predicting human behavior | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 7 predicting human behavior | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 7

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: , , , , , ,

Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

July 26, 2023 By

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

Why do clarks always (seem) to hedge-their-bets/hold-back/not-embrace-the-present/pay-the-price-but-leave-their-purchase-at-the-fufilment-center*.

The answer is at the heart of why clarks (and scotts/rogers with way too much secondary clarklike aspects) enjoy the Wakefield Doctrine.

The answer** lies in understanding the predominant worldview of the Outsider, aka clarks.

[Ran out of time. Need to work on Six. And go to work. Comments are always fun.]

* an actual word for the place you go (or used to go, pre-internet) in any sizable department store to gather up your purchase and toddle off home with a new portable entertainment center or Three-Speed SunBeam mixer

** we trust some of you have started waving your hands in the air like Prince and shouting ‘There are no Answers in the Doctrine!!’ ‘There are only additional perspectives… and, well ok, if you must, a few Rhetorical Questions, such as:

  • they say that clarks abhor being the center-of-attention, but will not tolerate being ignored
  • if they’re so curious, why don’t more clarks look into their tendency to procrastinate, at least on things that involve others
  • …what do you mean, ‘That last bullet point makes no sense?!’
  • of course it does… but, this post notwithstanding, the attitude remains: offer the tools to self-understanding yourself and let the Reader decide how to proceed
  • …no, we don’t think that this approach to what is, purportedly, at-least-in-part, a self-improvement system is a wee-bit on the laissez–faire
  • sure, and it might seem to some to be the equivalent to the Captain of the Titanic directing his crew to slide notes under the cabin doors of all the passengers informing them that ‘Skiing, rock-climbing and competitive Ice-Water-Swimming has been added to the ship’s athletic program…
  • no, we’re not goings to keep this up
  • yes, there is a coherent answer:
  • clarks, as Outsiders, tend to avoid accepting (things/people-who-seem-to-want-more/events that represent the culmination of a deliberate effort) because then others would be in a position to know us
  • …. we have to spell everything out?!?! ‘Know us without an allowance for a ‘makeup effort’ There is always something of a mystery about clarks and we are good with that because if everything is stated and we don’t measure up (to whatever standard) what’re we gonna do then?

*

 

(yeah, like Prince wasn’t no clark1)

  1. similar to Hendrix in the contrast between stage persona and… personal (at least in interviews and such). Even more (than Hendrix) in the contrast with lyrics and music…
Share
Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , , , ,

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘…ok, ok!. this time an actual/’real’ RePrint!’

July 25, 2023 By

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

Of course, regular Readers know that the idea of posting an old Doctrine post is to prime the rhetorical pump, as opposed to merely to re-purpose old words, right?

Of course, as we type, the thought comes, ‘How can there be such a thing as an ‘old post?’ At least in the implied pejorative sense. And, the answer is, there is not. Since the core of the Wakefield Doctrine is the relationship (we have) with the world around us, then there can be ‘no getting it wrong’.

There are three characteristic relationships in the Doctrine and only three. Sometimes a person will come along and say, ‘Great system, but it needs one more personality type’.* Not to worry! Not only can you not get it wrong, you can’t break it.

Hey! Maybe we can find an old post that discusses one of the old standards: i.e. ‘the Wakefield Doctrine is gender, age and culture neutral’

(hold on….)

Well! We couldn’t quite find that, but we did find a post with bullet points!

A post from our second year online.

look no further! we have the answer you are searching for, provided of course, that the question you have is: How I can understand the behavior of others and better understand myself through a system comprised of only three personality types?

August 29, 2010

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

Please make yourself comfortable, feel free to browse through the Table of Contents (over there on the right) or just flip through these Posts. There is a lot of information to cover and not a lot of time. So in a nutshell, seedpod, or lunchbox the Wakefield Doctrine is:

a fun and useful way to understand yourself and other people, a “theory” of personality that is much, much more than all those other theories you read about. The Doctrine says, “hey, there are three personality types in the whole damn world”. You and the person next to you and the folks back home can be seen as being one of these 3 types. They are clarks, scotts and rogers. Figure out which the person is and you will know a whole bunch about them. Figure out which of the three you are and you will not only know a whole lot about yourself, but you will be able to change whatever things (about yourself) that you have been trying (unsuccessfully) to change.

Really.  It’s true.

Of course, there’s a lot more to it than that, but for that you have to read more of what we have to say. But to get you started we will say this, the Wakefield Doctrine is gender and culture neutral and if you find yourself saying, “Hey, Mr Wakefield, sometimes I’m one of those scotts and sometimes I feel like one of those roger people.” To you we say, “whats the matter with feeling like a clark?, huh?”  (oh yeah, clarks not do that “I feel like” shit, do they?)
Anyway, we would say, “Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine! You have all 3 personality types, of course, but you are mostly one of the three. Don’t worry about it.

Besides we like to think this Doctrine thing is a lot of fun. We might be talking about someone in the news and one of us will turn to the other and say, “Obama….what a roger!” or we might say to each other, “You know those Progressive Insurance commercials on TV? That Flo person, how much of a clark is she, huh?” So this is not just a website you go to and take a test and find out that your personality type is INTP/otter-with-malamute tendencies, hell no! We have fun because we see clarks and scotts and rogers out there in the world and they act just like the Wakefield Doctrine tells us they should act! And it’s getting like we don’t have to make any of this shit up anymore…the clarks and the scotts and the rogers prove that the theory is totally true. Try it your ownselfs!

Today I have copied a page out of the Table of Contents to show that the personality business is not all dry boring, reading stuff! Clearly we like to borrow stuff, here at the Doctrine. So it should not surprise anyone how we went an sort a used Jeff Foxworthy’s “you might be a redneck…” thing. But hey if it makes you laugh, then you will be learning the whole thing about which are clarks and which are scotts and which are rogers.

You immediately stop surfing the channels when you come upon a show that uses only black and white documentary photos and film…you might be a roger

You totally love Christmas lawn decorations and cannot imagine having too many lights… you might be a scott

You find a flier stuck under the windshield wiper of your car and you take the time to read it… you might be a clark.

You are asked a question and you start to answer with “in the beginning…”  you might be a clark.

You are addressed by the wrong name and you answer to it without correction… you might be a clark.

You are building model cars/ships/planes, you always put the extra parts  back in the box along with the re-folded instructions for future safekeeping…you might be a roger.

You think that Slacker was the greatest movie made in the 90s…you might be a clark

You think that Borat was one of the funniest movies of the year…you might be a scott

You think that the 107 episode,  Directors cut, 15 DVD un-abashed edition of the compilation (with Writers notes (including what he had for breakfast) and voice-over reading of the credits by someone who knew someone who was a re-enactor who actually got hurt at an event) of all Ken Burns films, PBS episodes and commercials that last longer than most readings of the Iliad is the greatest film of all time…you might be a roger

You have any inclination to wear hats for a fashion statement (for male rogers only) or a ‘fanny pack’ (either male or female rogers), or  any clothing designed specifically for riding a bicycle (branded or un-branded)…you might be a roger.

You happen to be at a golf tournament and feel that it is expected of the members of the gallery to yell anything (including but not limited to “get in the hole”)…you might be a scott.

You are contemplating a project of any sort; a new deck or a term paper, writing a resume or planting a garden and you:

…you look forward to making the list of things you need to buy/gather/acquire first more than anything else…you might be a clark

…you must know what your friends on the ’do it yourself’ shows have done, that is what you want…you might be a roger

…CONTEMPLATE? PLAN? I JUST FINISHED IT! FUCK YOU!! IT’S DONE NO THIS IS FINE THE WAY IT IS… you might be a scott

So, there you have it. You laugh…you join…pretty simple, isn’t it?

 

 

* if they’re laughing (in a good way), chances are they’re’ a scott; if they’re dreadfully concerned and sincere then you got yourself  a roger talking and if they preface it with ‘I know…’ and propose an enhancement, you’re dealing with a clark. damn! (further explication available upon Comment)**

** if any Reader shouted-out ‘the Everything Rule’ you’ll get a free DocTee***

*** Limit one per winner, quantities non-existent

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