self-development | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 4 self-development | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 4

Firdya -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

As much as we enjoy the teacher-out-of-the-room chaos and creativity of Denise’s Six Sentence Story bloghop, (see 1 below for links to the really fun ones), there is a time for fun and a time for study. Specifically: Thursday for creative fiction mayhem, Saturday for reflection (the TToT) and Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday reserved for learning how to use the insights/perspectives of the Doctrine in a responsible, productive and mature manner.

So, to close the week, a quick Review:

  • Monday: a lament for the impermanency of Summer, though, in our defense, we tried (with only moderate success) to goad Misky into casting herself as the Tempter (the one with the ‘Welcome to the Neighborhood Garden’ fruit basket) but, alas, she still wears some of the manacles of maturity… (no, not that kind! lol)
  • Tuesday: a RePrint with a slight bias to the Outsider (clark) predominant worldview; to his credit, Frank remembered (in his Comment) the Secret Word of the week (which was achronologic. the quality of time being freed from the bonds of linearity. in the context of Tuesday’s main thesis rogers move through Time without regard to, like, ‘Dude! that happened fifty years ago. I’ve changed. You’ve changed. Yet here you are regarding me as a person who is defined by an event so many years ago,” …. you know, like that.
  • Wednesday:which no one was paying an excess of attention to, being Six Eve. But we did have fun.

Everyone seemed to get something from our dive into a more catholic2 study of the principles of our little personality theory. So do your reading. Practice seeing through the eyes of ‘the other two’. And…and! don’t forget. When, out and about the world today, you observe another who is of your predominant worldview and they do something crazy/stupid/dumb or heartless/cruel/mean, do not look away. Embrace the ‘But for the Wakefield Doctrine go I’. This is not absolution nor ‘hey, you’re not like that‘. This is the work part. If you want to self-improve yourself, knowing your self is the key. As difficult as that is.

Come see us on the Weekend for our TToT.

  1. so, there is one colaborative Serial Six and one, more or less, independent Serial Six. The first is, (at the moment), taking place at the Six Sentence Café & Bistro. This SSC&B is an imaginary location in the virtual world. It has the very useful quality of having a consistent character (mainfloor har and entertainment, kitchen, Manager’s office all of what you’d expect of an old mill building, in the center of section of a small city that was once the industrial engine but has since fallen into late-stage irrelevancy). The current storyline was initiated by Chris and immediately sparked the enthusiastic attention (and participation) of a number of writers of no small caliber. Currently: Mimi, Denise, Frank, newcomer Reelika and, in a subtle re-imagining of Marlin Perkins, Nick. It’s a fun (and challenging as writers) ‘live’ fictional jam. But! today is Friday yo.
  2. in the original use/context of the word ‘universally accepted‘ ….ish

What? Some Lyle to take us towards the weekend? Hell yeah!

*

Share

Tuesady -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

So! You’ve done your reading. You now have a rudimentary sense of the identifying behaviors, social styles, fashion choices of the three predominant worldviews.

We enjoy the analogy (or parable or metaphonics…whichever, you know what we mean) of the Wakefield Doctrine as a language. This does not supplant the view of the Doctrine as an additional perspective on the world around us and the people who make it up. That is still the…official position advocated in these pages. The thing of it is, any perspective would have, attendant, a vocabulary (and. strictly speaking), a vernacular. And so you will see references to fluency in the Wakefield Doctrine. This reflects the ease and facility one may demonstrate when describing a person/situation. “She showed up at her interview at the bank with enough cosmetic metal and leather to trigger the metal detectors at the door. Her take away was, in part, ‘shoulda gone with the blue accents in hair to convey a calm demeanor’. She was such a clark.” Like that, except fluency permits a level of accuracy in observation of the situation and person vis á vis the Doctrine, in realtime.

As with any reputable language school, the best way to move up in comprehension, pronunciation and… (cough sound: <Misky>1) and grammar. Tomorrow we’ll beat deceased equine by suggesting common social settings to better practice the semi- lingua franca of the Wakefield Doctrine.

fun!

Where were we?

oh yeah, relying on our clarklike confidence to avoid either: a) backing our ownselfs into a corner or 2) looking silly.

Exactly! The three qualities beyond reproach in the three predominant worldviews (personality types) of the Doctrine:

  1. clarks (Outsider) soundness of intellectual capability. no, not how ‘smart’ or even intelligent. A fundamental faith in the sufficiency of intellect.
  2. scotts (Predators) total efficacy in judgement of (a) need for action
  3. rogers (Herd Members) rightness and virtue inextricably linked to one’s view of the world

 

Thanks and a shout out to Misky for gracing us with a very useful example (and illustration) of Doctrine-specific wordage.

1) what? who said that? no, there are no stupid questions* While the Doctrine famously maintains that ‘you can’t get it wrong’, we would be remiss in our duties to not help Students and Friends of the Doctrine avoid simple errors of vocabulary, grammar and syntax and the like. In this case, our scottian friend is leaving the zero derivation stick in the workshop when it comes to the substantive scott. or something. ex. By virtue of my self-admitted predominant worldview, I can say, “As a clark, well, I just did, didn’t I?” It is, however, considered improper use of Doctrine lexicon to say, “As a clarklike, I am the butt of…” no, not snickers and muffled laughter… wait, that is plausible. If, however, the speaker in this increasingly tenuous if not clumsy example were a scott, …well, less fun-making and more sidelong glances towards the exits on the part of those in our imaginary lecture hall.

* one of our favorite jokes from the early, carefree days of the blog, to wit: ‘There are no stupid questions. There are only your questions

 

 

*

Share

Túsáde -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

Lots of Commentationing (on yesterday’s and other Posts)

Who indeed!

Above is a photo of Friend of the Doctrine, Cynthia. If you have done your reading you should be able to correctly guess her predominant worldview. AP Readers? Goal? Learn the Doctrine sufficiently to allow you to identify (on the basis of this single photo) her secondary aspect as well.

ok, in no discernible order* lets throw some comments on the blackboard and see what comes of it

Mr. Hubeny! Please stand and repeat your statement for the benefit of anyone who did not see the Post

I think I’m going to change my life and become a clark. If I’m already a clark, this should be easy. If not, well, there are always miracles.

Mimi, if you’d help the class grasp the concept

Not for nothing you wear gloves and be careful when working outdoors, the critters do pop up sudden like.

Misky, would you care to share the contents of that note with the rest of us?

My mother-in-law was scottian (she probably still is — up there in heaven somewhere) and I remember as clearly as a sunny day thinking “I’m going to wear red because it makes me happy, and everyone will think, “Oh, look at her; she’s happy.” And I knew she’d comment, which she did. She was most certainly scottian but there was a good dose of rogerian in her gene pool also.

It’s not that we didn’t get along — we did, exceptionally well at a distance.

Ms. Pie

always enjoyable… always laughter… learn some new insightful aspect of the threes that I can take to the grocery store with me while I’m shopping… processing processing processing

 

Well that certainly provides us with discussionable** topics for today!

Tell you what read and discuss (kinda open book) and we will return after lunch.

you guys know this stuff

and thanks to our four correspondants for helping form an instructive Wakefield Doctrine post

 

* at least not for two of the three predominant worldviews

** well, while not a ‘real’ word, this might provided us with a quick refresher on grammar and pronunciation and such***

***  what?? a bullet point list?

  • clark: one of the three predominant worldviews aka ‘the Outsider’ adj: clarklike (ex. “…is anyone gonna inform our clarklike narrator that correction is not criticism…at least not in the sense understood by Outsiders and Predators?”)
  • scott: the Predator and one of the first of the two ‘say what now?’ pronounciation of the adj and adv form: scott: ss cot; scottian: scoe-shun
  • rogers: the Herd Members and cultural wardens; rogerian is an adjective (scenario: long class wrapping up, even the professor is clearly ready to call it a day, yet says, “If there are no other questions, read chapters….” and, of course, someone raises their hand. visualize thought-balloon: “Oh man, that is so rogerian” (pronounced: roe-jeer-ree-an)

somebody just say, “More ‘Top!!”

more Top indeed.

*

 

Share

Tewesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

Misky, in her Comment to yesterday’s post, provides us with a topic and jumping off point:

“…tidy herd again, or at least a bigger herd than their little basic one at home.”

Well… where to begin!

rogers feel.

to M.’s characterization of (a) roger’s Herd as ‘little’ basic. We smile self-consciously and say, ‘Ya know, it’s true about size not mattering.’

The Herd, the membership to which, serving as the primary psycho-social behavioral metaphor of our 3rd personality is, as is, seemingly everything in the Wakefield Doctrine, about (a) relationship.

clarks think (and rely on the notion they understand), scotts act (and in doing so express their nature and, subsequently, the value they offer the world) and rogers feel (and surely there is no more pervasive force in the universe than emotion)

damn! we getting rather intense, yo

think about this: rogers live in a world that is held together and otherwise organized by Rules in a universe that is quantifiable (and therefore, knowable) and what it is is what is.

Herds are those people, places and things that are recognized/regarded/and otherwise acknoledged by a roger as conforming (or desiring to conform) to this description.

Hey! New Readers! Seeing how you’ve probably jumped down to the music vid, seeing how we’re getting all AP Doctrine this morning, are wondering if Jimi Hendrix was a clark? Yes. Yes he was. How do we know this? Start with the creativity. Then go online and find an interview video/tape. There’s a good one with Dick Cavett and …well, watch.

Supplementary Reading: rather than fill the page with facinating insight, what say we provide a simple link to a post that elaborates on the topic of rogers?

A closing observation: when considering the world of a roger, the notion of personal reality becomes essential. What rogers do, be it read the instructions with the intent of learning the proper operation of an appliance or how to assemble a model airplane to look exactly like the one on the box, they are not facing a chore. (As a clark might glance at the first panel and then the final diagram or a scott would make a paper airplane of it). They are celebrating the concise, complete world they live in. When you hear a roger say, ‘Are you ready for the big storm?’ They are not doomsaying. They are celebrating the Herd.

And that’s where one must start. To a roger, the entire world is their Herd. However, the level of personal congruence determines the immediacy and limits of their (personal) Herd.

And, while scotts being Predators, always establish ranking in any and all social settings and situations, rogers assume their place at the center of the Herd. Which is what brings us back to the previous statement that the entire world is the Herd. On a personal basis, the Herd are all extending outwards from their perspective (like there’s any other one?). So a ‘struggle for dominance between rogers plays out more indirectly, i.e. who is paying attention to you. Who else is vying for the attention of those in the room/at work/in class?

It is a soft war. But it is war. All rogers know there is a Right Way and while they spend most of their lifes nurturing view, the rest of the time is spent helping other rogers learn it.

Maybe you should follow the link above. This is a complex subject.

 

Share

M’day -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

Mondays are the rogerian day of the workweek. We will leave it to out Readers to understand why or ask the question.

New Readers: rogerian is the adjectival form of the noun roger, one of the three predominant worldviews of the Wakefield Doctrine. The correct prounciation is ‘roe jeer reánn‘. While we’re on the topic of adjectives, when describing the characteristics/qualities of a scott (the second of the three predominant worldviews) the word is scottian and it’s pronounced ‘scoe shun‘.  clarks?  clarklike. sound it out. lol

Why are rogers fond of Mondays? Wrong question. The Everything Rule1 notwithstanding, rogers cannot be said to be fond of, or otherwise relish, Monday. As with any of the three personality types, some activities, professions, advocations, teenage crushes, dark obsessions align more with one personality type than the other two. (Example: scotts police officer, clarks hermits)

In any event. The answer to this question is found in the nature/character of the rogerian relationship with the world around them and the people who make it up.

Pop Quiz! In the Comments below describe which element(s) in the rogerian relationship with the world, aka their personality type, are enhanced by the experience of the culturally-typical Monday. Compare and Contrast. Fity words or less, if you please.

Speaking of Compare and Contrast. The second-most challenging task encountered when under-taking to use the perspective afforded by this personality theory is the task of translation. The three ‘personality types’ are not a Sunday Supplement of ‘How Well Do You Know...’ list of traits and quirks, tropisms and emotional atrocities. They, individually and severally, are distinct personal realities. As such they convey with a distinct language. Not such a radical concept. Offensive perhaps, but not radical. We say ‘offensive’ as a point of distinction for this conversation with the understanding that if you’re still reading, then it, (the word offensive), is not so provocative. Rather as a reminder of how far you’ve strayed from the reasonable and, to many, (pronounced scott / roger  lol) it, more often than not, is2.

The key to using the Wakefield Doctrine as a means to better appreciate how the other person is experiencing the world lies in learning the three types thoroughly enough to become fluent in the language native (to their) personal realities.

The first most difficult task? Remembering to…

 

 

*

 

Hey! Do not forget! The Wakefield Doctrine is both gender, age and culture neutral.

1) the Everything Rule: everybody does everything, at one time or another

2) Reminder to all, not simply New Readers: to have gotten this far you must have a significant secondary clarklike aspect. This means a predilection towards one of the other two predominant worldviews. For the benefit of Doctrine correspondent in the UK (vis á vis our recent discussion in the Comment section of Friday’s post), this is not to say ‘Being a new, unique combination a 4th predominant worldview’. Instead, let’s employ the analogy of ‘having an ear’ in music/music appreciation. Some of us can hear notes on a level that allows the distinction between adjacent notes. Others do not. And others still, have what is often called perfect pitch. Having a significant secondary aspect, like, say, Friend of the Doctrine, Cynthia is like being able to imitate any singer. She does not become that singer but clearly has an ear.

Speaking of ‘having an ear’ we would be remiss if we did not provided the distinction, (and, to some us, encouragement that the Doctrine is learnable by all), between a natural ear and a trained ear. Friend of the Doctrine Mimi is an example of the former while Phyllis is a good example of the latter.

Share