relationships | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 8 relationships | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 8

TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

Not the bridge in Grat #7. Someone else’s bridge, entirely

This is the Wakefield Doctrine’s traditional contribution to the Ten Things of Thankful (TToT) bloghop.

Readers? ‘This is a Grat bloghop’*. (A little football humor there.) Speaking of football, our founderess, Lizzi is reportedly exploring financing options in her quest to buy the Manchester Mandrakes. Of course, the game referred to as ‘football’ played in parts of the world  is not quite as formal as that which the source of our opening (and purely gratuitous**) quote.

Be that as it may, such an ambition is minuscule tubers when embraced by the woman who, when starting this blog, back in 1984, premiered with Fifty Things of Thankful. The collective ‘aiiyeee!’ from Blogville could be heard around the world). Fortunately for us, she relented and allowed us a break with a 20 percent reduction in list size. (No, our gift for math will not appear on the list today.)

The Doctrine offers the following list of people, places and things that have resulted in our experiencing gratitude-like subjective states.

1) Phyllis

Phyllis and Una in the (then) new treehouse.

2) Una

3) the Wakefield Doctrine

4) the Six Sentence Story bloghop  This week’s pic of the sic: ‘A Long Ache‘ by Miskey

5) the Unicorn Challenge bloghop  This week’s Best-of-the-‘corn: Margaret‘s ‘Beach holiday

6) our co-writ, Serial Six, ‘…of Heroes and the MisUnderstood’  (Tom being the writer of the cool Co-Ordination of Supervillains)

7) in the 10k dept

8) something, something

9) weather approaching ideal (ideal defined as: warm enough to sweat from minor exertion (without a coat) but cool enough not to wake certain, multi-legged creatures.)

10) Secret Rule 1.3

 

*Vince Lombardi

** that is how you play the Grat-blog game! booyah! (lol)

 

music

*

*

*

*

*

 

You are invited to the Inlinkz link party!

Click here to enter

Share

Mondya RePrah -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

...out like a lion.

Wind is a funny thing. At the time of this typation, it is at elevated levels outside our window. Like naturally-hyperactive children, (you know, of the more benign ages of, say, fourth to sixth grade), it is rustling the pine forest around the house. Kinda cool, (stylistically and not termperaturistically), how, at this time of day, (before sunrise), the wind acquires the combined qualities of volition and location. You can hear it off in the distance, approach, only to veer away at the last second.

Totally kids. (Before they are fully assimilated by their respective,predominant worldviews.)

(Hokey Smoke! A topic without a RePrint!)

The Wakefield Doctrine is gender and age neutral…

This just in!!

Found A Post [stop] Don’t Remember Having Written It [stop] Don’t Deprive Them New Readers Out There!

ok, ok

here’s your little RePrint

‘and a thousand telephones, that will not ring’ the Wakefield Doctrine: the theory of personality predicated on three characteristic worldviews

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of personality that you get to enjoy with your friends and them, before it gets all famous and mainstreamy and everyone will know about it)

Question: If your husband is a roger and you are a clark, is it true that they never accept how much you have changed over the years, since you first met?
Answer: Too true1

(Welcome to ‘ya shoulda just asked Tuesday’! We will be presenting some common questions and the semi-comprehensive answers…along with a little commentary, mostly to let us get away with dividing the page into block quotes.’)

Question: My best friend is funny and fun to be with, but sometimes when we are around other people he gets like, mean even goes and picks on me. But this happens only with certain people, this big kid that (my friend) knows. What gives?

Answer: Chances are your friend is a scott and the person that, when they’re around, your friend starts acting mean?…well, that other person is a scott too, but they are what we call dominant (to your friend). So your friend, even though he is picking on you, doesn’t mean to hurt your friendship… it’s a pack2 thing, you know?
Answer: jeez, if you say so

(This question deals with the changing pack order (from the scottian perspective) and it’s effects on the behavior of a scott. Note: this question (and by implication, the experience cited), will most likely be posed by a clark. Do you know why that should be?)

Question: My fiancée and I are getting close to the Big Day. When we first got engaged, we both agreed to keep the ceremony and everything on the quiet, low-key side, but lately, ( the wedding is in 3 months), she has been talking more to her sisters and some of her old friends and it seems like the guest list is getting bigger and bigger. What gives?

Answer: She is probably a roger. Forget about changing her mind. It means a lot to her, in a way that you will never understand.  So relax! Sneak a couple of your friends that she might not have approved when the guest list was small, she probably won’t even notice now, and if she does make an issue of it, say the following to her (word for word): “I understand how important family is to you now. And even though I am not close to my family, you have shown me that my feelings3 of friendship with (fill in the names of you friends) make them like family. Won’t you let my family join your family …darling?

(And there are those who would say, ‘Hey Wakefield Doctrinaires! Sure you have a uniquely clever take on personality types, but what about practical applications? Huh, what about those?‘ Well, here ya go! Who cannot not identify with this situation? …not counting the rogers, of course!)

Question: My boss is nice enough, but it seems like he tries too hard to be, like my friend or something! Every day it is ‘how are you doing?’, “is there anything I can do to make your job easier?” I mean, all the time! I can’t get any work done when he is in the office, he is always offering to ‘help’! I might be able to deal with this, except that every time I do get some work done that he needs to sign off on, he always finds  fault! And if I come up with something on my own initiative (he likes to say that he wants me to try to ‘think outside the box’) he is either totally negative or acts like he is amazed that I actually did it myself!  Should I quite my job?
Answer: Probably.4

(This Question deals with a scenario that is all too common. And, although we do not propose that all bosses are rogers, we will say this, ‘If your boss is a scott you have: a) a good time everyday up until the day he decides that it is time to change careers or b) a lead pipe cinch of a sexual harassment lawsuit, so the day you get tired of her shenanigans, ‘it’s sayonara see ya in court’
If your boss is a clark, then we know the following: a) if your clarklike boss is female then her boss is a roger, if your clarklike boss is male then his boss is a scott!  and b) they (clarks) make great bosses, will stick up for you totally against all opponents, but jeez! enough with the leadership by consensus! Get a set, yo.

That music referenced in the Title of today’s Post? Totally weird. I’m sitting and watching TV and a commercial comes on and before I can hit ‘MUTE’ I hear the music in the background (of the commercial) and I’m off to the great and omnicient google… and here we are

1) rogers are about consistency, if they are about anything at all! The worldview of the herd (rogers) maintains that history, tradition, continuity…consistency is of the greatest good! The worldview is also one in which the individual’s relationship with the world-at-large manifests primarily in emotional terms. So when a (lasting) relationship forms, the details of ‘the other’ person are important, in a sense, manifesting the emotional investment. So, as time goes by, even though people change and grow and develop, the roger will still insist on seeing the ‘original person’

2) scotts, in the initial behavioral metaphor: like pack animals, i.e. wolves, dogs, lions and such. The social ranking in the pack is one of simple dominance, an alpha at ‘the top’ and everyone else in order of strength/prowess/capability downward from there. It is a primary characteristic of the scottian personality type to establish ranking when entering a new (social ) environment. Literally going from person to  person, figuratively pushing them on the shoulder in order to establish ranking

3) emotions! always play the emotion-card when dealing with rogers!

4) you could try to…nah, don’t even bother.  Maybe if you got to the Doctrine sooner, you might have learned enough to invoke your own rogerian aspect to re-configure your work relationship… but too hard, too frustrating, easier to get another job. But then again, most bosses/middle managers/supervisors/Principals are rogers!  so maybe you should be asking about the Wakefield Doctrine School of Self-Improving Oneself…school

*

Share

Freyadaya -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

This is the Wakefield Doctrine’s bi-weekly/semi-monthly/every fourteenth day contribution to ‘the Unicorn Challenge‘.

Hosted by jenne and ceayr,  the challenge is the most simplest of all: see that pitcha down there? Write a story that involves it and do not, at hazard of Heimdall (his friends call ‘im Doug) calling you out for exceeding the limit of two hundred and fity (250) words.

(Apologies to Shirley Jackson fans. Not my fault. The line showed up on my doorstep as soon as I saw the photo)

 

 

“…and Dust to Dust.”

I couldn’t resist the pulling towards the house. If the experience of witnessing a sunrise includes feeling the pressure of light, heat and the day’s possibility, this moment, invisible to all others, could be nothing other than sunset.

“The path he took was lined with books, the mark he left: secret bent-page corners, insight into humanity serving only to drive his further search. An insatiable curiosity, for our brother, was both journey and destination, albatross and crucifix.”

The house, the one in which I was raised didn’t merely grow in size as I approached, (or was being transported to), it became an increasing certainty. Certainty in the way birthdays and holidays are, so inevitable that most people felt no need to remember them, they happened when they happened. Reassuring for no other reason than everyone had them.

“He was a quiet man, but kind, even if tending to be distant in social settings.”

The rooms were exactly as they always were, filled with family. All the time. Always helping and teaching, correcting and reminding me to come out of my shell. To learn to live.

“We close this memorial service with John 14:1-3 ‘…Father’s house many mansion…'”

My God! The voices, the whispers, the memories growing in the air… Rather than Dante and his guide to damnation, I should have paid Shirley Jackson heed

Whatever walked there will never be alone

 

Share

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

So what if we say, the following is an example of a meta-Doctrine post?

Reader’s response (in reverse the traditional ordering):

  1. rogers: well, I don’t know how to tell you this but, that’s not quite what is happening, it’s simply a normal RePrint post with a power chord on the first beat
  2. scotts: (grin) lay it on me
  3. clarks: I’m listening

A quik Wik:

Metafiction is a form of fiction that emphasizes its own narrative structure in a way that inherently reminds the audience that they are reading or viewing a fictional work…”*

Yeah we can live with that. But of the three, clarks clearly have a deep-rooted affinity for meta (hell, they live in meta-time, narrating a life in which the audiance, on average, really wants to like the play, but they have lives. Real-person lives.)

We were going to go for something profound, but time is not our friend. (Time is no one’s friend. Time is the original incubus/succubus of the spirit*)

 

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- “… of Mondegreen(s), reality and clarks”

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

Live! From the waiting room of a dentist office. George Michael is singing an example of ‘the writer not realizing the true power of his own work*.

Which surely leads us to the wonderful word/concept ‘Mondegreen’

(…back in real time. A little more to tell you about)

This post is so for clarks (and scotts and rogers with significant secondary clarklike aspects).

It wasn’t ‘Careless Whisper’ that made me appreciate how interesting being a clark can sometimes be. It was Electric Light Orchestra’s ‘Don’t Bring Me Down’.

So I’m sitting there waiting for my hygienist (who is a clark) to call for me, so I did what any (of us would do) I looked things up. As it was, ‘Don’t Bring Me Down’ played from the ceiling. Naturally I thought, ‘so who is Bruce?’ And went to wikipedia (the best thing about the internet, from a clark’s perspective) and looked it up. I cite:

A common mondegreen in the song is the perception that, following the title line, Lynne shouts “Bruce!”. In the liner notes of the ELO compilation Flashback and elsewhere, Lynne has explained that he is singing a made-up word, “Grooss,” which some have suggested sounds like the Swiss/German expression “Gruß.” After the song’s release, so many people had misinterpreted the word as “Bruce” that Lynne actually began to sing the word as “Bruce” for fun at live shows”

OK I accept that.

Now this is where the fun we have (as clarks) begins…. mondegreen?!  What might that be… all blue in linkage.

A mondegreen /ˈmɒndɪɡrn/ is a mishearing or misinterpretation of a phrase as a result of near-homophony, in a way that gives it a new meaning. Mondegreens are most often created by a person listening to a poem or a song; the listener, being unable to clearly hear a lyric, substitutes words that sound similar and make some kind of sense.[1][2] American writer Sylvia Wright coined the term in 1954, writing about how as a girl she had misheard the lyric “…and laid him on the green” in a Scottish ballad as, “…and Lady Mondegreen”

of course!

I smiled (to myself). This is part of the better part of the world of the Outsider.

The fun and genuine pleasure in knowing the Wakefield Doctrine began when I heard my name called, ‘Clark?’

Given that we spend a few minutes twice a year together, naturally I had long since told my hygienist about the Wakefield Doctrine. And, equally naturally, by virtue of being a clark, she immediately ‘got it’.

So as I sat back in the chair this morning she said, “So whats new?”

I smiled the smile of one clark to another.

“So you  know that ELO song… I forget the name, its the one where they say ‘Bruce’?”

She nodded “I know the one you mean.”

“Well I looked it up and there’s this thing called a mondegreen and it’s a term for the times we hear one word and substitute it with another thats different but makes sense in a weird way, ya know?”

She smiled and nodded in acknowledgement and appreciation for the concept.

“You realize, of course, the implications of this for how we deal with reality, right?”

She laughed out loud and proceeded to tell me what it was I was thinking.

Thats the fun of the Wakefield Doctrine.

 

*  ‘Careless Whisper’ I would argue that Seether’s cover of the song is one of those rare ‘better than original’

 

 

*eh…. not really a punch in the face, but what can you do?

 

 

Share

Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

Mimi said something in a Comment yesterday that got us thinking.

[New Readers? Who among you just muttered , ‘As opposed to acting? Instead of feeling?’ Very good!]

She say,

“How to have fun? What do you think I’m doing, I wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t to have fun.”

>Fun Fact? Pretty much everyone who returns to this blog more than twice, if not a clark then (they) have a significant secondary clarklike aspect.<

No, it’s true!

From the very beginning we’ve described the Wakefield Doctrine as a ‘fun, productive way to look at the world we live in with the added benefit of knowing the other person better than they know themselfs‘.

The thing about the Doctrine is that it is but one more perspective on the world. And the single hardest, nay impossible for some, is what we used to call ‘flexible intelligence’. This is the capacity to accept that what we all refer to (out of either necessity or need or both) as ‘reality’ is not necessarily one thing. That there is such a thing as personal reality. Nothing weird or made-up. Just a certain part of the day we experience, say today, is created by us/for us/at us.

And, this is captured in our, if we had one, mission statement:

With the practice of the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine, we increase our ability to see the world as the other person is experiencing it.

>Fun Fact? The Wakefield Doctrine is gender neutral, age neutral, culture neutral.<

 

 

Share