self-development | the Wakefield Doctrine

Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

The Doctrine, at least for the purposes of this post, can be likened to a musical instrument. It has the inherent value to produce what most of us characterize as a musical sound/tone. It responds to a certain approach/technique better than others. There are, (to some), arbitrary rules for the application of it in the service of playing music, (i.e. you should not use a clarinet as a bow on a viola, you should not blow into the f-holes of a double bass expecting to hear an alto note) and, finally, with study and practice, one might arrive at the point of being able to produce something otherwise not available any other way.

So learn your scales, (the characteristics of the three predominant worldviews), and practice until you know each note/detail by heart.

Practice your lessons: “a clark and a scott and a roger stand on the sidewalk across the street from a very popular restaurant.”

Play the clarklike part… now the scottian observation and finally, the roger’s counter response and, likely extended, coda.

Repeat.

Eventually, with practice, and, it is assumed, a certain of talent, one can play this little piece with emphasis on each of the three as the lead melody. And, if one has or develops ‘an ear’, you might bring each part to life in manner the listener has not heard before.

Technical prowess will produce a truly effective performance.

However, once you have the technique mastered, you can begin to put yourself into the music. And by doing so, produce something (insights into the life of total stranger) not heard before.

you know, like that.

 

Share

Tutor Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

As abundantly clear by this post’s primary image, today is Tutor Tuesday. Implicit in this somewhat aged cultural reference is an age requirement which you are encouraged to ignore. That said, for max amusement, your birthday must not only be from the 19oos, it must be the mid-1900s for you to attend.

As with most of our better Doctrine Posts* today’s is prompted by Friend of the Doctrine, Misky who responded to Monday’s Post with the Comment:

I’m not afraid of being incorrect. Wrong is a different kettle of fish. My answer; final answer is the girl is a Clark. That was the question, right? Hmmm … maybe I should re-read this. Nah.

Shall we begin?

…oh yeah, did we mention this is an Open Book, and…and I believe we also said in our Reply something about Self-Grading. oh yeah… any effort to determine a stranger’s predominant worldview is invaluable practice

We’re totally sincere in the saying that, despite how aggravating it may have been to certain among us, back in school daze to see the Exam Notation: SHOW YOUR WORK. We totally embrace that directive. It is in hearing the ‘Why’ a person feels the subject is a clark or a scott or a roger not only enhances our understanding but it’s just pretty much the fun of this exercise.

New Reader! In case there is a roger among you who snuck into this AP class; one word: ‘No, if everyone’s opinion of the predominant worldview is equal, that does not mean that any/every Answer is possessed of equal validity.’

The cool thing about the Wakefield Doctrine and it’s use is that it is entirely self-correcting. If you ‘get it wrong’ then the benefits inherent in the application of it’s principles (not the least of which is: to know more about the other person than they know about themselves) simply are not there to enjoy. Usually such a person decides this stupid thing doesn’t work anyway and they wander off. Not a problem. For the rest of us? If we hear a scott or a roger cite evidence for the determination of a person’s predominant worldview, (in this case the photo yesterday) it is to our benefit. After all, we’re a clark and they are not. quid pro quo non serviam. I learn about their personal reality. Win Win, binyons!

 

Wait!! Wait!! Before we begin what we’re sure to be a spirited discussion in the Comments section we have a visitor! An alumnae, if you will from the distant Before Time. We’d be the entirely gracious and organized Narrator if we offered her background, maybe offer a link or two to posts in the Archives, but given her predominant worldview1, kinda coals to Newcastle. Jennifer? Jennifer Katherine Wilson? (the blogger formerly known as Miz AKH)

 

* a post written to explore, explain, extrapolate and otherwise enjoy the core principles of the Wakefield Doctrine**

** which can be succinct’d down to: clarks think, scotts act and rogers feel

  1. ‘though we’d expect ever one here to embrace the preferred politeness of ‘One simply does not state another’s predominant worldview, at least not unless they have already self-identified or it is, otherwise, general and/or common knowledge.’

 

*

Share

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

So, what with the wild social adventures of the weekend (well, technically, it was Friday… (and early evening…. (and we were to meet (for the surprise party at 5:00 pm… (yeah, that is kinda the afternoon… ( but the late afternoon… (and the surprise(d) guest didn’t arrive until, like 6:oo  (and being cloudy it was semi-dark [go ahead and provide your own closed parenthesiseseses…]

Permit us to 1st coffee this intonement installment* with a RePrint

it wasn’t my intention to eavesdrop, but there a guy sat, two stools away

I was meaning to tell you about the success of the Post that came out Monday but we got side tracked by that “24” thing. (btw, talking with DownSpring#1 right after hitting ‘Publish’, yesterday morning.  She say the night before was the Season Finale of that very show.  Ain’t synchronicity grand?)

Anyway, we are declaring the Monday Post (…”hey, did anyone else just hear something”… ) a complete success, as the only Readers that wrote a Comment in response to it were scotts.  Since the goal was to write for (one of the three specifically) and scotts were my target, then its…”A is for apple, binyons”.

But alas,that is not the topic today.  Today the topic is:…”you really want to know how seriously we take this Wakefield Doctrine?”
The photo above on this page…came across it by random, probably a part of an ad for some genealogical service that is so pervasive on the ‘net.  Anyway, saw the picture, about to click forward, but then thought came into my brain, “alright, what (or more appropriately, who ) do have here in the family portrait?”
The answer: 3 scotts, 2 rogers and 1 clark.
Even though this Post is supposed to be about  rogers, stop at this point, take a minute, look at the photo and pick out the clark. (Hint: no, not him, close, nice guess, but nothim…keep tryin).
(At this point I would ask you to write a Comment, but I don’t think you will.  Afraid of being wrong, I hear.  I understand…even though you are telling yourself that this blog is funny and maybe this particular Post is all really silly… you are still afraid of looking stupid.  I do understand, I realize that you are not afraid of me responding to your Comment with something like: ” Here is a stupid answer”,  that is not what you are afraid of.  What you know would be awful would be a follow-up Comment such as:  “…now here is a good effort…unfortunately missed by this much”.  Now that would hurt.  So I do not expect any Comment, it is not that important, seeing how I do sort of know what you are thinking… (no, I really  do  know…) (hey, sorry, don’t care if you believe me or not, just the way it is), go ahead…don’t let the cursor hit you in the ass on your way out! lol)

So rogers are all over this picture (above).  Rogers love the family units, or more precisely, they love the idea of tradition and history. The photo shows history and implies history, and the people are the herd.  This will be the Wakefield Doctrine lesson for the day.  The question is not why the herd, that would be like asking why does the night follow the day, answer: hey, it just does.
The useful question is: if the herd is the most important thing (to a roger) then how does one make a roger want to do things.  As we saw in Monday’s Post, there is a way to speak to scotts that will not only be heard by the scott, but will be irresistible. (Damn, not being clear, sorry).
Let’s try this: you have all heard about the supersonic whistles that only dogs can hear, right?  Well not only can they hear them when you cannot, but they (the dogs) cannot resist them.  Blow on the sucker and Fido is all, “OK OK what? WHat do you Want?!  Are we gonna do something?  HUH?! HUH? (picture Warner Brothers/Jack Russell-type…hell with that,  picture the dog below bouncing 3 feet in the air over and over in front of you..)

…I know…I know and I apologise!  How the heck did we get back to those scotts?  This was to be a Doctrine lesson on the herd and rogers, instead we are looking at photos of dogs.  Pretty damn cute though, no?  And sincere.  That is what dogs do so well, they are sincere and direct, not an ounce of artifice in their bodies.  Now at this point, cat people might say that dogs are kinda simpletons, non-ambitious, not nearly as cool as cats are…well, write a Comment and I might take your opinion into consideration.  Back to the scotts, people are drawn to them for the same qualities, the directness and un-complicatedness.  Unlike rogers.

I think I have driven around in supermarket cart type circles quite long enough for one Post.  If you are a new Reader, check some of the featured Posts or even the Archived Posts (In the “Read ’em and Sleep” pulldown, over to the right there, under the map).  That’s the whole magilla, Wakefield Doctrine-wise.

 

* without doubt funnier and more skilled writers have expressed the total fuckin, civilization-ending cultural Trojan Horse of ‘autocorrect’ by now, but serially, how could even a machine believe we meant to apologize with a song!?!?

 

Share

Friday -the Wakefield Doctrine- “…a short, quick Doctrine post, ’cause of a Reader Comment, don’cha know”

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

Sometimes New Readers, they be sayin’ ‘Hey, I believe this Doctrine can be fun and useful. And I get that you say ‘Do your Reading’. But there’s like thirty-five hundred of the fricken’ things.  How ’bout you give a Reader a break? Like a Clift Notes thing.”

We hear you.

Examples to see the Doctrine (and it’s three personality types: clarks (Outsider), scotts (Predator) and rogers (Herd Member) are all around you,

The key is to indulge your imagination.

Yesterday, Commenting on this post, Friend of the Doctrine Misky say:

ps: TSA — I am always impressed by their ability to wear self-possessed importance. Goes to show what a uniform does to a person.

Being a clark with a significant secondary scottian aspect allow us to preface our remarks on how her Comment is nothing less than a total open book exam on the Doctrine:

“Hey, this personality theory, it’s not for ever one. Not only do you need to enjoy applying your imagination to the everyday world, you need to have the confidence to, as a scott might, ‘just run with it.’ If you don’t get it, we can say with confidence that it’s only because you’re suffering from hypo-clarklike aspect.’

That’s all we care to say.

To today’s topic: Read: ‘TSA‘ (we’ve all been through security check points at airports…or have seen them in a movie or on TV) then… ‘self-possessed importance‘ (now here our correcpondent is being….somewhat charitable). Finally the clincher: ‘Uniform‘.

We are presented with an archtypical illustration of a less admirable manifestation of the rogerian predominant worldview.

Grade your own exams.

Ask question.

(Like we used to say in early Doctrine posts, back in the beginning when our scottian aspect might have shown more clearly, you know, before the ameliorating effects of associating with the likes of Mimi and Cynthia, we’d be sayin’  ‘There are not stupid question, just your questions.”)

 

 

 

Share

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

back to ‘work’

the Wakefield Doctrine is a perspective on the world around us and the people who make it up. It, (the Doctrine, not the people, hell, not the world, for that matter), proposes that, in service to the ambition to categorize personality, the relationship a person has with the world (around them) is the key to an insight that none of the others can offer.

In the Wakefield Doctrine we have three predominant worldviews, aka personality types. They are:

  1. clarks (the Outsider)
  2. scotts (the Predator)
  3. rogers (the Herd Member)

In more mainstream schema, there is a list of characteristic...characteristics (lol), or, if one is in a more formal frame of mind: drives to, tropisms towards or a bunch of letters from the alphabet.

Whatever.

Here’s the thing: imagine you find your young, (very young) self to be what you can only describe to yourself as being an Outsider. Those around you, (most likely immediate family, but maybe institutional personal, social workers, nuns or wolves), seem to know what’s going on. Wait. Hold on to that assumption.

It’s not that they know whats going on in a realtime, literal sense. No, it’s more that they appear to know each other. At very least, (to keep this Monday post under 1202 words), they (these others) share a common belonging. Worse, they give all indications of sharing a collective knowledge of procedure, in the sense of social order. They know they belong. (Major Hint right there).

What do you do?

That is the underlying rationale of the Wakefield Doctrine. What you do in the above scenario is, of course, learn, (as quickly as possible), what they’ve been taught that you’ve somehow missed (or… advanced concept here ‘you weren’t taught’) i.e. how to get along, fit in and/or simply survive long enough to figure out how the game is played.

New Readers! This has been an example using one of the three predominant worldviews of the Wakefield Doctrine. Comparable scenaria can be constructed for the other two.

Fine. Monday assignment completo

oh… oh (yeah, old Readers? you can do an Arnold Horshack in your head if you choose)

The Doctrine says a couple of other things.

You form one predominant worldview as your ‘personality type’. The other two remain as potential potentials (lol) But you do not get to be a ‘a combination of…’

Also? The following: ‘the Wakefield Doctrine is for you, not them’  the Doctrine is gender, age and culture neutral’ and finally (ish) ‘there is no good or bad predominant worldview’ (but there is something called ‘the Everything Rule’ so do your Reading!)

 

*

Share