the Wakefield Doctrine

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

Before everyone goes home for the weekend, quick reminder:

• vidchat tonight (sign up sheet below) join the people behind the words that you read everyday. put a voice behind the posts and comments, ya know
• Chapter 8 of Blogdominion is coming out this weekend, (inside scoop: we almost to the end of Act I and all the Players will be …in play, awaiting the (traditionally high drama of  Act II)  don’t miss it! and if you haven’t started reading yet, go to this link…read the Prologue forward and please Vote and Comment, etc)
• the Wakefield Doctrine is a way of looking at the world around us and, as a result, better understand the people in our lives
• I was about to say that, the Wakefield Doctrine is more fun on weekends than it is on weekdays and…. well, yeah, dammit! I think I will make that statement!  Gimme some room… these bullet points are so confining….

…much better! So, about the Doctrine being more fun on Weekends than Weekdays? Sure. Because, weekends are more ‘fun’ than weekdays, unless, of course, you’re a clark. If you’re a clark, then weekends are either equal fun or equal not fun… clarks being a little peculiar in their expression/manifestation of ‘fun’  Sure, lets go to Mr Dictionary!

fun: (phun)(god-do-I-have-to-go?-I’d-rather-stay-here-and-read)

a)
Informal. of or relating to fun, especially to social fun: a fun thing to do; really a fun person; the funnest game.

2)
Informal. whimsical; flamboyant:  The fashions this year are definitely on the fun side.

Etymology
From Middle English fon, fonne ‎(“foolish, simple, silly”), probably of North Germanic origin, related to Swedish fånig ‎(“foolish”), Swedish fåne ‎(“a fool”). Compare also Norwegian fomme, fume ‎(“a fool”). More at fon, fond.

Alternative etymology connects Middle English fonne to Old Frisian fonna, fone, fomne, variant forms of Old Frisian fāmne, fēmne ‎(“young woman, virgin”), from Proto-Germanic *faimnijǭ ‎(“maiden”), from Proto-Indo-European *peymen- ‎(“girl”), *poymen- ‎(“breast milk”). If so, then cognate with Old English fǣmne ‎(“maid, virgin, damsel, bride”), West Frisian famke ‎(“girl”), Saterland Frisian fone, fon ‎(“woman, maid, servant,” also “weakling, simpleton”).

As a noun, fun is recorded from 1700, with a meaning “a cheat, trick, hoax”, from a verb fun meaning “to cheat, trick” (1680s). The meaning “diversion, amusement” dates to the 1720s. The older meaning is preserved in the phrase “to make fun of” (1737) and in usage of the adjective funny (our friends at wiktionary . com)

getting a little off-track are we? the thing about clarks and fun: we aspire to have fun. (that pretty much says it all!) scotts? they are fun  rogers get into having fun.

Sign up sheet

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

who? the author I want to grow up to be: Robert Sheckley, that’s who

So, reprint Post or a little about tonight’s vidchat…. which one first?

Ok, I can hear the scotts off in the distance howling, “the here and now!! you can’t hunt the antelope that passed by here last week!!! stay in the here and now, clark!!! hey!!!”

Fine

Rob and Laura invite you to join us on a vidchat this evening at around 6:30 EST Leave a comment, (for me to send you an invite-link), or come to the clark scottroger page on ‘the face book’ and we’ll set ya right up. Hey, these vidchats are pretty un-predictable, but don’t be shocked if I’m all, like, ‘hey man…what’s the deal with getting into and out of a flashback scene… I mean, you can’t write: wavy wavy wavy…. ‘  plus you’ll get to meet people, in semi-person, that you’ve read out there in the ‘sphere!

That’s ’cause I’m all into the writing thing these days and I believe, quite sincerely, that if another person has an interest in something that I also share, then there’s nothing the other person can say that won’t be helpful to me in my efforts, ya know?

(as for this new interest in writing, the part I really don’t look forward to is when I have to develop my rogerian aspect, when it comes time to get up me an audience… at the moment I’m blessed with Friends of the Doctrine who go and read ‘Blogdominion‘ when each Chapter comes out. when I get to the point (say, about 10 Chapters) where I start to convince myself that I need to package the thing as a ‘real’ book (and you know I surely will!) then I’ll need to get more self-promotionalistic. Well, until then, go have a read and let me know what you think of it.)

6:30 EST yo

reprint from, like 2012!

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

Before we get to the second installment of our series, ‘the Wakefield Doctrine and Effective Pair-Bonding Strategies in the Workplace/Personal Time Environment’ a brief word about gender.

We maintain that the Wakefield Doctrine is gender (and culture) neutral. We’re good with this because the thing that makes the Wakefield Doctrine such a unique and useful and fun perspective on behavior is its simplicity.
There seems to be a part of human nature that, when we have a desire to appreciate and/or understand something (or someone), our first impulse is to break it down into smaller and smaller elements. Trying to understand the whole by counting the parts.
We are not saying that this is necessarily a bad, inappropriate or otherwise non-productive approach. It is the only approach for those engaged in matters involving engineering and accounting and chemistry and other of the more…rogerian of endeavors.*

In the simplest of terms, the Wakefield Doctrine proposes to explain why humans behave the way that they do based on an appreciation of their personal realities. Three characteristic personal realities (‘worldviews’) that define how the individual relates themselves to the world (and life) at large. Emphasis on ‘human’. Gender happens afterwards, (from the Doctrine perspective). A scott, by virtue of living in a reality characterized as that of ‘the predator’, is aggressive, guardedly inquisitive, impulsive and quick to react. When we add gender to this perspective, we have to allow for the differences in the allowable strategies and patterns of behavior (allowable both by physiology and the culture in which the individual finds themselves).
Still a scott.
You can see this person, (male or female), and by observing their behavior, infer that they are responding within the worldview that we designate as being that of predator/prey. And so with the clarks and the rogers. It is all about inferring the reality that the individual is experiencing that makes the Wakefield Doctrine such an effective tool.

We’ll catch-up with our clark and scott and the roger as they arrive at the Calypso Club for the party, but before we do that, a little supporting information/backstory to make the remainder of the series more enjoyable and ‘educational.

The three characters are meant to illustrate the 3 predominant worldviews. We are trying to maintain a gender neutral view in order to allow the Reader to focus on seeing what they (the characters) see, to better appreciate the worldview they are experiencing in this intertwined story.
Having said that, proper names are useful, if only to allow the dialogue to flow a bit more smoothly. So, lets give these three some names!

the clark (who, to his/her credit) has gone against their natural inclination to retreat from (potentially) fear inducing situations and is pulling into the club parking lot (being sure to park in a spot that can’t possibly be blocked by another car arriving later in the evening) lets call this person: Sam
the scott …now here is the most interesting of the 3 examples, in the sense that it will be nearly impossible to avoid gender issues. The unavoidable fact is that in most cultures, direct and overtly aggressive behavior is discouraged in women, while a (male) scott can pat backs, punch arms in a jocular fashion, even stand too close in an effort to physically intimidate, female scotts must rely on other forms of expressing their totally natural, and clearly predatory-like aggressiveness. So, if you think that our scott is female, lets call her (and her male predator manifestation): Alex
the roger, Mel to his or her friends, is always there, always helpful. He/She is un-stinting in pursuit of providing whatever assistance or aid or resources or materials are necessary so that whatever you are trying to do, you will do it right…the way it is supposed to be done…exactly…and her/his standards are not so hard to meet, once you allow him and/or her to show you the proper way to do things
* we have said, not partially, in defense of the rogerian worldview, I wouldn’t want to fly cross-country on a jet designed and built by scotts or clarks!
If it were left to a scott, the plane would have at least 5 jet engines with no noise suppression whatsoever, the landing gear would be in a fixed ‘wheels down’ position, so that the pilot could ‘stop real quick and get a drink on the way’ and the window on the pilot’s side of the cockpit would open so that (the pilot) could lean out the window and scream stuff at other passing jets and
if a clark had a hand in design, there would be 8 or 10 lavatories, a bookcase for each row of seats and there would be a section in the back, where there would be couches instead of single seats, but the plane would always be late because the couches (with corduroy quilts) would slide around if the pilot tried to bank too extremely.