it’s all quite ‘understandable’! See? No problem!

Item 5: (temporary item*) Exercise. I’ve started a deliberate effort to exercise, specifically running. Second-thing (6:00 am), in the morning, I walk out of my house and walk/run a route that takes me along a semi-busy road (morning commuters), through a condo development, then through a wooded, un-developed area, (then) back across the semi-busy road and home. First week’s average time: 30 minutes.

Item 6: anti-grateful* for Friend-of-the-Doctrine Christine’s knee injury. While the prevailing, and, most credible accounting of this crutch-inducing mishap, is centered on a soccer game, I am going with: Christine was hurt as a result of an altercation following a win on the underground roller derby circuit. ( A little non-known fact, check your local youtube.)

Item 7: work (yeah, how exciting) getting busy at work which gives me emotional cover for feeling stress (see item #4)

Item 8: the Wakefield Doctrine (cited specifically in Number 4 and in general in Number 9)

Item 9: as an off-shoot of Item 8, ‘the Wakefield Doctrine presents: the Fabulous Bloggers Friday Night vidchat, with your hosts Lizzi Rogers and Michelle. Very cool concept! and, the ‘party’ itself is evolving. (If I sound a little surprised at this development of how each Friday is different, attribute it to my lack of direct experience with social gatherings and parties and such growing up. In a word: no two vidchats have been the same, not only do the people who participate vary, from week to week, but the… lets see if I can find a word that will totally establish my party-animal cred…. I know!! the tenor of the gathering varies each week…. (partae!!) especially last night’s pre-party discussion with Jean and zoe… I very enjoyed that, thanks!

Item 10: hey, here’s something odd. and not, technically a gratitude item, except obliquely, …as I often am. There’s this blog trying to do a collaborative story writing thing…. while I won’t mention any names ( to protect the non-rogerian), go to: the Secessionist Rag and scroll down to Chapter 1 and read upwards… Chapter 11 is where you will find the collaborator joining in on the story, (provided a certain level of proficiency in the Wakefield Doctrine, it is possible to infer the worldview of a person on the basis of their writings. if yo have the time to get over, come back and let us know what you think. honor system… both participants are on the Doctrine blogroll, but the blog is laid out such that you won’t easily know who is writing it.)

Gooo!!! Rolling Indiana-ians!!! Avenge your fallen Champion…. (yes, I will include a musically appropriate vid at the bottom of this Post). Get better soon..

Your hosts

A Fly on our (Chicken Coop) Wall, Amycake and the Dude, Considerings, Finding Ninee, Getting Literal, I Want Backsies, Mother of Imperfection, Rewritten, Thankful Me, The Wakefield Doctrine

An InLinkz Link-up

* Courtesy of BoSR (aka SBoR) Chap 5.9 you can claim gratitude of an item/activity/feeling/relationship that you know will not last, provided that a benefit/consequence/offshoot/or progeny retained after the dis-gratitudinization of same thing-in-your-life has occurred. ex: ‘I love this kid, it’s incredible that his father was such a bastard.’ like that

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

Finish the Sente…. the Wakefield Doctrine (whatever…)*

May 2, 2014 By clarkscottroger

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

(*a little Doctrine humor to start today’s Post)

Apologies to the other participants to Finish the Sentence Friday today. This bloghop was my first (and) still remains nearly my favorite. But today, …remember how, back in the days when there were, ‘seasons’ to TV? …and how, at a certain point in the life of a series, there would be flashback episode? and how it was patently done as a schedule filler? Today’s Post is kinda like that….

(hey!! wait just a darn minute! I have it! (all I need to do, to pull this off is: dial down my clarklike need to be a people pleaser; (and) turn up my scottian drive for attention (i.e. any attention is good attention); (and) nudge up my rogerian aspect…a little bit of ‘why this is a heartfelt effort, how could you even dream of not applauding my effort?!’)

“I have absolutely no interest in…”

…..today’s Finish the Sentence Fragment!

(ed. note: Now go read what Kate and Stephanie and Janine have to say this Friday, you won’t regret it! …and Kristi yeah, go read her’s too.. (hey when you’re over at Finding Ninee… don’t forget to tell her we’re all sending positive vibes for her thing this weekend!)

the rest of Today’s Post is random Doctrine stuff. for those of us who can’t get enough Wakefield Doctrine!

for a clark… it’s hard to imagine, having no interest in something/anything. clarks, as we know (or as we should know are more):

curious, easily bored, interested in anything that poses a question, insatiable people-watcher, friendly when not feeling threaten, confident when discussing ideas, totally tropistic for any information, however useless and obscure that they (the clarks) believe will give them insight into how they should feel, aggressive when dealing with ideas, passive when dealing with real people, (except friends…who they value more than anything), fearful, un-afraid (not the contradiction it would appear to be), the hard workers you could ever under-pay and self-less to an extreme, egotistical beyond imagining and willing to do anything for a chance to be accepted, except be-themselves.

for a scott… curiosity as exhibited by (younger) animals and most predators, a scott is curious about the things that pose a challenge in their world, and, since the ‘predator’ label is simply a metaphor, our scottian friends and friendettes will find everything interesting, but a (much) smaller set of that group as engaging, ya know?

(The scottian child will enjoy hours investigating their immediate environment, gaining confidence in their ability to cope with new situations, assess threats and practice ‘hunting’ skills.)

This play practice is most suggestively demonstrated in the case of the pre-adolescent female scott, who as a rule is given to solitary activity, exploring the environment, finding entertainment in solitary activity. In point of fact, the term commonly used in describing this young, scottian girl is ‘tom boy’. A relatively innocuous label intended for use in the case of a young girl who appears to be demonstrating behavior and interests that are not the culturally approved gender behavior and interests. In this case, that of the scottian female, this term is most often used by to account for (and condone) behavior usually considered in the culture appropriate for the male child. Interestingly enough, the attributes that earn the scottian female the label ‘tom boy’, while understood to be a temporary phase in the girl, are considered appropriate for the male (child) well into adulthood. There is a tacit recognition that this behavior in the female will, with the onset of puberty, be replaced with the more culturally accepted role of the young female (as dictated by the culture in which the example is found. This, of course implies that the behavior that most cultures expect from females is grounded in biology as much as psychology. The expectation of (the culture) that the individual conform to and fulfill their biological imperative is clear, as a girl matures into womanhood; implicit is the role as mother, home-maker, care-giver. Modern cultures have expanded the range of additional activities, interests and functions available to the female, however, at the base of it all is this primary reproductive capacity.

for a roger… there is a world of things that they have absolutely no interest in, one might even be tempted to say, that rogers are interested in only that part of the world that interests them… there are however, exceptions and the most subtle, yet reliable, indication of this, is what is called, the rogerian expression:

A rogerian expression is an idiosyncratic statement made only by a roger. It is incorrect, but nonetheless, very powerful. A rogerian expression is not simply an incorrect use of words. Rather it is a deliberate use of the wrong words that results in a statement that somehow denies the listener the option to ignore it. You will know these statements when you hear them. There is a moment of disbelief, after which you laugh and shake your head in admiration for the sentence that was made. Examples:

looking at his paycheck, a roger was heard to say: ‘oh man! Look at how much they deducted for aggravated security’
…talking about a new DVD release for a movie: ‘no, I am going to wait until they release the un-abashed edition’
…about to talk to a client: ‘I know I have to give them the bad news with the good news, I just won’t baby-coat it’
…writing in a blog about how egotistical certain real estate agents tend to be an unknown roger wrote: ‘ I have to say that as a professional class, most agents are much too self-absorbent…”

…and that concludes my Post for Finish The Sentence Friday.

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

24,000+ Word Thursday the Wakefield Doctrine (you asked…)

May 1, 2014 By clarkscottroger

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

So, yesterday I asked Readers to Comment-write Questions that I could use as topic(s) of discussion in a video Post. Lizzi and Jean stepped right up and provided the following:

Jean:

Question #1. if I were new here: if I gave you a list of famous people, would you be able to tell what sort of person they are (or were),really fast? For example, Paul McCartney? And how about that Clippers owner who just got banned?
Question #2: What if I told you I don’t LIKE asking rude or adversarial questions? What are you going to do about that, eh? WELL?¹

Lizzi:

1. Why will a clark keep giving and giving and giving, getting nothing in return, and STILL refuse to call it a ‘toxic’ or ‘draining’ relationship (side-note of which, how deep *is* the clark wellspring for this
2. How come scotts can COMPLETELY switch off their compassion to make fun of other people, in groups?¹

the Wakefield Doctrine is a perspective on human behavior disguised as a personality theory. the key premise of this theory is that we all, to a small, but quite real extent, live our lives in what can best be called a ‘personal reality’. (This concept is nothing all that revolutionary or exotic. To get a glimpse of what we mean by ‘personal reality’, all you need do is gather the family around the dinner table, after a wonderful day spent at the Family Reunion Picnic and ask the simple question: “So, did everyone have a good time today?” the term ‘personal realities’ will immediately be illustrated, (we use the term: worldview). the Wakefield Doctrine proposes that we all find ourselves (at a very early age, say, 3 to 5 years old) in one of three worldviews: that of the Outsider, the Predator or the Herd Member. We grow up and develop personally and socially, psychologically and spiritually in the context of (one of these three) personal realities. The result is what we refer to as being a clark or a scott or a roger. So we all have one reality that we live our lives in…we call that our ‘predominant worldview’. We do, however, retain the potential to experience the world as do ‘the other two’ (which is why, in the initial attempts to determine one’s own worldview, there can be confusion, i.e. “sorry… I’m pretty sure that I’m a roger but sometimes I’m a scott I must be some new personality type”). The reason we say that there is only one predominant worldview is that, what we mean when we talk about using the Doctrine to ‘know more about the other person than they know about themselves’, is that what we are trying to do, is actually to, ‘infer how the other person is relating themselves to the world around them‘. the Wakefield Doctrine is not simply about studying the acts and behavior and traits and reactions of the person, just to try and fit them into a category or chart or, as Sarah termed it, ‘the mold’ and then proclaim (that) person’s personality type. Nope! Wrong. Totally incorrect/off-base/missed-by-a-mile/neither-horseshoes-nor-hand-grenades/never-mind-‘home run’-you-were-out-before-you-came-within-90-feet-of-First-Base…sorry, that’s not what the Doctrine is trying to (let you) do! What then, is the Wakefield Doctrine trying to help to let you do? Is that your question? (’cause you know, we don’t have any Answers here….only a fun way to re-phrase the Question)… well, we’re glad you asked! All we’re doing is trying to ‘see the world as the other person is experiencing it²‘.

…cool, huh?

So… while I go out and tape myself answering the questions above, I understand that Joy Christi (ComfyTown Chronicles) is doing a vid Post today too! Go check her out (that’s ok, I can say that, she’s a scott) (lol) Check back here…say around 11:00 EDST I’ll have the vids up

In Response to Jean’s excellent question:

In Response to Lizzi’s questions:

and finally, this Surprise Guest Appearance by Friend of the Doctrine glenn:

1) scottian/pack-based humor

2) yeah, Christine! more trick wording! we did not quite borrow the famous ‘see the world as the other person sees it (as they walk along in the moccasins)’ we did totally say, ‘as the person experiences it’ big difference, non?