relationships | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 35 relationships | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 35

Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘rogers feel‘

October 17, 2018 By

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

And now, last but not least*

(New Readers: this rounds out our survey of the three personality types of the Wakefield Doctrine. Don’t forget! A person has only one personality type because they grew up, developed and now live in a predominant worldview that has the characteristics of: the reality of the Outsider(clarks), the world of the Predatory(scotts) and the life of the Herd Member(rogers). However! We never entirely lose the potential to experience the world as ‘the other two’. We can have a certain ‘streak’ of aggressiveness (scottian) or creativity (clarklike) or emotionality (rogers) flashing through from time to time, most often at times of duress. This does not mean you ‘are both or all three’ and it does not mean that you ‘are a hybrid combination of the three, sorry to say, your system is flawed‘. lol. For example: I’m clearly and obviously a clark (jeez, did you even look at the thumbnail on this post?!!), however, I possess a significant secondary scottian aspect. This means, given the right circumstance, the proper motivation, sufficient motivation, I can be aggressive and impulsively outgoing. At times. In the aforementioned ‘right circumstance’. (lol. and that, like a certain 1940s superhero putting a pair of horn rim glasses and tie back on, ends my scottian demonstration.)

rogers grow up in a life in which things are to make sense, are quantifiable and there is a wrong way to do things and a Right Way of living. Without our rogerian counterparts, cultures and civilizations would last as long as it takes for the next scott to take over. rogers are the: accountants. chemists, engineers, judges, firefighters, politicians, clergy, Boy Scout troop leaders, oncologists, Rockette and/or Esther Williams swimmer/’dancers’; rogers compose the thrilling symphonies that make a tear come to the eye, write the best sellers that seem to be in front of everyone, all of a sudden, they are ShaNaNa and they are Ed Sullivan; rogers are the core of every military, most government organization and the entirety of ‘Middle Management’. Without rogers, the planes would fly until they didn’t (gravity is rogerian, spontaneous combustion is scottian and worn-down critical parts no-one pays attention to are clarks), there would be no baseball, no cross-country skiing; rogers are the chefs (scotts are the short-order cooks and clarks are the busboys(who-somehow-cover-for-both); rogers are both the judges and the DAs and, in a business setting, they will always tell people who the reason a thing is done a certain way is because it’s here, in what we call ‘the Bible’.

Two things about rogers that don’t have a parallel in clarks or scotts:

  1. referential authority whether a member of the clergy or a politician or a world-renowned chef or a high school civics teacher or the creator of the Dewey Decimal system, the reason and basis for them (the roger) telling you what to do is because, “that’s how it’s down/ they always suggest that approach/God tells us to.” It is never because anyone directly involved in the discussion, management meeting or symphony performance requires it, it is because ‘that’s the Right Way to do things.’
  2. rogerian expression. This is a unique-to-rogers thing with language. You will recognize a rogerian expression by the sudden outburst of startled-yet-quite-genuine laughter upon hearing: ‘oh man! Look at how much they deducted for aggravated security’ or ‘no, I am going to wait until they release the un-abashed edition’ perhaps ‘I know I have to give them the bad news with the good news, I just won’t baby-coat it’ or, if you’re lucky: ‘ I have to say that as a professional class, most real estate agents are much too self-absorbent…”

* so not least. Most, credible estimates of the percentage of the population spending their days looking out over an ever-changing sea of: metal-tagged ears, yellow-plastic electric-fence insulators divining vast oceans of grazing to be on the order of 66% You read that correctly! You and your tight knit group of bffs? At least one of them has the dirt (real or imaginary) on the others and will be happy to share it in exchange for you stepping aside (just a little) so they might better be able to reach out** to everyone else. aka as a roger.

** ‘reach out’, ‘action item’, ‘what’s measured, improves’, ‘drill down’, ‘informativity’, ‘pain point’ and… (this one I wasn’t aware of, but I do want to thank the roger who wrote it so I could end this list strong: ‘Emotional leakage: Anger or disappointment that transfers from one person to another.’

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

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘scotts act‘

October 16, 2018 By

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

Day 2 in our series looking at the three predominant worldviews of the Wakefield Doctrine:  ‘scotts act‘

One thing we will never be accused of, here at the Wakefield Doctrine, is being stingy with the metaphors. And, scotts?  oh man! they are the living, walking, talking, running examples of why God made more metaphors than similes. But first a few basics

(New Readers? The three personality types of the Wakefield Doctrine are usually referred to as (a person’s) predominant worldview. This refers to the idea that we, all of us, grow up and develop in one of three realities: the reality of the Outsider(clarks), the life of the Predator(scotts) and the world of the Herd Member(rogers). Our ‘personality types’ are what they are, because that particular set of strategies and adaptations work best for us, given the world, as we experience it. Today we are taking a closer look at scotts.)(oh, yeah),

Reminder: the Wakefield Doctrine is gender, age and culture neutral. And of the three, surely our scottian friends are the best of illustrations. Both female and male scotts are: aggressive, confident, acquisitive, social, sexually-(…er,  everything). The difference between the two merely reflects of how their aggressiveness (confidences, acquisitiveness…etc) manifests itself in people, i.e. gender.

Hey! if today’s post seems a little…patchwork, strike-through and generally ‘haphazardly ad-hoc’d’.  well…. one word: this is a post about scotts

lol

Enjoy and, if you stop back later in the day, there is a better than even chance there will be other items duct-taped to the post and/or scrawled in the margins.

scotts live for the moment and have little time for reflection-for-it’s-sake, introspection for any reason other than to remember where he/she left their car keys and they are certain that life, today, is meant to be lived. As much as possible. If you want something done, call a scott (if you want something done properly, call a roger).

A scott never saw a ladder that they didn’t climb (until they fell or someone convinced them there was something more interesting on the ground). scotts are the archetypical police officer, provided the job description includes: ‘Must be comfortable in dangerous and threatening situations…at night; not be afraid of driving very fast, with sirens blaring and, if necessary, shooting guns; should have a natural aptitude for chasing down criminals and people running away and, upon capturing them, restraining them with handcuffs, closed windows and the promise of worse outcomes.‘

There is a saying among scotts” ‘I scream, therefore I am’ … and ‘a scott alone in a room...isn’t‘

They are your best friend and most reliable source of secondary public embarrassment. scotts helped you get into trouble in grade school, get social in high school and get good grades in college.

At every good-sized family reunion/summer get-together a male scott will be heard to say, “Do you have any more starter fluid? These two are empty.” and a scottian female very possibly might ask, of the thicket of men and boys sprouting up in her path, “Do think this bikini is too small?”

In the workplace: the go-to-guy, his/her first day on the job is a scott. scotts make outstanding salespeople and terrible managers.

Temper? welll! I’d say so. They invented the word mercurial just for our scottian friends. But loyal? Defend the pack to her death? Not even imagine hesitating… the personification of ‘best defense is a good (and totally overwhelming, not-even-close to measured) offense’? You’ve gone to the right personality type.

 

Quick: Last time you were in a line that seemed to never end. Did you:

  1. consider whether anyone would see you if you slipped out the back
  2. ask the person nearest you if ‘this was anyway to run a: a)supermarket; b)carnival ride or c) DMV’ and find something nasty to say about the person four people ahead of you in line
  3. laugh, say to the nearest person in, ‘This has gotta be the slowest (expletive optional) line I’ve ever been in….’ walk up the line chatting with the people in line, return to your place in line and say in a loud voice, “Hurry up!”  …and laugh

….

character of the scottian personality type:

  • scotts are ‘natural’ leaders (because they are certain, not necessarily right, but certain).
  • scotts are emotional in a way different from rogers. It is spontaneous emotion, there is very little holding of grudges,  mercurial is the best descriptor for their emotional environment.
  • In a band it is always a scott who is the ‘front man’, they are natural performers, entertainers
  • At a party scotts will not hesitate to introduce themselves (to everyone), they will always, ‘work the room’ moving from person to person, group to group
  • For the most part, when confronted with a threat, a scott will choose to attack rather than flee, however if it is clearly a ‘no win’ a scott may chose ‘flight’
  • scottian females can be remarkably sexy or intelligent and even witty, but hardly ever both.

The heck with all the words and analysis… wanna see a (male*) scott?  (some adult language)

(Spoiler Alert! I just watched the vid clip. Jeez Loueez, what a perfect portrayal of not only the scottian personality type (David Caruso) but of the clark (Robert DeNiro and, for good measure and symmetry, a roger (the guy wearing a hat, of course!)

 

 

* ya know, ’cause we mentioned it at the top of the post, the Wakefield Doctrine is gender neutral

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

Tuesday Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- “…and now, our regularly scheduled Tuesday post.”

October 10, 2018 By

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

Cut!  At the bottom, in a nice, neat, block quote, is the post that I started Sunday night with every intention to publish Tuesday. But I didn’t. NP. Here it is, in it’s-completed-this-morning-entirety. …down there, at the bottom.

But, sometimes, clarks have been known to get all gnomishly-enthusiastic and excited by a pile of information, like a cardboard box full of Saturday Evening Posts in mint condition. What about the simple, laugh-out-loud fun for the scotts and rogers (and some clarks)?

So how do you know if you’re dealing with a clark or a scott or roger? Start by looking at them:

  • clark (Outsider) bad posture, sloppy dresser with something going on that prevents you from thinking ‘aww, poor homeless person’… it might be a pair of two hundred dollars shoes, barely showing at the end of the frayed cuffs of a pair of worn out Dockers, or a streak of green on the side of a head of hair that looks like the aftermath of an unsuccessful eviction of a family of robins, the color is perfect and un-ignorable. Maybe it’s something as simple as mis-matched fluorescent socks* Or perhaps a really short mini-skirt….. over a softly-worn pair of Levis. Best be thinking: ‘clark‘. (Doctrine Insight Hint: clarks do not like being in the spotlight however, they will not tolerate being ignored)
  • scott (Predator) hands-down, single first clue: their eyes. There is no, absolutely no mistaking the ‘eyes of a scott‘. Hell, even in photos they grab you. Go back to yesterday’s post and look at the photo of the clark, scott and roger. If we need to tell you (yes, I removed the caption…lol) which is the scott, the door is to your left.   no! clark! come back! you are only being un-necessarily polite and considerate of your fellow Readers when you say you’re not sure…(the same way you used to sit there, in the exam room with your SAT pretending to be still answering questions, until someone else gets up to return their Number 2 pencil and test booklet)… clarks sense scotts the way a lemur will notice the .000012 percent reduction in the light reflected by the leaves of the tree over-hanging the watering hole, a careless panther goes hungry.
    The thing about the eyes of a scott is that they are totally alert, alive and aware of whatever is going on around them…even when there’s nothing going on…. ok, one more thing about scotts: scottian females? One word: sex appeal (like the chrome on a ’59 Cadillac Eldorado, you won’t even think about stepping out of the road) or a male scott? he’s the one telling jokes. very effectively, everyone laughs and the jokes, guaranteed, will get more outrageous, increasingly risqué and the circle of his audience will diminish. He doesn’t mind, he’s just looking for the perfect …..lemur to take to lunch.
  • rogers (Herd Member) well, to begin with, two-thirds of the population are rogers. These fortunate people grew up in a world where everyone belonged (even that odd one on the fringe…. they belonged; the better to highlight the virtue of the Herd.
  • 0rogers are sociable and charming, they enjoy people and they know everything about everyone (important distinction here, we said, ‘they know everything about everyone’ not ‘they know everything’ contrary to how they may talk.) We collectively owe the relative stability of the culture to our rogerian human. He or she is the one forming the clumps of people in the too-large reception room (they are not the center of these clumps… that position is occupied by a scott (by choice) or a clark (by error in judgement and/or bad luck). The scott is glad to be there, the clark not so much. Good thing that rogers live in the reality of the quantifiable universe… we rely on them to keep the airplanes in the sky, the computers connecting the parts of our modern world and assure us that Hester Prynne did not suffer in vain.

Where has the time gone?!!?!  I got to get out of here. Please forgive any typoes… tomorrow, don’t forget Six Sentence Story! The prompt word is up. Go there, get it and write yourself a sextidacious story and join in the fun.

 

 

* true example. I remember them (and wish they still made them… orange and green flourescent) from high school

As the subtitle implies, today being Tuesday we will focus on the use and application of the Wakefield Doctrine in the personal reality of the Outsider. aka clarks.

(New Readers: the Doctrine is built upon the concept of personal reality. That space around you that only you experience directly. Not necessarily physically close but definitely close to you. Nothing too outré, straining one’s credulity muscles; the world-as-you-experience-it that varies in small, but perceivable ways from everyone else.  The Doctrine’s employees this principle of personal reality, (often substituting the phrase ‘predominant worldview’) to account for the manner in which personality is developed. If you are raised, grow-up and develop in a world best described as the world of the Outsider, your style and strategies to cope with the world will be different from a child raised in the reality of the Predator (or Herd Member).

The Wakefield Doctrine offers three perspectives on the world and the people who make it a place in which to live. With a thorough understanding of the nature and character of each, you will be better equipped able to see the world as others are experiencing it.

Today the topic is totally the secret of relationship.

oh man… so I play a lot of jigsaw and I saw the secret of the universe this Sunday morning past.

The puzzle? Doesn’t much matter, but to help any rogers and scotts, it was of two women in the foreground, a crowd of other people in the background. Maybe a sporting, maybe not, the point being the foreground and background consisted of similar objects (‘people’).

So I completed the majority of the two women (primary, foreground figures enough to know I’ve got them mostly ‘assembled’. I’ve established most (but not all) of the outer boundaries. The blank space in the middle was getting tight. My efforts were to figure our how each of the primary figures connected to the surrounding background. (The objects of the gestalt, for all you Fritz Perls fans). Nothing was fitting, connecting, linking!! I tried moving them (the two main figures) up and moving them down against the row of indents and projections of the open edge of the boundary. Nothin!

Then, epiphany. It occurs to me, “Maybe this nearly-complete-figure on the right belongs on the left. And the one on the left belongs on the right.”

cha ching.

The Secret of the Universe in our willingness to consider that the relationship of the parts of our world might offer other configurations….

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

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- “Parte Two”

October 9, 2018 By

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

(Photo by Jude Domski/WireImage)

 

We interrupt the previously drafted post for this, Part Two, carried over from yesterday.

The post that we’re pre-empting was to have been about clarks and relationship. That is deliberately the singular, ‘relationship’. You’ll have to come back tomorrow to find out why.

On to Columbus, rogers, the Everything Rule and … Alton Brown.

I stumbled upon a rerun of ‘Good Eats’ last night. ‘Good Eats’ is the show that got me into watching cooking shows. That’s all the more impressive, given that I’m not particularly into eating, much less cooking. But I will watch Good Eats because of Alton Brown. He is a clark. He teaches us way more stuff than Martha Stewart and Emeril whatshisname. Way more.

(New Readers: there are three personality types in the Wakefield Doctrine. These three, clarks, scotts and rogers are what they are because of the character of the world they grew up and developed in. clarks learned to negotiate life by growing up in the world of the Outsider, scotts honed their skills by surviving in the world of the Predator and rogers were at home in the world of the Herd Member. We’re not trying to fit people into categories (like some personality theories I could mention, …rhymes with Oscar Meyer….;p) rather we gain valuable insight into the people around us by identifying the world as they are experiencing it. This requires putting ourselves in their shoes. Not easy, but the payoff is, when you correctly infer a person’s predominant worldview (aka personality type), you will know more about them than they know about themselves. And it’s fun.
The thing I would mention today is that, of the three, it is said, ‘clarks think, scotts act and rogers feel‘. Of the intellect, the body and the heart. But, boy howdy, do clarks loves information and fun facts. The more non-practical the better. A clark’s curiosity is as inexhaustible as a scott’s libido and a roger’s certainty. They just plain never met a fact they didn’t like. Sorta. There is an explanation for this endless search for new and interesting information. That’s for a more advanced post, after you’ve had enough time to get familiar with the basics.)

(…OK, you’ve had enough time.  lol. Did we mention that anyone who reads more than one Doctrine post on purpose is either a clark or they’re a scott or roger with a significant secondary clarklike aspect? It’s true. If that ‘secondary aspect’ is giving you pause, not to worry. That is for another post. Nothing weird, just need to keep the asides to a certain minimum. Check back later, or ask the question in a Comment).

Speaking of Alton Brown, I was reading some interviews he gave and one quote totally said, ‘Cut and Paste!’ He said:  “I’d rather be original than good.”  damn! Such a clarklike statement.

But today is Part 2 of the post about Chris Columbus.

With historical figures, it is, of course, impossible to interview the person. Were that possible, identification of their predominant worldview would be as …as easy as getting a roger mad or a scott angry.* (lol) Were we interviewing Christopher, we’d be listening for the use of personal pronouns, paying attention to his body language and, most productively, paying attention to how he is reacting to the environment around us. The people, the place, the things that happen during the interview. This last, if we’ve done our homework, would be sufficient to make a determination of his worldview.

(Someone out there ask me ‘Why?’)

…Thank you, Mimi!

You will see the phrase, ‘how a person relates themselves to the world around them‘ all over this here blog here. You will always see it with a qualifying admonition, to the effect that ‘we said, ‘...how a person relates themselves to the world‘ we did not say ‘...how a person relates to the world‘. The distinction is important and goes to the heart of the Wakefield Doctrine. We strive to see the world as the other person is experiencing it. The implication of the, ‘relates themselves’ is key to the whole shebang.

A clark doesn’t mumble because there’s something wrong with their voice. A scott doesn’t shout in order to overcome their own deafness. A roger does not gossip because the other person asked a direct question.

Consider what the world is like to an Outsider who is required to speak to others, however, is uncertain to their status among the listeners.

Think about the reaction of those around a Predator who howls, as a warning, as a signal, for the pure joy of the sound.

What does a Herd Member think is going to happen when they pass along a tidbit of incidental information about a person in their (social/work/school) environment; are they concerned with repercussions to their revelations, despite the fact that they are merely sharing what others probably already know?

This is what the Wakefield Doctrine is all about.

Don’t stop with perceiving what the other person mumbles, shouts, whispers. Put yourself in their position and look around and imagine the world they are experiencing.

What they do will make a new/additional sense to you.

Chris would start by letting us know that he had the total backing of the throne (in no small part due to the virtue of his project and the persuasiveness of his argument) and, to be on the safe side, the support of the Church. When asked about the voyage, he would tell us how difficult it was, and despite your assurances that you knew, he would cite the difficulties he experienced. How he felt and, with a touch of modesty, would remind us that even though his crew did not share his vision and, through no fault of his own, they considered mutiny. Fortunately he was a good leader and talked them out of it. The land that he found was vindication of his life and he felt a certain pride at knowing that the savages would be saved.

Everyone in Christopher’s world (and therefore in his tale) were a part of his Herd. The Herd that spread out around him. Even the natives, they were Members….provided they proved themselves to be good Christian slaves.

Tomorrow! clarks and them

 

 

 

* is there a difference? Are you even doing your reading?! scotts get angry, rogers get mad and clarks…mostly not in any recognizable form. This, actually, is a good opportunity to talk about ‘manifesting’. In the context of ‘the Everything Rule’ we say, ‘while everyone does everything, at one time or another, how that thing (emotion or reaction, occupation, hobby or odd obsession), manifests, varies in a manner that directly reflects the individual’s predominant worldview.

 

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

TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine- “Fue hace quinqué años en junio, Sargeant Pepper le enseñó a la banda a tocar“

August 18, 2018 By

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

“Clueless and Fate on a Summer Afternoon.”
(Landscape Orientation)
The vertical stiles along the railing of the deck might (to the bird in the photo) appear as a fatally-inefficient wall or a forest created by a more thoughtful and considerate diety. In any event in the relentlessly three dimensional reality of the aforementioned bird its just a rather bland demarcation of the square flat forest glade that it chose to take a breather on.

 

 

Our Host, Kristi, pointed out in her weekly announcement of the opening of the week’s post over on, ‘el Facialibre’* that June is, in facto, the multiversary of the beginnings of this here bloghop here. (Apparently** that was five years ago, this June past.)

1) Una  ↓

2) Phyllis*** ↑

3) the Wakefield Doctrine

4) THIS SPACE AVAILABLE (up here in Number 4 position this week only, to make room for a reverse countdown of previous TToT posts, because of the ‘reunion theme’ that Kristi started off her weekly posting) In any event, this Item is reserved for anyone who is in the position of desire being one tiny, (really small, surely shouldn’t have any effect at all, yet…) step behin self-consciousness. The answer, (for this week in any event, and surely, with the first Item posted the rest will be way easier), is to send as a Comment your Item (and desired attribution) and I’ll post it here.

5) Item June 2017

6) Item: June 2016

7) Item: June 2015

8) Item: June 2014

9) Item the very first Wakefield Doctrine TToT

10) Secret Rule 1.3 (from the Book of Secret Rules aka the Secret Book of Rules, which, in part, states: ‘the completion of a Ten Things of Thankful list, does, in fact,  constitute, comprise and qualify as (an) Item of Thankful’… go ahead, stick that bad boy right there at number 10!’)

 

* not ‘real’ Spanish

** clarks and Time, they have a certain, nontraditional relationship, so a clark, if asked how long the TToT has been going on might answer ”Eight years?’ (or) ‘At least three years now!’ both with equal enthusiasm and yet, go up to your nearest clark and say, “hey! do me a favor? let me know when 17 minutes have elapsed.” and as sure as you can say, ‘jeez, is that really the best use of a magnificent mind?’ the clark will say, ‘err, excuse me? your 17 minutes are up.’   no, really. I’m serious,

*** sorta, thats her computer, though

(music vid)

(For reasons that don’t stick to words overly-well, this song has a strong association with Ola.)

 

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