self-development | the Wakefield Doctrine

Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘a quick reminder of the value of the Everything Rule.’

March 6, 2024 By clarkscottroger

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

the Everything Rule is the second-most significant development in the presenting of the Wakefield Doctrine to the werld.

The most significant, not really a development as a refinement in how we look at our little personality theory, came about when we started focusing on (our) relationship to the world around us (and the people who make it up). For all of a seemingly minor change, ‘the world we see/experience’ into ‘the character of our relationship to the world/reality around us’ has made a huge difference in both understanding and application of the Doctrine.

But we’re here to talk about the Everything Rule: ‘Everyone does everything at one time or another.’

It keeps the ‘them’ in ‘Unified Theory of Personality Types’.

lol

Seriously though, in the early days of this blog it was not uncommon to have a Reader ask, “I have a tendancy to …. is that a thing only a scott would do?” Or, ‘My husband is so… does that make him a clark?’

(Hey! We just appreciated how the two developments mentioned in today’s post are so intrinsically related. ikr? Been writing these posts for what, nearly fifteen years and we’re only now….?!?!)

We repeat, lol.

The Wakefield Doctrine maintains that everyone is born with the potential for one of three characteristic relationships with the world around them. While we all settle into one at an early age, we never lose the potential of experiencing the world as from ‘the other two’. Our personal reality is defined (and therefore, created) by this relationship and we, as all young lifeforms must, struggle to learn and create, practice and develop strategies for negotiating, interacting and, hopefully, thriving in our lives as:

an Outsider (clark) the world is strange (with a hint of hostile), it is not simply that we know we are different, we begin to suspect at the heart of our difference is that everyone else in the world around us seem to relate to each other; seeing that, in the world of people, different is a risky proposition we begin to search for the knowledge that seemingly everyone else is in possession of, without being spotted doing it
the Predator (scott) the day is simple: find prey, flee larger predators (or negotiate a standing in the pack). the only thing that does not makes sense about the world is… well, everything makes sense as long as you don’t spend too much time dwelling on questions that have more than one right answer, and/or get comfortable with the inner shadows. life is short and there’s no time to waste
the Herd Member (roger) Life is Good. Not always pleasant, rarely ever perfect but it makes sense. everyone in your life knows what you know. except for a handful of people who clearly do not and even they are useful, if for no other reason than to remind others of how good it is to be of the Herd. your job in life is uncomplicated: discover the Right Way and share it with the others.

Damn! did not tie in the Everything Rule!

maybe a quick RePrintlette.

No, wait. We’re already at five hunert words.

lets move this along.

the most useful take-away from our Post on the Everthing Rules?

The bottom-line value of this perspective on the world is simple: become able to see the world as the other person is experiencing it. (italics totally deliberate)… to make sure you don’t forget that reality for all of us is, to a small but way important degree, personal. And since personal is, by common definition, private, the only way we can become aware of the personal of another person is to put ourselfs in their shoes. Not easy. Relating to the world as they do, much easy(ier). So next time you see someone do something inexplicable/fuckin-stupid/way dumb, know that you are capable of the same thing and then imagine your relationship to the world was one of ‘the other two’. and take a look.

fun, fun, fun

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: personality types, psychology of personality, self-development, the Wakefield Doctrine, Understanding Human Behavior

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

March 4, 2024 By clarkscottroger

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

This Monday morning’s RePrint post is interesting. It is a point on the continuum of development that is the difference between, ‘Good-That-Explains-It*’ ‘Yeah, that’s the word we really wanted.’

In the first couple of years we, (using the 1st person), explained the perspective of each of the three predominant worldviews in terms of (our) seeing/experiencing the world. Everyone would see the world either as would the Outsider (clarks), the Predator (scotts) or the Herd Member (rogers) and act/react/develop accordingly.

This verb was replaced by various forms of the concept of relationship. Rather than our predominant worldviews being defined as the product of our perception, it became a manifestation of the relationship (more precisely, ‘how we related ourselves to the world’). This is ultimately much more useful. It’s the character of our relationship that determined our experience of reality. You might say, ‘how we saw was what we are’.

whhoah!! dudes, maximal gravitation!

Lets take a beat, post the RePrint and let the day unfold**

Pretty simple, isn’t it?

RePrint!

Friday -the Wakefield Doctrine- of pop quizzes and bulletpoints

March 13, 2015

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

Don’t Forget! This Evening… Vidchat at Seven! (‘An Evening at George and Jane’s‘) stop by! it’s hosted by clarks, so that means what it lacks in social status, (“I can’t believe you missed it last Friday!! oh man! everyonewas there!!!!”), is compensated by odd conversations, funny in an interesting way and (sometimes) totally outrageous!

I trust you all know that we’ve found the Wakefield Doctrine to be useful to (any) effort to self-improve oneself. I (further) assume that everyone recognizes that the Doctrine is ‘three things to three people’. (And) that, it’s not even necessary that you determine which of the three you are, prior to trying to using our little personality theory to help you in your efforts. Start wherever you are right now. After all, ‘you can’t break it and, you can’t get it wrong‘. Yep, we still maintain that assertion about the use of the Wakefield Doctrine.

You do know, don’t you, that we can tell which of the three you are, purely on the basis of which of the three you initially say you are…. lol (Hey! New Readers! We have a Rule about identifying one’s predominant worldview. It’s your worldview, so no one can say, ‘By Power of the (fill in something relating to your own worldview) I declare that you are a ….!’ Well, they can say it, and you can even ask them to say it, but no one has any authority to impose their opinion of your worldview (dominant, secondary or tertiary aspects). Doesn’t mean we’re not all willing to share our understanding of the characteristics of the three worldview that are critical to understanding and identifying a person.

For example: one of the more difficult ‘calls’ to make: attractive male person who appears very confident, even to the point of aggressiveness, is he a scott or a roger? You might think, ‘Very aggressive that must mean scott!’ ok… but you want to go deeper than that*
they’re being aggressive, fine! …with/at/towards who? Are they ‘playing to the room’ or are they focused on one person.
Now… (here’s a critical question), is it about them or the person they are focused on? What happens when they are rebuffed and/or told to go jump in a lake? Do they laugh or do they seem to be taking it personally?

another very common situation (more often when a person seeks to determine their own predominant worldview): you see a clark, i.e. the poor posture, the mumbling, the odd, (but interesting), fashion choices, but then this very same person, for a moment, holds the attention of the entire room…. you’re thinking, ‘maybe this is a combination type part clark and part scott‘! You’d be right…but with the wrong conclusion. We all have one predominant worldview, but also the potential to see the world from the perspective of ‘the other two’. For some of us, this ‘secondary aspect’ is so significant that we develop some of the behaviors and strategies and coping mechanisms of this ‘other worldview’…. and these behaviors come to the surface at times usually at times of stress or duress, ( ‘hey! I want ‘cha ta meet someone!! these are my two cousins, Stress and Duress…. aint’ they hot?! you ever wanna to have a wild night lemme know!).

so… bottom line on identifying a person’s dominant worldview: we’re merely trying to infer how that other person is ‘relating themselves to the world around them’. know this and you know them

OK! end of Post. Don’t forget to join us tonight.

….sure! there’s got to be something I can say that will change your life (or have an effect for even just a single moment in your weekend)….

clarks: keep in mind this little fact that is shared by clarks alone…. more often than we allow, ‘it’s them, not us! If you walk away from a surprise conflict (is there any other kind for us?) feeling bad with a tinge of guilt that it was your fault? it’s them not you

scotts: yeah… your gut on this one is right and even though you almost can’t imagine how that family member can believe something so wrong about themselves…. it’s true and….and, chances are they’re used to it, so you don’t need to do anything immediately but, definitely know that they will appreciate whatever you try to do, even if it is ineffective

rogers: give yourself a break…. no, really. while finding and living ‘the Right Way’ confers to others nearly as much benefit as it does to you… they’ll survive if you take the weekend off, hell, they’ll enjoy it and you’ll have a re-energized feeling afterwards

7:00 pm

EDT

* the process of identifying a person’s dominant worldview is a lot like an optometrist eye test. you start looking at the person through the lens of two worldviews (you always throw out the obvious ‘no way’…. in our example above where we said, ‘attractive….confident…aggressive’? the ‘no way’ is a clark which leaves you with scottand roger. From here, you go for more and more intrinsic characteristics and you’ll find that one of the views becomes less clear as the other becomes more and more focused.**

** this same process is used when you identify your own worldview

* to clarks, at any rate¹

1) it remains true that anyone returning to this blog more than twice is a clark or (a) scott/roger with a significant secondary clarklike aspect

** sure, extra credit any Reader who just now got a visual of:

the muy creepy box thing in the HellRaiser franchise
an automated mechanical-rabbit thing at dogtracks
the intro-scroll from the start of the first Star Wars movie

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: personality types, predicting human behavior, self-development, self-improvement, the Wakefield Doctrine

Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘…in which our dauntless Curator empties his pockets in a Courageous Search for Clues”

February 28, 2024 By clarkscottroger

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

While this is, (and will always be), ‘that blog about those three personality types that, as strange as it seems at first, not only makes sense and is useful, and a total hoot once you learn the basics’.

Yeah, that’s us.

The ‘Curator’ in the Dickensian subtitle? That would be us, your Humble and (mostly) Reliable Narrator. Say what you will about RePrints, we’re finding the process of reading old, (especially the ‘old old’ as opposed to ‘recently old’). One change in writing that jumps out at us is the POV of the early ones. Counterintuitive, at least to us, is the use of the first person singular up until… damn, don’t know (at the moment) when we shifted to this, the ‘editorial we’.

(Funny story. So I just searched for something along the lines of 1st person versus 3rd person POV and, being a clark, the ‘APA Style’ in the first search return I clicked on transformed itself, (all without telling us… I mean me….) into ‘CMS Manual of Style’! It wasn’t until I read it again did I notice the APA was American Psychological Association…. lol damn! We love it when (we) notice that kind of shit happening.

Anyway, back to our citation

Referring to yourself in the third person

Do not use the third person to refer to yourself. Writers are often tempted to do this as a way to sound more formal or scholarly; however, it can create ambiguity for readers about whether you or someone else performed an action.

Correct: I explored treatments for social anxiety.

Incorrect: The author explored treatments for social anxiety. A

(APA STYLE as opposed to CMS)

Damn! We’ve totally lost the train of thought, as often happens to we scholarly types. Also lost the Clipboard Copy of the RePrint post that was to serve as a example of our early writing.

Suffice for the moment to say, at the point we currently are, the editorial ‘we’ is preferred. It serves as a reminder of the serendipitous nature of the decision to start (and continue) writing this weblog.

Speaking of reminding, remind us to return to the topic of the writing style of the early years at the Wakefield Doctrine.

segue!!

Tonight is the unofficial start of the week’s Six Sentence Story. (as Christmas Eve is to Christmas Day… for those us less mature and adultistic* the former is the exciting time). In any event, we’re engaged in a Serial Six. Co-written with Tom. It’s a story of Supervillains and ordinary folks (well, as ordinary as characters frequenting a certain Strip Club and Lounge, at any rate) so be sure to stop in tomorrow for a bunch of fun with flash-fiction.

* not a ‘real’ word

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: personality types, self-development, the Wakefield Doctrine

TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine-

February 24, 2024 By clarkscottroger

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

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

1) Una

2) Phyllis

3) the Wakefield Doctrine

4) the Unicorn Challenge bloghop [Doctrine Pick of the Week: jenne’s ‘The Musicmakers‘ ]

5) the Six Sentence Story bloghop. [Doctrine Pick of the Week: the Sicilian StoryTeller‘s Death In The Family‘ ]

6) moderate temperatures and growing duration of sunlight

7) thanks to the Readers (including Nick) for thoughtful suggestions on the Great ‘Ola’s Bridge’ Reconstruction Project (Coming this March(ish) April)

8) something, something

9) new Serial Six! ‘Of Heroes and the MisUnderstood. Me and Tom, well, in all honesty, some of my characters and some of his are up to interesting things. The last two installments:

First (in narrative sequence) is Tom’s Six. Followed by our Six. Read ’em and be sure to let us know what you think!

10) Secret Rule 1.3

music vids. A Tale of Three Joes. (a clark, scott and roger in musical form)

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: self-development, the Wakefield Doctrine

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

February 19, 2024 By clarkscottroger

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

Let’s just prime the wordage pump, just a li’l bit with this from 2010 (like the first full year of this here blog, here).

(Funny how this RePrint thing works as a rhetorical lubrication* but we’re thinking about a number of topics which, in the interest of keepin’ things moving, we’ll save for later this week. These topics include: the perception (and role) of time (and it’s passage) as manifested in clarks, scotts and rogers; the translation challenge and, finally, how to get deeper into ‘the other two’ worldviews for to have a better grasp of their reality.)

damn! that all sounds interesting! But in the interest of … oh, yeah! Cynthia has promised to recover a phrase she employed during our (along with Denise) conversation on this past weekend’s call-in. It keyed an insight into the development of a person’s relationship with fatigue as we age. Stay tuned.

(oh, yeah… a little crib sheet for this very vintage post. that last section, in blue font? a character that turned up and hung out in our post-writing, for a time. now, from the perspective of our current interest in learning to write fiction, we can appreciate how much the Wakefield Doctrine has to nurture the potential to encourage one to use it as a tool for self-improving ourselfs. In this instance, it allowed us to explore and practice our interest in writing, all while, in while in the middle of a ‘serious Doctrine post’.)

(Hey, just noticed (yeah, early am and all) this post was written before the custom of inserting a top-of-post image developed. Interesting.)

God said to Abraham, kill me a son. Abe say, man you must be puttin me on

February 28, 2010

(Man, tough Post.)I mean, I know what I want to talk about, but it’s how to talk about it that has me dialing: 1-800-kitchensink.
You do not want to know how many drafts it has taken to get even this far. But write it I will. (remind me to tell you later about how helpful our Miss Sullivan has been).Let’s start at the beginning (…”and go on till you come to the end” L Carroll):‘The Wakefield Doctrine is built upon the idea that everyone experiences the world/reality differently, from one of three overlapping but distinctive perspectives… maintains that this characteristic perception of reality can be grouped into three distinct types, called for reasons stated elsewhere, clarks, scotts and rogers.’
…we also possess the potential to see the world as a clark or a scott or a roger. It is only the predominance of qualities from one (over the other two) that makes us what we are. No one is only clarklike or scottian or rogerian. (source: About: The Wakefield Doctrine (italics added).Why quote that which we all know?To assert balance.
In the last few Posts we have received a good amount of input from the scottian perspective. We appreciate this. The Doctrine is being read by more and more (repeat) Readers because of this input.
(and)…it is the nature of scotts to present strong opinion on all matters, the topic of rogers being no exception.
(All Opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the person, character or self-identified entity attaching their names to said Opinion. These Opinions do not necessarily reflect the Opinions of other Progenitors or Downsprings. All Comments are possibly incorrect, with the exception of those from the one with the marked penchant for parenthes(es))¹So, let us go right to the matter at hand.

Rogers are awful…
they are awfully opinionated and parochial, they are awfully judgemental and closed minded and obsessed with the mundane and the measurable and the repeatable and the consistent and the reliable and…it is a good thing we have rogers or we would all be living on the open savannah, sleeping in trees and looking over our shoulders every time we tried to have a drink of water.Our scottian brethren (in fact our individual scottian aspect) are not incorrect in their assessment of the foibles of the rogerian nature; they are simply limited. Their Comments are direct and without nuance or subtly, you know: scottian. But neither are they (the scotts) at fault, they are merely expressing their perception.
Having said that, I would not want to fly to Vegas in a plane designed by scotts (or for that matter, a plane built by clarks).
In the first case, the plane would have 5 over-sized jet engines stuck on various sections of the fuselage, mostly towards the back of the plane, painted bright colors and the pilot would be expected to be able to stick his head out the window to scream at other passing jets. In the second case, the interior would consist primarily of couches (with pillows and quilts), that while comfortable, would tend to slide around (a lot) and there would be 6 or 7 bathrooms taking up the entire back half of the plane.(You get my point).It is a given here at the Doctrine that those who participate are assumed to be able to handle whatever forms of interactions occur. And while we maintain the editorial right to shape expressions of opinions, it is with no small amount of pride that we can say that has not happened yet. What you read is the direct and un-abashed thoughts and opinions of the contributors.

But that is only half of the challenge we faced sitting down at the keyboard here.

The other half (and possibly the half with the greater significance for this thing of ours) is how to speak to them (rogers and scotts and clarks), as brother Malcom said:

“And during the few moments that we have left, we want to talk, right down to
earth, in a language that everybody here can easily understand.” (Malcolm X)

The simple fact of the matter is that if not written in the ‘language’ of the type, no message will get through. Another way to say it: if I do not manage to ‘speak scottian‘ to a scott, my message will be misinterpreted at best and totally unheard at worst. If I cannot speak to a roger in the language of the herd then I will be treated as noise.

This is the dilemma we face with this Post.

But, fuck it. We are writing (this) which is not the same as assuming that we are communicating (with the Reader).

Hey scott! Hey!! Don’t eat all of the local herd or you may find yourself having to go outside of your own hunting grounds…getting hungry…getting weak…finding new hunting grounds and finding…a whole new pack of scotts…(and we all know how social and co operative scotts are). (Can you say, ‘the weak and old simply get left behind to die’? I knew you could!)

Hey roger…get over it. The herd is all there is… until you look up. Once you see the herd, I hate to burst your bubble pal, you ain’t in the herd anymore. And try as you might, you can never, never bury yourself in historical novels and documentaries by Saint Ken, never go back to that bovine indifference to the werld. And those scottsthat you love supplying food for and the clarks that make you feel so better than…guess what?
They know that you know. And know that you know that they know…

oh clark…don’t think you can type yourself out of this one…no, there will be no literary constructs to divert the Reader. No mf…you of all of the three forms, you are the one to indulge in the ‘people? can’t we all just get along’ bullshit. Which, when you really look at it, is a sin against all that the Doctrine stands for… goddamn dude, you really think that just sitting there and typing this shit week after week was going to change you into the real person you have always been afraid that you are not? Well, you may be on track but you better be prepared to step outside of your perfectly defined-surely-this-includes-all-inferences-and-possibilties little world. As the Lady would say, ‘You been told’.

Welll…that sort of went all toyota on us, didn’t it? (Heh heh) …oh Janie!

? no…busy now…come back.. oh alright! Now I am called in to lighten things up? Any of you real people/Readers think through the implications of using a ‘literary construct’ to lend a sense of reasonableness to the shenanigans that go on around here? Even a hint of how messed up that is? No, I didn’t, think you had…
Hey, did you know that the old janitor/music video guy (Mr. B, I believe) was once a professional musician? yeah! he was just telling me…no, not too old man tries to recapture… but I am an ‘A’ student in the Doctrine and I did not know that a roger could deliberately give up his rogerian expression…yeah me too. Anyway he had to run and left the following music said that if you don’t try too hard you will get the connection…whatever
…can I go home now? this does get just a bit tedious…

1) In case of disagreement, the protocol will be followed:
we are right and you are wrong…