self-development | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 12 self-development | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 12

TToT-the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

This is our contribution to the Ten Things of Thankful (TToT) bloghop.

It is not raining at this particular moment (11:22) but an unlisted Grat for this post is that we know our Readers will not hold it against us if we skip the editing and get outside and doing something lawnistically-speaking.

thanks

1) Phyllis

2) Una

3) the Wakefield Doctrine

4) the Six Sentence Story bloghop  Six-Pick of the Week: ‘Sands of Time‘  by Eliza Seymour

5) the Unicorn Challenge  ‘corn in the morn pick, [funny thing about this pick*] : ‘Western Sunset‘ by Tom

6) * sure, we liked the story but, the thing about good writing (from the perspective of the Writer and the Reader) is sometimes our fiction contains elements that stand out that we, the writer may not have ‘tried for’. Taking liberites here, I haven’t asked Tom directly but reading the Comments makes me feel this story has one surprise elements

7) co-writing a serial story with Tom… “Of Heroes and the MisUnderstood

8) somoething, something**

9) ** spellczech. (ha ha)

10) Secret Rule 1.3

music vids

*

*

*

You are invited to the Inlinkz link party!

Click here to enter

Share

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

We’re needing a whole passel of words today, seeing how we’re in the last chapter(s) of our Serial Six, ‘…Of Heroes and the MisUnderstood’. With this in mind, we’ll ask your indulgence as we empty one metaphorical cardboard box into another.

Hey! There’s something the shiny, bright ain’t-good-enough-if-it’s-not-new 21st C kids are missing out on. Sure, if they have anything as archaic as a pile of hardcopy stuff.

Anyway, we’ll just say a quick prayer to St. Charles* and find us some homey-but-still-kinda-picaresque-around-the-edges old RePrint to get us started on this Tuesday.

(OK Full Disclosure: Back in the early days of this blog when we didn’t-know-that-we-didn’t-have-a-writing-style (aka the Grail of all beginner fiction writers, a ‘Voice’) we did a lot of the strings of words (connected-by-dashes-which-served-the-function-of-creating-the-sense-of-a-narrative-aside) ya know?) (here’s some extra parentheticals… we’ve never been all that good at making sure we close them…use ’em as you see fit) (thanks) )). ((

lol Fun days they was.

Anyway Check out the serial story “…Of Heroes and the MisUnderstood” that Tom and I are finishing up in the next week or so**

Here ya go. RePrint (dusty-from-the-attic)

You see, you start out with a little bit of oil. Then you fry some garlic.” the Wakefield Doctrine (…a personality theory for all sorts of people and situations)

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

...yeah, no! just listen!

“Hey, come over here, kid, learn something. You never know, you might have to understand the behavior of 20 people someday.”

No, I don’t think it odd that I am starting today’s Post with a quote from a famous movie. (If you know, without googling, what movie these lines are from, I will send you an official Wakefield Doctrine docTee!*) Most of the Posts that we write start with some totally random item from the world, however this is entirely appropriate, given the nature of the Wakefield Doctrine as a personality theory.

You know that the Doctrine is not really a personality theory, right? We have not (yet) delved into the matter of how we come to settle on one (of the three worldviews) as our predominant worldview. We don’t know why some of us have significant secondary and tertiary aspects and some are simply clarks… or scotts or rogers. We don’t even know what influences in the family structure are important! Birth order is kind of intriguing, but the worldview of the parents have little bearing on who goes to which worldview and, while evidence exists that is highly suggestive of a component of childhood trauma (of any type) as ’cause’ of one worldview being selected over the other, there is nothing anywhere near definitive. So what do we know?

Well, for starters we know that:

  • we all find our predominant worldview and we adapt to the nature of that world.  as Outsiders, clarks become creative, learn to camouflage ourselves among the ‘normal’ children and set out to leave no information un-examined…in the hopes of learning to become ‘part of’; finding themselves in the world of the Predator, scottsdo what comes naturally, run and play and search out their environment, they are the first to go into the abandoned building, first to kiss a boy and are comfortable in the principle’s office because they cannot walk away from a fight and finally, …the majority of children (between the ages of 1 and 4) look around and know that they belong, they are Herd members. not an easy gig by any stretch of the imagination. just as with any member of a team or a family or a congregation, they discover that there are Rules and not only must they be followed, they must be shown to others and that, for the rogers, the good of the many must be imposed on the few
  • while we all are predominately one (of the three personality types), we all have the potential of the other two. for reasons not yet fully understood,  some clarks seem to come out of their shells at times, not at the behest of others, not because they want to, usually because there is a need to; scotts will often express a significant secondary aspect by demonstrating compassion to their prey, much to the confusion (of their prey) and chagrin to themselves, but they will ultimately over-come this by dispatching their victim or marrying them or setting out to right the injustices around them and rogers…poor rogers! a significant secondary aspect (of either sort) means nothing but dissatisfaction and dismay. they are in a world that should be ‘ordered and defined’, a world in which every one knows their place and worse, far worse, is that rogers (with a significant secondary aspect) have the misfortune to be able to see the sides of the box that is their perfect world
  • if you learn the principles of the Doctrine and the characteristics of the three worldviews and (if you) correctly infer the worldview of the other person, you will be in a position to know more about them than they know about themselves
  • if you practice inferring the worldview of the people around you, you will not only know why they behave the way that they do, but you will know what they will do, how they will respond to a situation or event that has not yet happened
  • if you have the desire, the Wakefield Doctrine offers a tool for changing that part, that aspect, those habits that you have always wanted to change but have either had no luck doing so or, far worse, you have succeeded at changing only to discover that you have somehow slid back to where you managed to move yourself away from
  • the Doctrine is fun…there are other people like you here, the cool thing is that you don’t have to risk guessing wrong who will ‘get you’

That’s enough for a Monday morning. Just remember this, the Wakefield Doctrine is for you, not them.  Unlike most of the personality quizzes and tests and free samples you see in magazines and on the internet, the Doctrine is not a mirror-shaped club. No matter how certain you are that the other person would benefit from this, it just doesn’t work that way.

..still a lot of fun, tho

 

For music, here’s Joe Cocker’s version of ‘The Letter’  (written by and a hit for the Boxtops)

* Dickens, of course, the Patron Saint of serial story-writing

** if the name Six Sentence Café and Bistro makes you sit up and say, “Oh yeah? What’s going on down there now?” Stay tuned.

Share

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

Where to begin?

When you think about it, using RePrints to jumpstart a post is, kinda, just like time travel, ya know?

After all, we are, (on some level), what we write. And who can deny that what we write, (fiction, non-fiction, theories of personality types), are us, made loud.

New Readers! There is a thing in the Doctrine referred to as ‘the Everything Rule’. If you’re just getting the hang of this here Doctrine thing here, don’t be concerned if the part of you that felt, for a moment, like this applied to you is now saying, ‘This is all bullshit. I want to speak to the manager. It’s not right that they go on and on like this…” (lol)

While this post began, as many do, speaking generically, i.e. to all three personality types, clearly we are addressing the clarks in the Readiance. The Everything Rule, (which states, ‘everyone does everything at one time or another’) is there to remind us that, while the three personality types exist in characteristically-distinct personal realities, none has exclusive domain over any part or element of everyday life. How a thing, (a job, a love interest, an avocation, an idea, a nightmare or the best way to express an idea), exists for clarks, scotts and rogers without limitation. How it manifests is determined by the nature and character of that person’s worldview. Being a carpenter (manifests) differently to an Outsider compared to a Predator. Being a fan of a popular musician looks like one thing when we’re observing a roger versus a scott. A cop who is a scott will exhibit traits that are arguably more aligned with successful exceution of their professional duties than say, that of a clark who has become a police officer.

It’s all about how one relates themselves to the world around them and the people who make it up. The world is ‘the same’ for everyone. How we experience it can be viewed through three difference lenses, i,e, that of the Outsider(clarks), the Predator(scotts) or the Herd Member(rogers).

We haven’t used ‘the Wakefield Doctrine Promise’ in a long time! (Here ya go): Learn the character (and characteristics) of these three relationships/predominant worldviews and you will know more about the other person than they know about themselves.

Tuesday too the Wakefield Doctrine (nope! we were not joking about the destiny of the content*)

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

Destiny_-_John_William_Waterhouse

(So …we all good with the realness of your personal reality? …the reality of the other person’s worldview?) We’re spending a lot of time on this because, when we get to the part about using the Doctrine in influencing/helping/understanding/impressing/scoring-big-time with another person, it will be your acceptance of the very real difference (between) what the world is for you and what it is for the other person, that will carry the day.

Speaking of trying to change/improve/enhance/fuckin-stop-making-the-same-mistake-over-and-over-again!, lets take a look at a new concept we’re trying out:

Personal Limiting Condition (PLC), a term for the mechanism inherent in all of our lives, that contrives to limit change. (By change we mean anything that we feel we could or should do differently, anything that we believe will, a) improve our lives or 2) decrease our unhappiness (with our lot in life).  Lets say you, (a clark for the purposes of keeping this discussion somewhat credible) decide, ‘I need to get into shape’ (or) ‘I need to apply myself more and do better at my job’.  Fine. (Being a clark), we will think a lot about how we should attempt to do this thing, whatkind of schedule, necessary equipment and will devote a significant amount of time imagining how great it will be to finally…. whatever you anticipate the ‘new you’ look(ing)/act(ing)/feel(ing) like.

The first day of the jogging program/be serious and ‘on the ball’ at work, goes great! It didn’t hurt too much/it wasn’t too embarrassing. The second day of the jogging/’someone on the move’ at place of employment: hey a little sore, but better shape than you thought (hope it doesn’t take too long)/people seem to be looking at you funny, but the boss seems impressed… Day Three: this is boring/I’m so far behind everyone else…I’ll show them, I’ve got to give 143%/ fine!! I got my regular day’s work done (not that many errors) and the boss seems to be busy with other things…I am so far behind in life, big rewards require big risks!! … until: you run as fast as you know you should be able to run (and something gets fucked up) or  you suddenly have the best idea ever for a book (or starting a band) or maybe sending out resumes, cause your cousins sister-in-law is in the HR Department of a big corporation and everyone knows you should be in…

These last, they are the Personal Limiting Conditions.

The power of PLCs is that they are quite real. You don’t have to give up jogging to not be able to get into shape, you can get hurt. You don’t have to quit your job because you know that you’re in a dead-end mode, you have so many other potential possibilities (yeah, zoe, I know lol).
These are real events. We all encounter them. Doesn’t mean that we are not capable of avoiding them. What it does mean is that, as clarks, we should recognize that this kind of thing happens to scotts and rogers (and other clarks), therefore it does not constitute proof of the unchange-ability of your life.

That’s it for now. for the new(er) Readers… and Jak, here:

(from May of last year, a portion of a Post (in part) Titled, ‘want to know the most dangerous, corrosive word used by a clark?)

It’s an innocent enough word. More than innocent, this word is often considered to be one of positive meaning and intent, a hopeful word, an optimistic word. But as a loan shark is to your local bank, the price of the loan is always higher than the value secured.

The word is ‘maybe’.
In the hands (or on the tongues) of clarks, the word is meant well. “It is a good job, maybe I’ll get it“. Perhaps because, when clarks look at the world we see people and institutions, groups and family members who, while certainly not intending us harm, (they all) clearly know something that we don’t know. “Maybe I don’t want to be a doctor, maybe I really want to find my own way”. The words we use when describing the world we find ourselves in, are  picked with the hope of blending in, looking to be a member or, one of the guys/one of the girls. “I think I should ask her out, maybe I’ll wait until a better time” “How many times do we have to discuss this, maybe next time you’ll listen to me”

Not really sure what it was that struck me about the use of the word ‘maybe’, it just seems that it has a certain resonance when employed by clarks. It is a word that lets us ‘commit without committing’, a word designed to insulate us from disappointment. clarks fear disappointment almost as much as we fear fear. More in a way. Fear can be run from. Disappointment is a sentence of reduced possibility. And if clarks are anything, we are people who believe that having possibilities is the difference between a possibly happy life and a life where we still have options. In a sense, as long as we have the possibility (of something) there is hope.  Maybe.

 

*

Share

the Wakefield Doctrine

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

While everbody can see the Wakefield Doctrine as ‘an additional perspective’* it takes a little extra reflection to appreciate it’s utility as ‘a tool’* and a whole lot of clarklike imagination to accept that it (can/might) offer a lever*** on the world. It might be more accurate to use the term, ‘personal reality’. (While more comprehensive and conducive to understanding the Doctrine, the description of three ways to relate ourselves to the world around us was, originally, “Σοβαρά, θα εμπιστευτείς ένα google translate για ένα κρίσιμο στοιχείο στο Δόγμα; (ναι, φαίνεται ωραίο όμως, σωστά)”.1

The concept of personal reality is both simple and irrational. (so, yeah, welcome to the world of clarks). It maintains that we, all of us, experience reality to a small, but not insignificant basis, as personal . Nothing cool, (or scary), like singing toasters or having the ability to fly (though, clarks out there are all too familiar with our capacity for being invisible, deliberately and otherwise), just personal. Therein lies the key utility of our little personality theory. The Doctrine reminds us that all that meets the eye is insufficient for complete understanding while, at the same time not conveying the ability to read minds (damn! was that too much to ask of this serendipitous insight?) but providing (an) additional aid to allowing the world to be different for the other person than that which we are experiencing.

In the early days we spent a lot of time with this concept of personal reality. Mostly because we needed to communicate that our personality types are not necessarily our conscious (or even, unconscious) choice. The clarklike female does not add neon highlights to her perfectly nice-looking hair and the clarklike male does not hunch his shoulders and look at anything other than the eyes of the other person because they’re (as a scott might express: goofin’ on the interviewer)… we do it because it makes sense. To us; in the context of the reality in which we find ourselfs. And that, according to many authorities with books and colleges named after them is a definition of rational behavior.

So, in conclusion:

Εάν δεχθούμε την ευθύνη για τον χαρακτήρα του κόσμου που αντιμετωπίζουμε, τότε έχουμε πρόσβαση στη δύναμη να τον αλλάξουμε.3

Teaser: so, we’re engaging in a live action application of the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine, going all Sy Sperling on this here tool here. Will keep you up-to-date.

(for those with longer tenure, we might reference a period of time shortly after starting this blog that we provided an example of attempting to act as a live demonstration. and, for reasons uncertain but respected we will keep it simple and say ‘This link for that reference’

 

* “…on the world around us and the people who make it up”

** “…for seeing the world as the other person is experiencing it”

*** “Πᾷ βῶ, καὶ χαριστίωνι τὰν γᾶν κινήσω πᾶσαν [Pā bō, kai kharistiōni tan gān kinēsō” (ArchimedesThat thing about levers and moving the earth. Yeah, extra points to the Reader who cupped handed ‘roger

1)  we trust Nick, if he’s reading, to not so much do the translate check, as let us know if we’re saying something like, “The can of dog food forms the basis of a complete breakfast” or phrases other than what we actually wrote

2) something to the effect: ‘Seriously, you’re gonna trust a google translate for a critical element in the Doctrine? (yeah, does look cool though, right?)

3) damn! let this put to rest the persistent rumor that, at least in the public eye, clarks are totally risk-aversive (That said, everyone lets have a round of applause for Nick and his good-hearted efforts to eq this bad-boy (linguistically-speaking) into something that gets us at least a B-minus)

 

Share

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

RePrint?

Who said that?

(thank you, very much)

(all we had was a couple of examples/illustrations/manifestations of ‘the Everything Rule’*)

* ‘Everyone does everything, at one time or another’

But, interestingly enough, it (the Rule) has become less necessary than it was in the early days. Most likely this is attributable to a) the frequency of visits from people coming to the blog for the first time, 2) the percentage of rogers confronting the lack of herd evidenced in the posts, comments etc or c) developing the idea of predominant worldviews (the ‘personality types’ of our system) as relationship (‘how we relate ourselves to the world around us’) as opposed to the notion of encountering three characteristic personal realities. i.e. that of the Outsider, the Predator and the Herd Member. We suspect Readers are more comfortable with the former paradigm than the latter: ‘are you saying I am stuck in the screaming dimension/no, sorry, but you have overlooked one thing, ‘my opinion/cool‘.

damn! interesting  but not as invigorating as this Monday warrants

wait! shit! all this way before the topic appears! ‘Aging and the three predominant worldviews of the Wakefield Doctrine’

nah

the level of comprehension, (if not natural affinity for the concept), of Readers these days is too great to stay interested in a topic as simple as:

‘While age neutral, the Wakefield Doctrine accounts for the subtle changes in one’s personality as time goes by. This is not simply because there is, on the whole, less energy for the individual to express and manifest the effects and products of their interaction with the world around them. The interesting thing is that a person’s secondary aspect rises in relative prominence as their predominant worldview declines.’

Just as in the early days of this blog, the question tends to be: ‘I know my (spouse/friend/boss) is a (clark/scott/roger) but sometimes I’d swear they were not. Worse, sometimes they act inconsistently with your theory! I know the Doctrine is perfect in it’s basic premise so what gives?’

As the predominant wanes, the secondary, (and on occasion, the tertiary), aspect becomes more apparent.

ok… RePrint

snippets, tidbits and snicky-snacks, stop and set a spell at the Wakefield Doctrine personality spa

Welco

Welcome to ( ah! much better! ) the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers )

As the title purely implies, today is an easy day…easy font, easy title and easy on the complex, OMG! I had no idea how totally insightful you people are…kinda way. No grammar concerns, no worries about ‘story arc’ just going to have a little conversation.  Well, we know it is not going to be a ‘conversation’, because that would require a give and take, an exchange of ideas, a frickin effort to get out of your Chair-of-Total-Self-Idulgence and and actually do something. ( And we know you are too fuckin lazy to bother doing that! Life in the Virtual Zone!! ain’t it grand?)

Lets play with fonts, seeing how we’re all ‘comic sans-ly this morning’. Like the following short statement:

This is type on wing dings font  what the hell!

now, would someone out there please tell me why this ‘font’ would be permanently installed in my software?  Seriously, other than some pudgy-fingered, greasy-hair, bad-complected roger (male or female) using this font to send secret messages to other rogers, why do we have it? No answer, is there?   (And we now arrive at the Wakefield Doctrine Lesson of the Day):

We all know that this Doctrine is based on the premise that there are three characteristic ways/manners/styles that all people perceive the world, i.e.  ‘as an Outsider’ (looking on) if you are a clark,  ‘as a predator’ (watching out) if you are a scott  (or)  ‘as a member of the group (looking around) if you are a roger.
With me so far?  good! Then you know that at an early age, we all become predominantly one of these three, (and this is where the magic happens):

  • If you are a clark: you are different, you know that everyone and everything around seems normal and you know you are not crazy (well, not crazy crazy) but everything is out there  and you are here watching and hoping that you can understand what it is that everyone else seems to know (and then) you will fit in and you won’t be out here
  • If you are a scott: you just got to do something, you see people act and move and you feel….you move  you suspect that you are different but everytime someone does something you re-act and you are …not glad…not happy…it’s just right. Sometimes you feel like you maybe, shouldn’t do so much so fast, you feel bad when others seem to not enjoy it…but you know thats the way the world is
  • If you are a roger: you are busy, all the time, things need to get done but they must be understood and appreciated and …and enhanced  You feel the responsibility, the sense of duty but it is not oppressive, sometimes you know that there are people around you who are in the way, but for the most part, everyone has a place and life will unfold as it should

What we are talking about here is not the dominant aspect, the fact that we are mostly clarks, scotts and rogers  (most of the time), what we will look at is the role of the two ‘non-dominant’ aspects. Remember! We never lose the capacity/capability/drive/instinct to experience the world as any of the three types, so what happens to the other two that we are not (mostly)?

*

Hey! That was interesting in a dissappointing-but-haven’t-we-matured-so-we-don’t-feel-the-need-to-get-upset way. The font effect of the original did not copy forward.

Oh well, Readers will have to use their not-inconsiderable imaginations to visualize the effects we were going for back …. er holy shit! thirteen years ago!!  ayy-fricken-yeee

 

Share