relationships | the Wakefield Doctrine relationships | the Wakefield Doctrine

TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

Special Edition TToT!

Well, yeah, now that you mention it, that does raise the spectre of  an inescapable infinite regression, gratitudinously-speaking. oh well.

This is still the Ten Things of Thankful (TToT) bloghop. Founded in 1823 by a charwoman’s daughter. As a young person, our creatrix found herself stifled by the incoherent dialect of the King’s English spoken in the local school where she grew up, in East Ham-on-Rye, in County Lingerie, England. And so, she began to write a list of the things that she was grateful for and the rest is history. (Well, technically, if this description is immersive enough, the rest would become the future.)

(whew! Caffeine! You are truly a loving and terrible god!)

All are welcome to contribute their own list of the people, places, things and event that incite a state of gratitude when first apprehended.

For the Wakefield Doctrine, we offer:

1) Phyllis

2) Una

3) Mimi for providing the idea: Show Us Your Bookcases! (as a Grat)

4) the Wakefield Doctrine

5) (Establishing shot) as mentioned in last week’s grat, our bookcases have left the living room and taken up residence in the laundry/utility room. So the first thing you see is:

6) Second Shelf right end

7) the Six Sentence Story bloghop

8) Ayiiee! (future dodged-bullet Grat!) Phyllis’ cottage has book shelves (and less hex wrenches, duct tape and round televisions) so we offer ‘The Bookcases of the Forest”

Cottage bookcases:

Second shelf right end:

9) Once upon something, something

10) Secret Rule 1.3

music

*

*

*

 

 

You are invited to the Inlinkz link party!

Click here to enter

Share

Friday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

Quick reminder!

If you’ve been thinking about joining us at the TToT bloghop, this weekend (aka doors are now open) is the perfect jumping-in point.

(No, clarks, we’re not gonna ‘splain what the TToT is. You know. Even if you haven’t been told. Hey, you know the problem with clarks?  You accept that it is your gift (aka nature of your predominant worldview) to naturally know all manner of stuff. Thing is, as soon as there are others involved and your knowledge is subject to scrutiny, you play the safe move. Until you see external validation. Of course, we know why that is. And, given the tenor of this intro, we’re going to go ahead and surpass on stating the reason. ha ha, Yeah, that last? a reference to the ‘original rogerian expression‘.)

(ok, but we’re still not going to hand you the crutch of validation… so the progenitor roger in the Before time had a wife who was attending college. And one weekend she had an opportunity to throw a dinner party and invite some of her professors. Important to her to make an impression. Advance her career. (good call, she was a scott) (male rogers are total lay-downs for scottian females, but we digress) anyway the evening went well and according to plan. our (progenitor) played it low-key… until dinner. In the middle of eatery, one of the tenured caught our protagonist staring at a dish and said, ‘Would you like some of these excellent mashed potatoes?’ to which our roger replied, “No thanks! I think I’ll surpass on that.”)

(rogerian expression; a misuse, misspoken use of a word as a form of aggression. it is not quite the correct word, but it is delivered with a sense of ‘Here… try this’ No self-consciousness (arguably a heightened awareness of the reaction of his/her audience), there is a waiting, expectant demeanor… they know it’s incorrect… hell they’re counting on it being so, perfectly skewed, as to cause a reaction. An emotional response. (rogers live in the reality of emotion). you know, as if an angler fish took a moment to paint its signature physical feature polka dots and sequins, before swimming into view…)

(ed. a real rogerian expression always results in am explosive laugh-response… in no small part due to the out of nowhere surprise combined with the fact the word employed is close enough to leave no question it was, somehow, a deliberate choice.)

enough about Herd Members!

This weekend at the TToT: Show us your books Weekend. All are invited to include, (in their TToTs), a photo of their bookcases. More specifically, the right-hand end of the second shelf (of said bookcase).

have fun

Share

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

So…

Nope… not gonna take the easy(er) path of a RePrint post today. Though god knows there are few more Doctrine-instructional days of the week to incite a Doctrine post than Tuesday!

ok, lets keep it basic.

New Readers: (no better way to stay ‘on track’* to write a Wakefield Doctrine post than to address them/write to that ‘market’). Hey! This blog is about the Wakefield Doctrine. Which is an additional perspective on the world around us and the people who make it up. We admittedly indulge in the harmless conceit of calling it a personality theory. Mostly because of the word ‘personality’. Which almost all of us are conditioned to think: ‘personality types!’ ha! (the exclamatory ‘ha’ is there just to set us up for one of the fun descriptions of generic personality types, of the kind formally found in magazines and now(ish) online.

The set-up is: “Oh honey! Come here! I’ve just read an article about personality types. It has you down to a ‘T’. You’re a (fill in the blank with random capital letters or maybe some animal species or, if of high academic ambitions, verbs turned into nouns, ‘Driver’ or whatever (don’t forget to capitalize!). In anyevent, our punchline is: “Now Mrs. Gullible has a brand new mirror-shaped club!”

ha ha

Have we mentioned that clarks tend not to tell jokes effectively? (Now, scotts! damn! that’s a whole post in and of itself. Warning!! Be careful what you ask for. Not entirely complimentary to our Predatory friends. At least for the most sensitive scotts. (yeah, we know! as if).

Back to our thesis: New Readers: if you visit consistently you will see a certain pattern here. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday are referred to a ‘Doctrine posts’. The Thursday post is a Six Sentence Story (a prompt based fiction bloghop). Saturday and Sunday, the TToT post.

that should do for today. (found my music vid in that last sentence, albeit a day late.)

*ok! congratulations New Reader!! You’ve demonstrated several qualities considered necessary to the full-enjoyment of the rhetorical, why-is-a-raven-like-a-writing-desk adventure that is the Wakefield Doctrine! No, we know you don’t need that explained, but for the benefit of the roger or scott looking over your shoulder we’ll say this: “The more enduring and consistent quality characterizing those who find the Wakefield Doctrine fun/interesting/useful, are flexiblity of intelligence and a ravenous curiosity.”

 

Share

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

While today is Monday, here in Oceania, it is a holiday. It is called, not without un-intended irony, ‘Labor Day’.

In that spirit, we will eschew any sense of (labor) and paste a random RePrint*.

* spin-scroll through the list of all posts while saying, ‘There’s a light…”

Wait! Before we spin ‘n print! Next week’s TToT will be special. It’ s an Open Audition (for Hosts/Hostinae). More later this week. Mark your calendars!

Monday Post -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘what?! did I read that correctly?!!!* whats going on here?’

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

Quick, before it fades from my mind, ‘within yesterday’s memory are all the lessons I need to make today the kind of day that I would hope it might be.’

whew! damn, that was close!

No, serially! I was (deliberately) veering from the path I found myself on this morning and the forces of sameness were totally marshaling to get me back on track. ‘back on track’ aka in the same old rut. (Funny how the truisms of life seem to be dual purpose, isn’t it?)

Anyway, as Ellias McDaniels, (no fair looking the name up! If I’m going to all the effort and social risk of getting obscure, then the least you can do is allow me the pleasure of your response that you know the reference.*), would say…

So, why the Monday Post? Two reasons:

  1. I’m trying to side-step my internal critic (that part of me who knows the true measure of my abilities and is kind enough to not let me write anything thats not up to the standards that I should be living up to)
  2. I’m in self-improve-by-virtue-of-better-organizing-my-time mode.  (Tell me that thats not the single most aggravating aspect of your day!) Well, tell me that, if you’re a clark. Speaking of which, how long has it been since I’ve written a ‘hey! this is the Wakefield Doctrine! you wanna hear about the best personality theory you’re ever going to hear about?’
  3. thanks! whoever that was in the back of the room (metaphorically speaking) and speaking of back of the class… can anyone out there tell me the personality type who gravitates to the back of the class, the back of the lecture hall, the back of the crowd at the annual awards ceremony and the front of the car? I’ll give you some time. Hell! I’ll give you the rest of this morning to answer.

So, the Wakefield Doctrine is an approach to personality types that will allow you to know more about the other person than they know about themselves. With the Doctrine, you will no longer have ask the world, ‘how could I fall for that again! I really thought I knew them better than that!!’
With the Wakefield Doctrine as (an) additional perspective on life, (and that’s what it and every other ‘theory’ of ‘personality’ actually is, and I’m totally including the Oscar Myers Briggs&Stratton, the ‘what color is my vegetable’ (current fav on ‘the Facebook’) and Jung’s ‘What!?! No, I’m not saying that Fred and Wilma were real, I’m saying that archetypes…never mind!’) personality theories. With the Wakefield Doctrine you will be in position to see the other people in your life in a context that allows their behavior to make sense. And that’s all any of us want, isn’t it?**

Well, running out of time this morning, so the basics:

  • clarks the Outsider: the simplest way to describe this personality type (and to test yourself for clarklike tendencies) is that this person wakes up each and every morning thinking, ‘ok  the world and everyone is still out there, I know I can figure it out today’
  • scotts the Predator: the person most like to be voted: jeez! I’d love to be able to be like that,…. scotts will bound out of bed, ready for whatever is waiting, and they know there’s something waiting outside the bedroom door/at the office/among the kids at the daycare and that annoying woman who is so judgmental
  • rogers the Herd Member: if you got a little annoyed at the (numbered) bullet points because I clearly said ‘two’ and you have a certain confidence that everything that must be achieved in your day will be, if for no other reason than the fact that your list has the important things at the top; rogers don’t wake up thinking, they wake up planning, and they most assuredly do not bound out of bed, one could sprain an ankle being so reckless, and besides, there’s no rush, the schedule is simple and well established.

…gotta run (or walk (or stroll)) out into the world.

 

*totally a clark thing, if you respond, ‘yeah, clark, who do you love’ I will feel a surge of pride in my getting to hang out with people who are of a place that allows them to know a semi-obscure musical reference (and that’s that only hint you get!)

** yeah, that is a trick question

 

*

Share

Friday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

Here’s something a bit of the different for a Friday post.

What your questions?*

 

*to the promising New Reader likely a clark, ‘Why yes, there is a very good chance that we will know which of the three is your predominant worldview on the basis of the question**

** New Readers are forgiven1 for asking the obvious question. No need to be concerned. One of the fundamental standards of behavior here is that no one has authority to publicly designate another person’s type without their clear and explicit permission. At least no authority that would carry any weight with anyone familiar with the Doctrine.

1) frequent rogerian Readers are not

Share