predicting human behavior | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 65 predicting human behavior | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 65

‘Lessons of Life’ the Wakefield Doctrine ‘it’s movie clip Thursday!’

March 20, 2014 By

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

 

(thanks out to zoe and Denise, Stephanie and Jean for the secret mental highway roadblocks that lead me overslept mind to the idea of a advice on life through movie clips)

Slacker:

Planet of the Apes:

Little Shop of Horrors

Dogma

 

…you’re probably wondering, “…ok, fun clips and all, but you did say something about ‘Life Advice’, didn’t you?”

yes, yes I did! But the thing about the Wakefield Doctrine, (the thing that, until I totally ramp up my rogerian aspect, will prevent this personality theory from getting too widespread), is that our little Doctrine is not ‘an Answer’ it’s a tool. We might have even gotten all ‘cutsy aphoristic’ and said, ‘the Doctrine is not an Answer, it’s a Question‘….but that would be too easy and, in truth, not accurate. The Doctrine is neither a Question nor an Answer, it’s a perspective. The Wakefield Doctrine offers, to those with the kind of intellect secure enough in itself to play with odd ideas and enjoys imagining the things that simply are not reality, an insight into the behavior of people.

the basic perspective is simply that we all grow up and develop mentally, socially, physically and spiritually in a world in which we are:

  1. the Outsider. these are clarks who are outside of everything and spend their lives trying to learn their way back in, convinced that the answer is in their minds and that until such time as they belong, they must avoid being scrutinized
  2. the Predator. the scotts who live life to the fullest today, were it not for their clarklike and rogerian aspects, (we all have all three), they would be totally happy all the time, embracing (and eating and loving) what is, never concerned with what is not, scotts see the light within and try to confront it, but (they) are as trapped in their limitations as clarks are…forever trying to ‘take’ what is within themselves already
  3. the Herd Member, rogers live in a world where the Answer is available and if it is not, then the Question is irrelevant there is a Right Way and everyone else’s way… the roger is best equipped to deal with their own limitations

there ya go!

Anyone have any clips send ’em on in! (try to include the Life Advice that the clip contains….lol)

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

there is a way to use this, (the) Wakefield Doctrine that is actually quite practical!

March 18, 2014 By

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

1950s Teacher In Front Of Classroom Writing Confidence On Blackboard

You know what’s a real skill to have? The ability to teach! I’m thinking of the kind of teacher who not only can impart knowledge to the student the very first time, (doing whatever the hell it is that Teachers do), but is able to help the pupil or learnee, to learn more about a thing than they already know.  I suspect this is a gift that music teachers, early elementary and graduate school teachers share.

Note: the Rule of ‘everyone does everything at one time or another‘ says that all three personality types can be and, are skilled and effective Teachers. There is no exclusive domain for skills, professions, avocations or talent among the three worldviews. It is simply that how the art/science of ‘teaching’ is manifested in distinctly different ways. For a clark, teaching is one thing, for a scott it is something else and for rogers …completely different, from their perspective. (Warning: new(er) aspect of the Doctrine follows). And since we have just created a thought picture in your minds in the shape of a ‘guidance counselor in high school’, lets expand on this and suggest that and you (the Guidance Counselor) have been assigned the task of recommending the best career choice in the field of education for the 6 students you have been assigned, you might do as follows:

  • clark (female): elementary grades (reasoning: the class is comprised of people that a  clark is able to relate to, and the class does not get defensive with, like they tend to with adults)
  • clark (male): college level teaching (reasoning: most of the bullying, on the part of the students is in the arena of the intellect and the clark will not have a problem …unlike the earlier grades)
  • scott (female): pretty much any grade when one of the primary goals is to ‘kid wrangle‘, when the learning is more teaching ‘fundamental social rules of behavior’, picture  a cross between Cesar Millan and Famke Janssen)
  • scott (male): shop, gym (probably not elementary grades, “so honey what did you learn in school today? oh! mommy the new Teacher knows so much…. pull my finger!”)
  • roger (female): home ec, social studies, history (“I would like to submit to the Board my recommendation for a new Course: “Getting Along without Standing Out 101”  and “Cooking Meals that look perfect”)
  • roger (male): social studies, history, home ec ( ‘hey kids I really talk your language and I will, in fact, pass along things I learn in our private conversations to other students I am trying to impress. It’s never too soon to learn about the real world!”)

We can now clearly see how, the art of teaching represents something different to each of the three (yes, three), while there are undeniable differences in the culturally permitted behavior assigned to each of the two genders, the Wakefield Doctrine is, in fact, gender neutral. The person who grows up in the reality of the Outsider (the clark) finds the students they can best relate to, the Teacher-to-be who is, by personal-social-spritual development, a Predator (scotts) knows that antelopes are much lower mantainance (as feedstock) than, say, a herd of wildebeests and the Herd Member (rogers) simply sees the herd and notes the predators and remembers the blue monkeys (for future use).

So, class   are there any Questions??

….and No! I will not pull my own finger!

 

 

 

* do they still have guidance counselors? I mean the male roger (‘here take this aptitude test, ok clark the scores are back the career you are best suited for is ‘file clerk‘**) or clarklike female (“so what do you like to do, what do you dream of doing“) or scott (“c’mere let me tell ya a thing or two about jobs“)

** true story

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgfAf04tCC8
Share
Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , , ,

FTSF * WDFBVchat* the Wakefield Doctrine (hey, it’s like hamburger fricassee or pizza during high school… ‘what a relief!! lunch food that’s fun’)

March 14, 2014 By

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

Marilyn Chambers

(slipping into the queue at Janine and Stephanie and Kate and Kristi’s blgohop… trying not to be noticed, it having been, like, what, a year since the Doctrine has participated?  always liked the FTSF.  A hell of a gang of writerinae and even a couple of guys from Y Chromeville, not counting the male rogers, of course)

 

This Friday’s non-completed sentence appears to be…. The Best Decade is… (wait, that’s not right)  The 10 Things that make the 80’s (shit!  there’s a couple of Posts that seem to be) “My Favorite Decad……”    er   maybe it’s The Best Ten Years that did not involve having my’…. (no!  that can’t be it!)

shit, totally out of practice on these FTSFs!!   lets combine the main elements:

  • Decades
  • Kristi
  • Colorado singers and womenly blog conventions
  • embarrassing bodily functions… (yeah, that should cover all the bases!)

 

My Fondest Memories (that cover 10 years of life) and the Songs that Made them Famous…

That would have to be the 1970’s. Because within that 10 year decade, I:

  • dropped out of graduate school 1 semester shy of graduating
  • played in a ‘wedding band’  (complete with the polyester flowered shirts) and a song list that included: ‘On Green Dolphin Street’, ‘Misty’, ‘the Hully Gully’ and for reasons lost in the distant past, the theme song from ‘the Rockford Files’
  • had my first relationship with a scottian woman (“…and you enjoy doing that too?!?!”)
  • had 6 different jobs and 2 periods of collecting unemployment
  • thought about going out West, but never actually left the state
  • the first half of the decade were totally superior, musicistically-speaking than the second half, but then again, the memory is a little blurry from ’76 to ’79
  • started in the real estate business, which, with a number of interruptions, would remain my work of choice

…. hey! er,  Kristi? you get what I was trying for here, right?  tell   Stephanie…. Kate,  Janine?  guys? I haven’t really lost my touch with the bloghop, have I?

 

I might need to ease back into the bloghop scene. I do totally enjoy the camaraderie-ette here and it’s a good way to start the weekend while ending the workweek.

Speaking of ending the Working,  you all (those of you reading this) are invited to our very cool  weekly video chat that we do on Friday nights (using google+ hangouts)

the Wakefield Doctrine

presents

the Fabulous Bloggers Vidchat  (with Lizzi and Michelle and them)

Friday evening 8:00 pm (check with ‘the Facebook if you have trouble signing in)

it’s fun and interesting and such

 finally some music from the 70’s

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

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

‘Thursday Recapitulation and Justification’ …the Wakefield Doctrine (‘your browser sent a request that this server could not understand‘)

March 13, 2014 By

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

Clara Bow + Jean De Briac - Parisian Love (1925) dancing

lol

thank you (capricious and random) universe!

Here I was, ready to submit the following as the-little-Post-that-thought-I-had-to,-even-though-I-knew-better-and-would-rather-go-against-my-instincts-than-run-the-risk-of-disappointing-unseen-and-even-imaginary-Readers Post (which  I will leave, replete with the nearly too clever strike-throughs).

It’s weird.1,029 Posts and I seem to feel that, cut and pasting and re-printing, at least on a large scale is…cheating. No, I take that back. It stranger than that, I mean, hell, with a handful of exceptions, I wrote them all, so it’s not like I would be passing off another person’s effort as my own.  But there is still something not right about ‘writing a Post’ and not have it come out of (wherever words and thoughts and descriptions and such come from) of the package un-read and new to all of us to be read for the first time.

So.  We’re back!1 I see the answer in front of me. This key point to today’s Post does deserve some explanation. Sometimes, when I set out to write a Post, I know what I want to say and I write it. Other times, I do not have a clue. Sometimes, (when I do not have a clue) I simply start to write and hope to find myself in an interesting place that I can ‘write myself out of” and, still other times, (when I do not have a clue), I look for something strange and random to occur that somehow makes me feel that there is something to write. Today was like this latter situation. The strike-through above is what welcomed me when I sat down at the computer this morning. I felt a need to write a Post and a reluctance to write something that was stupid. During a break, I went to see what I wrote On This Day in Doctrine History (lol  I know…but it sounds so cool!). In any event, when I tried to search old Post, the message that you see in the Title flashed on my screen. I laughed. It made me feel like I could write a Post. Tell me, does that make sense to any of you out there?   So, somehow, the set up was… I know that I should not be overly worried about whether I write a Post today or not, whether I write a good Post or not or, …or is that the true underlying fear, have I run out of interesting and amusing ways to explain the Wakefield Doctrine? Which had my thinking about fear, which lead to:

“…clarks are afraid of nothing and live their entire lives in fear”.

Rather than go over the hard-packed ground of what does this statement ‘mean’ to a clark, lets consider how scotts and rogers would approach this condition. Normally when we attempt to express what fear means to a clark. we talk in terms of  ‘what this represents in the worldview of the Outsider’…. (we would sincerely and with the best of intentions) explain how we  define fear as a component of our world  and how it’s a certain element of our reality….and all the rest. today we will not take that approach. Instead, lets practice what we (me? us?…), preach.  To repeat:

“…clarks are afraid of nothing and live their entire lives in fear”:

  • we know what that means…god damn! if we could give the frickin understanding thing a rest…for a minute!  (you rogers and scotts do not have a clue about how wearying it can be to be constantly understanding (or trying to understand) the shit that goes on in the average clark’s life… never mind …we know that it’s not because you don’t care, it’s because your worldviews are different)
  • how does that statement make us want to act? (if we could) what would we want to do…. real simple: just not fuckin care  (not in the ‘lack of identification with’ sense of ‘care’, more in the, act without thinking of the ramifications and consequences and implications and all the rest of the stuff that understanding entails… ‘
  • how does that statement make us feel?  one word: embarrassed and self-conscious…we know that the world is not judging us, but we have a sneaking suspicion that you (collectively) are comparing  and there is nothing more threatening to a clark than the prospect of being observed and being compared….to everyone else, to the others that seem like us, hell, we’re worried that we’ll be compared to ourselves from a different situation or time (“why, clark!, you seemed so much more confident when you were writing Posts last year! what happened, is there something wrong?)

…ok, totally at my limit today for the ‘how we would act/what we would feel’ take on the clarklike world view.

 

1) back in the sense of in the process of final edit, 30 minutes of the past 90 being consumed by the image-finding-process, which, by the way, is a Post in and of itself.2

2) yeah, zoe, you’re right! what better time to try and describe the path that lead to the images I use with Post,  than right now…. ok, first search terms was ‘resistance to change’ then I tried, ‘inner secrets (! yeah, that was fun, but nothing I had the nerve to use), then on to ‘Sisyphus’ and finally… (none of us want to think about this one) I typed in  ‘La Danse Apache’  (!! lol  I have no idea and yes, you  the clark in the back of the metaphorical room?  why thank you! I will accept my willingness to go this path as a statement of pride in my people (clarks) and I will feel as good about myself as is possible…)  now, of course, observant Readers will note the ecumenical fellas in the Post photo on the blog homepage… how they ended up there… no, I am all kinds of courageous (as a clark) here at the Doctrine, but I am so not ready to try and figure out why I chose the particular photos to end up on this Post. lol

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

in search of ‘the write time’ the Wakefield Doctrine ‘when the best time to write, …changes’

March 12, 2014 By

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

top-ten-luxury-brands-sexy-ads-2_thumb300x200

Well, this can’t be ‘the best time’ to write, I’m in the middle of a workday afternoon!

Maybe it’s a seasonal change to the ebb and flow of energy, maybe, (as Friend of the Doctrine, Jean, suggests), it’s the change of Daylight Savings Time, of course, being  clark, it could be as simple an explanation as:  I’m imagining it.  More likely, (and more promising as a Post topic),  it’s a shift in the psycho-subjective component* of (my) circadian rhythm; something within that has normally triggered my brain to go into neologistic ontogeny,*** sort of like getting horny in the morning (for guys) or wanting to cook a meal or knit a home (for women). That may very well be what has happened! Although, using the manifestation of my other drives at different times of day as an example, I’m not feeling like listening to anyone’s dreams for a peaceful world or inviting her up to see my etchings, Post writing-istically speaking, that is.

Maybe it’s later in the the day.  Check back here a little later, maybe we could go see a foreign film and then have an aperitif, ya know?

(oh! yeah!  you’re right!  gotta get some Doctrine content in for the New Reader),  this weird Post? of the three personality types:

  1. a clark would have thought of the idea in the first place and, (possibly), overcome their fear of presuming the right to the attention of the people that are likely to read the blog
  2. a scott would have laughed and encouraged the writer (“hey!! don’t forget to be outrageous… saying something shocking!!  come on!!)
  3. a roger would have smiled and been encouraging and, as a result, possibly caused the writer to re-think the whole thing and, satisfied that they made their friends laugh, left it unpublished.

…there is a saying here at the Doctrine: ‘clarks think, scotts act and rogers feel‘   and so if you are a clark and find yourself with the impulse to do something, then you would do well to look to your scottian aspect and if you are a scott and suddenly have an urge to examine your motives (to act) and the consequences and effects of these acts on others…. then you have a major secondary clarklike aspect and if you’re a roger and you feel the need to answer every question directly and dispassionately and without artifice then you need to go back to bed!  Remember: we all do everything at one time or another, it just comes down to how we relate ourselves to ‘it’

 

* not a real word**

** yet

*** hate to say it 1, might be a valid term, even if I made it up

1) no, not really

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