relationships | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 12 relationships | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 12

Monday daymoN -the Wakefield Doctrine-

November 20, 2023 By

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

RePrint Monday. Want to be sure to be obscure with our pick for a Monday RePrint, as we’re starting a week that is the occasion of the first of the ‘damn! no way we can do better than the first post! Let’s cut ‘n paste that bad boy and be done with it!’

That is correct, yo. Thanksgiving week. It’s the holiday that’s as on-book with the Doctrine as the Pesci/DeNiro Casino pen scene.

(New Readers: Here in Oceania, there is a holiday that we sometimes refer to as the Feast of Saint Roger. Always in November, all citizens are pretty much required to acknowledge, if not participate in it. And the liturgy of the day is celebration of everything rogerian. (Seriously! Tell us another day of the year that, as part of the holiday festivities, includes what can best be described as a lay collēcta invoked by a weekday morning weatherman!)

sorry, getting ahead of ourselfs.

Tomorrow is Tuesday, The morning of the Book of Wakefield (WIP) Then… Six Sentence Story day and then Thursday (‘Hallowed be thy college football game’)

But for today:

‘why is a raven like a writing desk’? (and) what is the Wakefield Doctrine’s take on those other personality theories?

September 27, 2011

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

A frequently asked  question: ” What does the Wakefield Doctrine call this personality type? ( Always  one of some other personality theory’s type), i.e.  the Driver Type ( from the Merrill-Reid schema) or the ‘Type 2 ( of the 9 Enneagram Types ) or even the famous Axis 4 (from the rogerian geek school of personality typology). Sometimes answering this question is fun, other times it is frustrating but the outcome of this exchange is always less than is hoped for by the person posing the question.

Comparisons between mainstream personality types systems and the Wakefield Doctrine  hardly ever yields an answer that is satisfactory to the interlocutor or the listener. While the underlying motivation for these questions  is often well-meaning,  the goal behind asking them is misguided. (  “well, don’t you see?  The Wakefield Doctrine and (  well-known personality theory) are both talking about the same thing, so the Doctrineis not so unusual or odd or weird! Maybe if you describe clarks and scotts and rogers using some of the same  language, you will attract more people to the blog!”
At this point the answer (from the Wakefield Doctrine is always the same: No.   (…for 2 reasons):

  1. The Wakefield Doctrine is not scientifically based on empirical data nor does it rely on test subjects providing statistically significant  and consistent reporting of identification with certain traits or behavior(s). The Wakefield Doctrine does not  approach the ‘classification of personality’  on the basis of traits and quirks, phobias and foibles gathered from a test subject. ‘Personality Typing by Chart’,  in which  check-marks are totalled/summed up and added up, with a score at the bottom of a column labeld:  ‘Your Personality Type!  A lot  like  a dinner party at a restaurant,  the host glances down to the bottom of the bill that the Waiter has brought to the table. Scanning the menu items and tallying the cost, the guests will hear:    “OK!  who had the FEAR OF HEIGHTS with the DISDAIN FOR AUTHORITY Combo?  no, scott!! I am sure you ordered the MECURIAL TEMPERMENT COMBINED WITH AN INGRAINED RESISTANCE TO LEARNING BY EXAMPLE! OK folks, the total  is: (2) Drivers with homophobic tendencies masked by an excessive interest in contact sports and (1) Passive-aggressive nurturing-type with  un-resolved oedipal conflict compensated by a need to demonstrate language skills un-supported by actual ability! Alright everyone!!  Ante up!”                                                                               
  2.  the Wakefield Doctrine is for you, not for them!
    For most of us, the attraction to ‘personality types’ and ‘personal profiles and assessment’ is founded in a genuine curiosity about ourselves and a sincere desire to help other people in our lives handle  their own problems and shortcomings better. Unfortunately, the focus all too often comes to rest on ‘the other person’.   We all know this person,  a caring friend/relative/co-worker who goes to great lengths to find answers so that they can ‘help you’!  With a magazine article in hand (or a book, or a CD or  DVD) that promises to describe personality types and how to identify them…whats the second thing you/they do after learning these well-researched, empirically based systems of understand the human psyche?  The second thing (and sometimes the first) is to say, “Hey! You know who is a real Driver personality? This personality system totally  got his/her number!! This is really helpful, I can’t wait to tell them how much I understand their personality!”
    …this is where the Wakefield Doctrine and all the better researched, better marketed, widely-accepted personality theories part ways.  No matter what you think you can do with the understanding that this Doctrine can help you get, it is for you,  it is not for the other person.

Are we saying that the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers ) is neither scientifically valid nor  an effective method for helping other people to solve their intractable mental and emotional problems?
Yes, yes we are saying that.

So why bother with this thing of ours? Well, for starters:

  • you will have an advantage over the people you meet in the course of your day today
  • the behavior of the people in your life will make more sense to you (because of your understanding of the Wakefield Doctrine)
  • you will be able to anticipate the actions and (re)actions of people to virtually any situation
  • you will see your own life, habits, behaviors in a different light
  • you will have fun with your friends spotting the clarks and the scotts and the rogers as you go about your day today

Sound like reason enough to figure out this blogsite?

I promised Molly, a short and concise definition of the Wakefield Doctrine:

…three personality types predicated on (three) characteristic ways to perceive the world at large.  All people are born with the potential to see the world as any of the three (types) that we call: clarks, scotts and rogers. (Further) the Doctrine maintains that at an early age we become predominately one (of the three) but we never lose the capacity to experience the world as do the other two. The personality types of the Wakefield Doctrine are gender and culture neutral and is predicated that the personality type is derived from understanding the reality in which a person lives, not by trying to identify specific traits, interests, drives or ideation. The Wakefield Doctrine is a tool meant to aid a person who would try to see the world as the other person does.

Works pretty damn well, too!

 

*

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

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

November 14, 2023 By

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

Lets start with:
the Wakefield Doctrine is a perspective. As such, it requires a certain willingness to imagine that things are one way and not, necessarily, only one way. We are talking, of course, about our experience in and with, reality.

[In the early days of this blog we’d be more direct, saying that to ‘get’ the Doctrine a Reader needed to have a certain, ‘flexibility of intelligence’. In the Ephedrine, Ringling, Oscar Myers axes, this is the famous, lesser known: WTHN*. Without the presence of an innate desire to play with ideas, the Wakefield Doctrine is simply a scheme to divide life into three characteristic relationships.]

Hey, wait. That’s exactly what we’re doing.

Fine. This post is intended to be, what the books on essay writing refer to as (the) introduction and thesis. Let’s agree here, at the beginning that, that….. ‘the purpose of this paper post is to present an overview of the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine, its practical uses and applications and, concurrently, noting (any) changes in the Doctrine itself. Well, to be a bit more accurate on this last, ‘changes in how we describe the Doctrine’.

…oh yeah! And! Maybe we need to jump into the Herd and offer advice and observation from our little personality theory/worldview. (Surely this is the most ambitious of goals. Hell, it’s not merely a goal, it would actually be a proof of concept, wouldn’t it?)

Far be it from us to stray far from the predominant worldview of your painfully-reliable Narrator, but …no! Wait. Will not indulge in the disclaimer that those of us of a certain predominant worldview would be trying to sneak in at this point. This highly visible point. (New Readers: not to worry. Secret Rule inherent here, in this effort: when you arrive at a certain point in your understanding and you are tempted to say, “I knew what they meant then!” We believe you.)

 

The Wakefield Doctrine is for you, not them.

 

 

…to be cont’d

*WTHN Why The Hell Not

 

 

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

et tu chewsdae? -the Wakefield Doctrine-

November 7, 2023 By

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

ok, we’re getting a bit behind, lets get to the mail room!

Sure, we all know that Tuesday is the most clarklike day of the week. But like everything else about our favorite personality theory, it’s the questions we ask that lead to enlightening insights not the lectures we listen to or the text we memorize.

Let us grab a post from the 2011-2013 era (‘the write ever day Period of the Wakefield Doctrine) that addresses this topic

Tuesday at the Wakefield Doctrine (“alright, move along folks nothing to see here…that’s right just move along”)

January 8, 2013

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks… lol, the undeniable reality of scotts and the annoying certainty of rogers)Anyone seen a box of words? I am pretty sure I had some put away, under the bed or in the back of the closet, just in case.  What’s the deal with the writing style of clarks and the non-use of contractions? We certainly don’t think like that! See? I used ‘don’t’ (as opposed to do not!). Well, the fact remains, I am missing a bunch of words and I really could stand to find them right about now.

Long time Readers know what’s coming next. But… we will let the new Readers enjoy the w…t…..f??!  moment that comes with each and every one of these special Posts. Today’s Post is the blog equivalent of what, in the world of jokes and comedy, is referred to as a ‘shaggy dog’ story.1  An example of such a story is provided in the footnote area. Better go down there right now, if you do not find yourself laughing (at very least chuckling) then you will not be amused when you have dragged  yourself to the end of this rambling morass of a Tuesday Post. Serially. Better go there…now!

Still with us? Fine. Actually, the process of finding the shaggy dog reference in wikipedia and jamming it into this Post has gone a long way to get me out of the ‘what the hell! there are no words left in my (fill in favorite body-part here). But since you are still reading, it is only fair to give you something to take away, as a reward for your:

  • loyalty:  which is a clarklike trait.  notice we did not say it was an admirable quality …we did not!
  • stubbornness:  scotts are stubborn, not for any reason that would produce a benefit, in fact, they should not be thought of as being stubborn for any reason, they just are
  • close-minded: rogers are the example of how being close-minded can be thought of as a good thing!
Now, rather than do the obvious and leave the above characterizations hanging out there, (like those still photos of scenes from X-rated movies that are used to illustrate the evils of ‘pornography’  btw: the people who use those kinds of photos are either scotts or rogers. And the reason we know this, is that there is a secret pruriency in the use of these photos that is beyond the capability of a clark. Seriously. Someone is standing in front of ‘an audience’, holding forth on the evils of the people who make such obscene movies and to better make their point, they  hold up censored photos. Of course, even though the black-bars cover the offending body parts, a normal human being must, in their minds, provide an image of what is missing…otherwise the photo is totally non-meaningfull! And where do theses (mental) images come from?  Exactly!)
Loyalty:  this is a personal quality very frequently found in clarks, (about which) most people will say, “hey! that’s a really admirable quality!” …except that if you listen very, very closely you might hear them think, “...yeah, what elseare they gonna do?”  ( hold your Comments until the end, clarks!)
Stubborness:  all of us fortunate enough to have dogs, have played the tug of war game. Yep! your mind is now providing you with the image we are going for: ‘human hand holding pull-toy in the air, doggie suspended from the lower end of said toy…tail wagging the entire time’  scotts!
Close-minded (ness):  Quick!!  what’s 2 + 2?   Right!   Hey!  what is 2 +2??  Still right!!!  the best thing about rogers is their constancy …the worst thing about  (HEY! 2+2…what’s the answer?!?) is their consistency!  It is often said in these pages, the reason we have civilization is rogers…. and the reason we had the (Spanish Inquistion, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, the ban in the 1960s on girls wearing slacks in high school, the existance of Ann Landers, the Electoral College, Prohibtion, the War of the Roses and the discovery of radium)?… rogers!
Feel free to ask us Questions!  Better yet, mark tomorrow Wednesday 4:00 blogtalkradio  the Wakefield Doctrine 30 Minute Radio Hour!

 

1) In its original sense, a shaggy dog story is an extremely long-winded tale featuring extensive narration of typically irrelevant incidents, usually resulting in a pointless or absurd punchline based on a play on words in cliché form. These stories are a special case of yarns, coming from the long tradition of campfire yarns. Shaggy dog stories play upon the audience’s preconceptions of the art of joke telling. The audience listens to the story with certain expectations, which are either simply not met or met in some entirely unexpected manner. A lengthy shaggy dog story derives its humour from the fact that the joke-teller held the attention of the listeners for a long time (such jokes can take five minutes or more to tell) for no reason at all, as the story ends with a meaningless anticlimax. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaggy_dog_story )

What some sources choose to believe is the archetypical shaggy dog story:

“A boy owned a dog that was uncommonly shaggy. Many people remarked upon its considerable shagginess. When the boy learned that there are contests for shaggy dogs, he entered his dog. The dog won first prize for shagginess in both the local and the regional competitions. The boy entered the dog in ever-larger contests, until finally he entered it in the world championship for shaggy dogs. When the judges had inspected all of the competing dogs, they remarked about the boy’s dog: “He’s not that shaggy.”

*

Cynthia asks:

Mimi queries:

Denise asserts:

Nick maintains:

Anonymous wonders: is there a purpose for the gratuitous link-drops here or are you choosing to insist it’s still the 1990s internet?

*

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

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘…once more, from the top.’

November 6, 2023 By

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

This RePrint post is fun and on the money in a (slightly) intense, ‘are-there-total-strangers-reading-this?’ sorta way.

Two notes before we flip the switch on the WABAC machine*: 1) this is from the earlier days, before we discovered the more economical, if not surely more elegant, concept connecting the three personal realities: clarks (Outsider), scotts (Predator) and rogers (Herd Members); the concept is relationship. (More informatively: ‘How we relate ourselves to the world around us and the people who make it up.’). And b) the key is still the same: the Wakefield Doctrine is an additional perspective on the world and, as such, is a tool for understanding (and, on occasion, having fun),

ed. Damn! Just noticed the date on this post. Way early in the checkered past of this here blog here.

*

“…and thats why he’s so mean!*” Hey! wait just a minute!

November 13, 2010

Welcome  …etc

I want to apologise to any Readers who have found themselves saying, “hey I’m not looking for a comedy blog or a music appreciation site, I don’t really need the wryly witty musings of a frustrated writer!”  This morning I find myself sitting at this computer saying to myself,  “where did I get off track“?  Vanity apparently is so more insidious than I would have thought. Staring at the monitor, drinking coffee and while waiting inspiration a Post to show up (…a lot like taking a copy of the New York Times into the bathroom, you really hope that it will not be necessary, but are resigned to the fact that it will), I caught myself critiquing ideas in such terms as, “nah, that’s not funny“, ” yeah but, they’ll never get that TV show reference“, and “I think I might get away with that“.
The question rose in my mind, quite without welcome, “just when did I stop trying to present the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) as a new and exciting way of thinking and instead decide that every Post that showed up on the site had to be amusing“? Now don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with being amusing.  If we were to meet in person and hang out, you would find yourself laughing at least once;  but the question I cannot avoid asking myself  is, “What is that I think people are coming to this blog for?  Funny/wacky/weird Posts or are they here to learn about the Wakefield Doctrine?   Well, the ‘sign on the door’ says that this is the Wakefield Doctrine,  it does not say ‘the Entertaining and Random Musing and Literary Stylings of…”
I realized this morning that the Readers who have come to this blog over the last 12 months did so because they were interested/curious/intrigued by (this) idea  of ours. The idea, quite unique and definitely worth investigating,  that there really were three personality types and that the description of the three types was kinda fun and funny, but mostly, this Wakefield Doctrine actually worked, it delivered the goods.

The problem may not been all strictly the price of vanity, ( “hey! great Post!” “where do you come up with those videos“, “that picture on the front? funny!”), in my own defense I will say that a part of my motivation for trying to be amusing and funny  is simply that I am  a clark. And we (clarks) like nothing more than to know things, lots or things, different things and most of the time useless things!  It did not take long to see how well received some of the funnier Posts were and it only made sense to try to write more of those and to try and not be so…dry…pedantic…clarklike! But in all fairness, a huge  part of my drive to write whatever I thought would get read came from the fact that the Wakefield Doctrine  is fun.
We (Progenitors and DownSprings) do laugh when we get together! People who learn about the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers do get excited about seeing it work in real life.
In a way, glenn was half right (as usual) when he complained recently that these Posts have lost the spirit of the early days of the Doctrine blog, that in losing this supposed spirit of subversiveness the whole thing was in danger of losing relevancy. To a small degree I agree, the early days of the Doctrine did have a sense of stick to basics, i.e. clarks create, scotts sell and rogers gather the masses. That, by the simple fact that none of us had ever tried to create something like this blog,  everything was new and exciting and risky. (Of course, life is like that its ownself! And while one might argue that uncomplicated, unencumbered and un-restrained child is the epitome of spontaneity, I would just as soon trade in some free spiritness in exchange for not thinking that reaching into my diapers and throwing feces at asserbys is the height of humor. But that’s just old clarklike me).
In any event, it is time to get back to the basics. This is not to say that  we  be returning to the writing style of the first Post(s). There have been changes in how these Posts are presented, changes that not only make  reading them more enjoyable, (the the photos and the videos), but also make the writing of these things less than a total chore.
Sorry for getting dazzled by the bright lights, the fame, ‘you like me, you really, really like me’… I believe I understand now where I have gone off track.

My job is to tell you about the Wakefield Doctrine (theory of clarks, scotts and rogers).  The goal of this blog is to show (a) way to view the behavior of those people (in our lives) that will help you to make sense of their behavior. I will present the theory and the Doctrine and you will find it helpful and usable and fun (or not).  We will leave the charm and  psychotic-affability to the rogers and the scotts can take care of the leadership and seduction-as-an-end-in-itself. Both are blessed with talents that only they enjoy.

But it is Friday Saturday. Enough with the lessons ‘n learning. Well, maybe a little learning.

Here is a quick ‘elevator-ride’ description of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers):
…picture a large parking lot, maybe one quarter of the spaces are taken, mostly towards the stores…there is a red ball in the middle of the open space the ball is rolling with the wind, stopping, rolling again with each vagrant breeze…
a scott will notice it first and be immediately on the alert, he/she will simply stop in their tracks and look around, trying to see the cause of the ball’s motion; they need to know  is it a threat or not? that is their priority. (If it proves to be harmless and they have the time and/or an audience,  the scott will pick up the ball and throw it)…(thereby establishing their dominance, lol)
a roger will eventually notice the ball, if there is a pause in their conversation with whomever they are talking to, they too will look around the parking lot, but unlike the scott they will look only at the other people, does the ball belong to them? do the other people fear the ball?, who seems to be in charge of determining the ‘threat-level’ of the red ball? If no one emerges as being in charge (a scott) or the other people are not showing any interest, the roger will put it all out of their mind and get back to their busy lives, (if asked they will blame the ball for making them late)..
a clark will notice the ball………. eventually, (once they notice it) they will immediately try to determine how the other people in the parking lot are regarding the ball, the main concern for the clark is determining if the ball belongs to anyone in the parking lot or if there is a danger that someone will blame (the clark) for taking/stealing the ball, if a crowd has gathered (rogers) and if there is no one in charge (scotts) the clark will speculate aloud about the possible origin of the ball,  if however,  the clark comes upon the ball and the parking lot is totally empty, the clark will still speculate about it’s origins (aloud or silently, depending on mood) will look around to see who is secretly watching, consider taking the ball home but will leave without it.

The Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) can tell you about people in everyday situations. You will be better able to predict the behavior of others using the precepts of the Doctrine. There is a bunch of information relating to a description of the three types that you need to know, but for today this little example will serve to answer the question: ‘what good is this thing, this Wakefield Doctrine’? In the coming days we will try to present descriptions of what makes the clarklike person a clark, a scottian man or woman a scott and how to identify the rogerian personality.

*

 

*them geniuseseses Jay Ward and Company back in the Before Time

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

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

October 23, 2023 By

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

Lemme paste a short, little RePrint post here. Kinda serves the function of stretching before exercise or having one of those dreams that are singularly repetitive and, should be boring enough to put the ‘dream you’ even further unconscious, were it not for the concept that ties it all together. Something so simple and fundamental that it should be obvious, but always one thought away from being expressed.

Remind us to talk tomorrow about the tri-interdependency of the three predominant worldviews.

(Pre-Notes: ‘Mu’ (in the title of the RePrint) is an allusion to the word in some zen koans. At least to the extent evident in the following postless post*)

Mu -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘the Weekend in (re)-View: there were encouraged smiles in Outerville’

February 9, 2015
Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

BeFunky_photo-3.jpg

…I thought I had the ‘hook’ for today’s Post earlier this morning, around 6:10am. My computer froze up and the Error Message appeared:

Hit continue to ‘Force Quit’ the Application

damn!  doesn’t that describe what happens to clarks so often? (Especially on Mondays because we’ve just had two days during which time we could pick the people we were with), we learn and remember that part of what the Wakefield Doctrine offers is, as they so cleverly put it, ‘to self-improve oneself’. But this weekend was encouraging. A good TToT and a good Call-in discussion. So today, I will go out into the world (see, I told you I was a clark!) and know that there are other clarks struggling with the semi-self-imposed status of Outsider and, simply by virtue of this (identification with other clarks), I will more frequently remember to not forget that I have a choice in how I think and act and feel.

Had a great Saturday Night Call-in this weekend. Cynthia, Denise and the Progenitor roger! Topic: how do clarks best deal with the roger in the workplace (or to be a bit more accurate: how to manage a rogerian-dominated workplace). Very fun and informative and entertaining and everything you could want from a phone conversation.

So what do we clarks know now that we did not know, say, 3 or 4 years ago? For starters, that there is a direct (but not directly appreciable) benefit from associating with clarks in a context that encourages identification (with/for the other clarks). We also better understand our selfs and while this is not, in and of itself, a benefit, it is the sharing of this (increased) self-understanding that makes the identificationing with other clarks so effective.

But enough about clarks. how about scotts and rogers? What are they getting out of this thing that they could not get elsewhere? Again, for starters:

  • an increased sense of awareness of that which bothers scotts (on a pre-conscious level), with a better acceptance that it is not a flaw (this, by virtue of the scott’s heightened clarklike aspect)
  • (for the rogers) a sense of an increased-enthusiasm-for-nothing-that-is-identifiable, yet not perceived as threatening

 

 

 

Feet notes:

so: Denise and Cyn-thee-uh  and the Progenitor roger were all on the Wakefield Doctrine Saturday Night Call-in this Saturday past. It was a splendid time, the high points, syllabus-istically speaking the insight nodes were as follows:

topic: how do clarks manage (themselves or others) in the workplace  with an emphasis on the difficulties of dealing with rogerian co-workers

agreed: the negative, ‘lashing out’ of a roger is worse than being nipped by a scott or ignored by a clark

agreed: that the reason for this ‘over-reaction’ by the clark is their emotional investment (conscious or otherwise)

agree: the tendency is for clarks to take (false) responsibility for the actions, reactions and consequences involving others

agree: rogers (and scotts) think they know what it is it fear (the negative) reactions of others, but they are wrong

agree: rogers do not accept admission of ineptitude, no member of the Herd would ever consider this

 

*

* ha ha

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