relationships | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 10 relationships | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 10

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

May 7, 2024 By

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

We’re needing a whole passel of words today, seeing how we’re in the last chapter(s) of our Serial Six, ‘…Of Heroes and the MisUnderstood’. With this in mind, we’ll ask your indulgence as we empty one metaphorical cardboard box into another.

Hey! There’s something the shiny, bright ain’t-good-enough-if-it’s-not-new 21st C kids are missing out on. Sure, if they have anything as archaic as a pile of hardcopy stuff.

Anyway, we’ll just say a quick prayer to St. Charles* and find us some homey-but-still-kinda-picaresque-around-the-edges old RePrint to get us started on this Tuesday.

(OK Full Disclosure: Back in the early days of this blog when we didn’t-know-that-we-didn’t-have-a-writing-style (aka the Grail of all beginner fiction writers, a ‘Voice’) we did a lot of the strings of words (connected-by-dashes-which-served-the-function-of-creating-the-sense-of-a-narrative-aside) ya know?) (here’s some extra parentheticals… we’ve never been all that good at making sure we close them…use ’em as you see fit) (thanks) )). ((

lol Fun days they was.

Anyway Check out the serial story “…Of Heroes and the MisUnderstood” that Tom and I are finishing up in the next week or so**

Here ya go. RePrint (dusty-from-the-attic)

“You see, you start out with a little bit of oil. Then you fry some garlic.” the Wakefield Doctrine (…a personality theory for all sorts of people and situations)

December 9, 2013

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

...yeah, no! just listen!

“Hey, come over here, kid, learn something. You never know, you might have to understand the behavior of 20 people someday.”

No, I don’t think it odd that I am starting today’s Post with a quote from a famous movie. (If you know, without googling, what movie these lines are from, I will send you an official Wakefield Doctrine docTee!*) Most of the Posts that we write start with some totally random item from the world, however this is entirely appropriate, given the nature of the Wakefield Doctrine as a personality theory.

You know that the Doctrine is not really a personality theory, right? We have not (yet) delved into the matter of how we come to settle on one (of the three worldviews) as our predominant worldview. We don’t know why some of us have significant secondary and tertiary aspects and some are simply clarks… or scotts or rogers. We don’t even know what influences in the family structure are important! Birth order is kind of intriguing, but the worldview of the parents have little bearing on who goes to which worldview and, while evidence exists that is highly suggestive of a component of childhood trauma (of any type) as ’cause’ of one worldview being selected over the other, there is nothing anywhere near definitive. So what do we know?

Well, for starters we know that:

  • we all find our predominant worldview and we adapt to the nature of that world.  as Outsiders, clarks become creative, learn to camouflage ourselves among the ‘normal’ children and set out to leave no information un-examined…in the hopes of learning to become ‘part of’; finding themselves in the world of the Predator, scottsdo what comes naturally, run and play and search out their environment, they are the first to go into the abandoned building, first to kiss a boy and are comfortable in the principle’s office because they cannot walk away from a fight and finally, …the majority of children (between the ages of 1 and 4) look around and know that they belong, they are Herd members. not an easy gig by any stretch of the imagination. just as with any member of a team or a family or a congregation, they discover that there are Rules and not only must they be followed, they must be shown to others and that, for the rogers, the good of the many must be imposed on the few
  • while we all are predominately one (of the three personality types), we all have the potential of the other two. for reasons not yet fully understood,  some clarks seem to come out of their shells at times, not at the behest of others, not because they want to, usually because there is a need to; scotts will often express a significant secondary aspect by demonstrating compassion to their prey, much to the confusion (of their prey) and chagrin to themselves, but they will ultimately over-come this by dispatching their victim or marrying them or setting out to right the injustices around them and rogers…poor rogers! a significant secondary aspect (of either sort) means nothing but dissatisfaction and dismay. they are in a world that should be ‘ordered and defined’, a world in which every one knows their place and worse, far worse, is that rogers (with a significant secondary aspect) have the misfortune to be able to see the sides of the box that is their perfect world
  • if you learn the principles of the Doctrine and the characteristics of the three worldviews and (if you) correctly infer the worldview of the other person, you will be in a position to know more about them than they know about themselves
  • if you practice inferring the worldview of the people around you, you will not only know why they behave the way that they do, but you will know what they will do, how they will respond to a situation or event that has not yet happened
  • if you have the desire, the Wakefield Doctrine offers a tool for changing that part, that aspect, those habits that you have always wanted to change but have either had no luck doing so or, far worse, you have succeeded at changing only to discover that you have somehow slid back to where you managed to move yourself away from
  • the Doctrine is fun…there are other people like you here, the cool thing is that you don’t have to risk guessing wrong who will ‘get you’

That’s enough for a Monday morning. Just remember this, the Wakefield Doctrine is for you, not them.  Unlike most of the personality quizzes and tests and free samples you see in magazines and on the internet, the Doctrine is not a mirror-shaped club. No matter how certain you are that the other person would benefit from this, it just doesn’t work that way.

..still a lot of fun, tho

 

For music, here’s Joe Cocker’s version of ‘The Letter’  (written by and a hit for the Boxtops)

* Dickens, of course, the Patron Saint of serial story-writing

** if the name Six Sentence Café and Bistro makes you sit up and say, “Oh yeah? What’s going on down there now?” Stay tuned.

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

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

May 6, 2024 By

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

Where to begin?

When you think about it, using RePrints to jumpstart a post is, kinda, just like time travel, ya know?

After all, we are, (on some level), what we write. And who can deny that what we write, (fiction, non-fiction, theories of personality types), are us, made loud.

New Readers! There is a thing in the Doctrine referred to as ‘the Everything Rule’. If you’re just getting the hang of this here Doctrine thing here, don’t be concerned if the part of you that felt, for a moment, like this applied to you is now saying, ‘This is all bullshit. I want to speak to the manager. It’s not right that they go on and on like this…” (lol)

While this post began, as many do, speaking generically, i.e. to all three personality types, clearly we are addressing the clarks in the Readiance. The Everything Rule, (which states, ‘everyone does everything at one time or another’) is there to remind us that, while the three personality types exist in characteristically-distinct personal realities, none has exclusive domain over any part or element of everyday life. How a thing, (a job, a love interest, an avocation, an idea, a nightmare or the best way to express an idea), exists for clarks, scotts and rogers without limitation. How it manifests is determined by the nature and character of that person’s worldview. Being a carpenter (manifests) differently to an Outsider compared to a Predator. Being a fan of a popular musician looks like one thing when we’re observing a roger versus a scott. A cop who is a scott will exhibit traits that are arguably more aligned with successful exceution of their professional duties than say, that of a clark who has become a police officer.

It’s all about how one relates themselves to the world around them and the people who make it up. The world is ‘the same’ for everyone. How we experience it can be viewed through three difference lenses, i,e, that of the Outsider(clarks), the Predator(scotts) or the Herd Member(rogers).

We haven’t used ‘the Wakefield Doctrine Promise’ in a long time! (Here ya go): Learn the character (and characteristics) of these three relationships/predominant worldviews and you will know more about the other person than they know about themselves.

Tuesday too the Wakefield Doctrine (nope! we were not joking about the destiny of the content*)

May 6, 2014

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

Destiny_-_John_William_Waterhouse

(So …we all good with the realness of your personal reality? …the reality of the other person’s worldview?) We’re spending a lot of time on this because, when we get to the part about using the Doctrine in influencing/helping/understanding/impressing/scoring-big-time with another person, it will be your acceptance of the very real difference (between) what the world is for you and what it is for the other person, that will carry the day.

Speaking of trying to change/improve/enhance/fuckin-stop-making-the-same-mistake-over-and-over-again!, lets take a look at a new concept we’re trying out:

Personal Limiting Condition (PLC), a term for the mechanism inherent in all of our lives, that contrives to limit change. (By change we mean anything that we feel we could or should do differently, anything that we believe will, a) improve our lives or 2) decrease our unhappiness (with our lot in life).  Lets say you, (a clark for the purposes of keeping this discussion somewhat credible) decide, ‘I need to get into shape’ (or) ‘I need to apply myself more and do better at my job’.  Fine. (Being a clark), we will think a lot about how we should attempt to do this thing, whatkind of schedule, necessary equipment and will devote a significant amount of time imagining how great it will be to finally…. whatever you anticipate the ‘new you’ look(ing)/act(ing)/feel(ing) like.

The first day of the jogging program/be serious and ‘on the ball’ at work, goes great! It didn’t hurt too much/it wasn’t too embarrassing. The second day of the jogging/’someone on the move’ at place of employment: hey a little sore, but better shape than you thought (hope it doesn’t take too long)/people seem to be looking at you funny, but the boss seems impressed… Day Three: this is boring/I’m so far behind everyone else…I’ll show them, I’ve got to give 143%/ fine!! I got my regular day’s work done (not that many errors) and the boss seems to be busy with other things…I am so far behind in life, big rewards require big risks!! … until: you run as fast as you know you should be able to run (and something gets fucked up) or  you suddenly have the best idea ever for a book (or starting a band) or maybe sending out resumes, cause your cousins sister-in-law is in the HR Department of a big corporation and everyone knows you should be in…

These last, they are the Personal Limiting Conditions.

The power of PLCs is that they are quite real. You don’t have to give up jogging to not be able to get into shape, you can get hurt. You don’t have to quit your job because you know that you’re in a dead-end mode, you have so many other potential possibilities (yeah, zoe, I know lol).
These are real events. We all encounter them. Doesn’t mean that we are not capable of avoiding them. What it does mean is that, as clarks, we should recognize that this kind of thing happens to scotts and rogers (and other clarks), therefore it does not constitute proof of the unchange-ability of your life.

That’s it for now. for the new(er) Readers… and Jak, here:

(from May of last year, a portion of a Post (in part) Titled, ‘want to know the most dangerous, corrosive word used by a clark?)

It’s an innocent enough word. More than innocent, this word is often considered to be one of positive meaning and intent, a hopeful word, an optimistic word. But as a loan shark is to your local bank, the price of the loan is always higher than the value secured.

The word is ‘maybe’.
In the hands (or on the tongues) of clarks, the word is meant well. “It is a good job, maybe I’ll get it“. Perhaps because, when clarks look at the world we see people and institutions, groups and family members who, while certainly not intending us harm, (they all) clearly know something that we don’t know. “Maybe I don’t want to be a doctor, maybe I really want to find my own way”. The words we use when describing the world we find ourselves in, are  picked with the hope of blending in, looking to be a member or, one of the guys/one of the girls. “I think I should ask her out, maybe I’ll wait until a better time” “How many times do we have to discuss this, maybe next time you’ll listen to me”

Not really sure what it was that struck me about the use of the word ‘maybe’, it just seems that it has a certain resonance when employed by clarks. It is a word that lets us ‘commit without committing’, a word designed to insulate us from disappointment. clarks fear disappointment almost as much as we fear fear. More in a way. Fear can be run from. Disappointment is a sentence of reduced possibility. And if clarks are anything, we are people who believe that having possibilities is the difference between a possibly happy life and a life where we still have options. In a sense, as long as we have the possibility (of something) there is hope.  Maybe.

 

*

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

Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

April 17, 2024 By

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

So, the question is, (almost always): would knowing of the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine at an earlier stage of life made any significant difference to the course of said life?

Sure. Of course.

No, not necessarily.

WARNING! Turn the page if you are not certain* that your predominant worldviews (aka personality type) is that of the Outsider (clarks),

New Readers? It’s a given that (if) you’re still reading, you are either a clark or a scott or roger with a significant secondary clarklike aspect. We used to refer to this as (having) a quality of flexible intelligence. But that definition has been surpassed by the more elegant statement of secondary aspect.

Ayiiee!

We just re-read today’s post. ‘El-oh-El y’all.’

No, we’ve got an excuse for the content. You, on the other hand, are not necessarily off the hook for reading and getting something from this rather short post.

Like the wise old saying reminds us: ‘If we would self-improve ourself, everything is a lesson. Provided we can remain silent enough to hear our second response.’

 

* ha ha clarks are smiling**

** sure, of course the Everything Rule applies to how laughter is manifested in the three. That said, it is worth exploring further, as there is one of those passing, ‘Holy shit! Look at the complementarity among clarks, scotts and rogers in the matter of laughing!!’

No time this morning. Extra credit to anyone willing to address this fascinating question.

OK one hint, that’s all. Consider that the most awful of states (of being) that each of the three can imagine and then, consider the inter-relatedness of each.

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

RePrint Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

April 8, 2024 By

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

No. Way. Dude! Way!

 

What about some other triads manifested in the Wakefield Doctrine?

(You remember, clarks are crazy, scotts are stupid and rogers are dumb. (or): clarks think, scotts act or rogers feel.

Hey! Wanna know your predominant worldview (aka personality type)? Look at the world around you and the people who make it up through one of three lens; that of the Outsider(clarks), the Predator(scotts) or the Herd Member(rogers) one will be totally blurry, discard it. Continue looking at a person, a thing or, even, a situation/interaction through one, (of the two remaining lens), then the other. Is the view of one clearer than the other? Now, repeat as often as necessary until you see the world around you (and the people who make it up) clearly.

Congratulations! You have determined your predominant worldview. Have a better day!

Let’s go search the archives, yo.

alright, recess is over, time to get back to work

March 18, 2010

Well…..That certainly was different…perhaps a way of ‘letting off steam’ or even just having fun, nothing says this blog has to be all serious.  But our task remains, the goal of this blog remains ever the same:  to present the Wakefield Doctrine (aka the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) in a way that is easy to understand and allows you, the Reader, to apply (it’s) principles to your daily life.

I believe it was in the (…you do not want to look down) Post…we said that we will be focusing on each of the three types, one Post for each.  First up: clarks.

To begin, this Post will not be about clarks in the sense of what they are, or how to spot them or even (their) characteristics.  This Post is concerned with clarks from the perspective of how they relate to this Wakefield Doctrine thing.  A clark reading this blog will be curious and will read much of the material, but they will do this in order to compare what the Doctrine is to the system they already have in place.  Information is the central feature in the world of the clarks.

(A little dry, but then we are talking about clarks…) but stay with us here. This Post and the two to follow will be of value to us in answering the question:  ‘how do I get through to a clark (or a scott or a roger)?’
Put another way, spotting a roger or a scott or a clark is pretty simple.  But, ‘speaking the language’ of these three types of people is not so simple.

Our challenge is to learn to communicate with the other(s) in their language, on their terms.
A clark talking to a scott will sound like a clark (to that scott).  But it is possible for that clark to speak to the scott in the ‘scottian language’.
Of course, we are not talking about ‘languages’ in the everyday sense and it is more  about being able to perceive reality as the other does.
If you can do that, you will automatically speak their language.

Lets try this:  you’re a clark (come back scott, come back  lol), you are standing in a room full of people at some social function.  Being a clark,  you are standing in a corner and you are looking around and listening to everyone,  trying to learn what is expected of you.  Into the room comes a scott, who immediately begins to ‘work the room’, going from person to person, establishing ranking and locating food.  This scott does not need to learn (what is expected of them), they simply need to act.  To survive.
If you, (a clark) goes up to this scott and offers information, you will be identified as a clark.  To the scottianbrain:  you are not a competitor and you are not food.  The scott will be cautious, until you are identified to the scotts satisfaction)

But, suppose for a minute, you could speak scottian, the language of a scott. What do you suppose the difference would be?
You would not be offering information, for a start.  And you would not be trying co-operate with this (scott).  You would simply communicate with the scott directly.
(Now, the clarks out there reading this are leaping ahead of this little example…the implications of switching perspective to that of the other….hold up clarkies…lets try to bring along the rogers and scotts…they are not running out ahead on this one…)

So you go up to the scott and first and foremost demand their attention.  You become a scott.
Damn.

Let’s just put it this way:  the Wakefield Doctrine can provide you with enough information/perspective/encouragement to enable you to perceive the world as the other two types do and, by doing this, you will be able to communicate with them more effectively.  Totally.

Of course, if you do this you may find that the message that you are trying to convey to the other person is changed by the fact that you are seeing the world differently.  But that is a Post length topic in and of itself.  In the following Posts we will consider this changing of the message effect that comes when we see the world through the eyes of another.  This will be most difficult to the scotts and the rogers, but hey if this were easy I would be on TV by now.

Lets finish with a little (more) music.

*

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

RePrint Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

March 25, 2024 By

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

As is often the value of posting an old (but hopefully germane) post, lets go with the below and see/trust/hope that it stimulates/prompts/cheet-sheets some original content on this, the last Monday in March.

Damn! Ain’t that an emotional fricken’ claymore mine. We could wax philosophic on that little meta-gory but, lets not and insist we did.

Suffice to say, the dawn of hope is almost always from a cloudy night.

ayiiee! Dude! Dial down the poignant observation setting to something less than ‘Hey, it’s Monday’. All we need to do is put one foot in front of the other, not let too much blue* to show and be grateful at the end (is there ever an end to Mondays?!!) Sorry, Hold on to the thought that the day after Monday is almost always Tuesday.

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

It’s that time of the week, amigos! Tomorrow night  is Saturday Night Drive night!

For our newer Readers, the Wakefield Doctrine  Saturday Night Drive is a feature of this blog that you will find no where else!  Really! We are not lying to you. We are speaking the truth to you. But don’t just take our word for it! Lets use a chart to illustrate this fact, and as we all know, Charts Don’t Lie!

All those other blogs out there the Wakefield Doctrine
Quality of Format/Presentation From fair to very good …hey I write these things first thing in the morning, it’s only caffeine not amphetamine
Organization of content Sometimes they even have different fonts for headers, sub-topics even comic sans day, once in a while(Hey! They said headers  huh huh,…thank you scott)
Freshness and appeal of topics Usually very good, comprehensive analysis of subject matter … well, we got funny pictures
Originality Hardly ever (‘cept for Mel over at the Spatula) Step aside, we gots your originality,    right here!
Thought provoking Content …yawnnn ..did you say something? It’s the frickin theory of clarks, scotts and rogers, yo
Live call-in blog What? You do what? Nah…nobody does that! Saturday 8-8:45 EDST1-605-475-2200 (when prompted)  password 6660467 #
Do you really? Call-in? Live? Isn’t that against some blog law or something? Damn straight we do!
Who is on the line? Line? What line? This is a blog! I write this from my basement bedroom in my parents house, Damn Downsprings is who and even a Progenitor or two
You’re re joking, right? Yeah, you must be jokin No suh! True, it’s all true
Cost! It must Cost something to call? Jeez, I spent my allowance on HALO MVI (‘enemies in Study Hall”) Nada, nothing, free, no charge….dial ‘an smile!
Which is the best of blogs! Pass… Step right up!! Call in

You know what you have to do…if you are real interesting on the phone, we might vote you a Wakefield Doctrine hat (for your damn head).

(one more thing, just read an article that be sayin I should link Posts to Posts, like this link back to a February Post. let me know if it works).

Mr. B? some music, if you will…

 

* to ‘show too much blue’ is directed at those Readers who are clarks. It is a reference to an apocryphal sociology experiment in which they took one monkey from a happily functioning troop and painted it blue. And returned him/her to the group. You can imagine the result. (If you’re here more than three times, we know you can.) ‘Blue monkey’ is an affectionate term for clarks, when speaking of their acceptance by a Herd of rogers. (Affection, bordering on the shameful for the Outsider, not the Herd Members)

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