self-development | the Wakefield Doctrine

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

May 28, 2024 By clarkscottroger

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

Damn! almost forgot where I left this draft Post.

Might comment below this RePrint post. Or, maybe just push that badboy down the page and continue with whatever it is that we would say on this May day.

Ya know?

(Hey! Remind us to tell y’all about my musical superstition sometime)

How early is this post? Damn, hadn’t settled on the format yet. Interesting! (or not).

ok, ok, quick ‘in the narrative observation.

Once of the first totally remarkable effects of the Wakefield Doctrine on us was being comfortable with writing badly. Not that anything here (at least the posts that reference the Doctrine) is bad. Or, even badly written. (tho as the gaggle of attorneys I used to overhear back when in the course of work I spent some time in courthouses, might say, “I’ll stip to that…”) There is, imo, a difference between bad writing and badly written. We’ll accept the latter, not the former.

Back to our point. As a clark it is remarkable that we would be comfortable enough with the concept of: “Keep writing, that way the dull, stupid or otherwise not good posts will get buried by subsequent posts.” That, we will maintain, hell, we will shout, is the first proof of the Wakefield Doctrine’s efficacy as a tool for self-developing oneself.

That’s how it began.

FAQs + WD + wtf = Enlightenment and Self-Improvement Wakefield Doctrine-style

August 2, 2011

a) the Wakefield Doctrine, of course
b) yes, glad to have you here too!

As the Readership of this blog grows, we are beginning to see questions forming in the minds of our Readers about this here Doctrine here. Signs of uncertainty are as immediate as the interview with DownSpring Joanne ( Episode Eeeleven of Video Friday), and as inferred as the Comment written in response to yesterdays Post.
We all know that it is a time-honored technique, when in the middle of the Summer’Re-run’ season to write a Q & A Post (or as our clarklike Readers might prefer it, Q & I(nference) & (modified)Q & A(interrupted). This saves the really good, original material for the Fall, when everyone is back from vacation and/or holiday and are ready to read online blogs. In addition, the use of a Q & A Post helps Readers who may have a passing interest in the Wakefield Doctrine, by allowing them to see that other people have the same questions*, which makes them? (all together now, rogers!!). Our scottian Readers have no more need for a Q & A than say a polar bear who happens upon an ice floe where 3 seal pups have been abandoned by their mother.
So lets get on with the Qs and the Answers!Q: Alright, are you guys for real, or what? Sometimes I read things that make sense in a serious and thoughtful way and the next thing I read is something about a girl in an imaginary High School. Whats the deal with you people?
A:Yes, we are for real. At least, as real as can be assumed about anything that you find on the internet. The Wakefield Doctrine really is the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers and there really are people who think in terms of all personality types being clarks or scotts or rogers.Q: Sometimes I am (a scott) then other times I must be (a clark). Whats up with that?
A: You’re a clarkQ: Hey, wait! You can’t be that sure, on the basis of only one questions!
A: Yes I can. ( I’m a clark) The question you should be asking is, ‘why does it seems that sometimes we are one form, other times others’? The answer is, of course, that we retain the capacity to experience the world as the three types, but have one (of the three) as a dominant view. i.e. clark, scott or roger.A: I heard that you have been doing this for more than 2 years, what have you learned about the Wakefield Doctrine that you did not know when you started?
Q: How much fun and how satisfying it would be…this is the clarklike answer. There may (or may not) be an answer to this question from the others in the Comment Section of this Post. But I would say, to amplify my answer, I am amazed on a daily basis how damn correct and ‘accurate’ the Wakefield Doctrine actually is! As a tool for self-development it is remarkable, as witness the progression of stunts and Posts, hats (for your damn heads) and trips across the country and latest of all, the Video Friday Interviews. I defy any clark reading this to say that the videos alone are documented proof of the efficacy of the Wakefield Doctrine as a personal development system.

So, there you have it. Questions and Answers and even a damn, borrowed music video. Is dis a system, or what?

Yes, I have seen three gigantic rogers before…but no, not this gigantic lol

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

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine- “..ten somersets he’ll undertake on solid ground”

May 27, 2024 By clarkscottroger

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

The Wakefield Doctrine is a perspective on the world around us and the people who make it up. The term ‘personality type’ is employed, not as much to entice those in search of scientifically rigorous tests, surveys and/or APA sanctioned theories of personality. We employ that terminology/lexicon/jargon (in the subtitle of our blog) for two reasons: 1) it sounds cool and, you know, like, official and b) to provide an illustration of a defining characteristic of one of the three ‘personality’ ‘types’.

As a perspective (we normally make a point that) this is an ‘additional’ perspective, and, as such the Wakefield Doctrine is useful, productive and fun. The matter of going to the length of adding the ‘additional’ to our definition of our theory being a perspective is a literary artifact from the early-to-mid years of this blog. The use and abuse of (one’s) perspective on the world around them and the people who make it up, having since been co-opted, abused and otherwise rendered less significant as time carries us forward (well, most of us) in time.

Speaking of time and subtitle. We set out this morning to write a short, Doctrine-post without excessive references or research. And so we will.

There are three personality types in the Wakefield Doctrine:

the Outsider (clarks)
the Predator (scotts)
the Herd Member (rogers)

And we are all born with the potential to ‘become’ one of the three.

The Wakefield Doctrine does not view ‘personality, personality types or ‘are you fricken serious!?’ as qualities (biases, tropisms or drives) as we do: responding to the world we find ourselves in when we’re new to the world and developing the strategies that seem to work best. In other words, everyone has the perfect personality. In terms (or available as a viewpoint) that which allows us to live and thrive optimally in the personal reality in which we found ourselfs.

These three personality types? Simplest way to look at them is the character of one’s relationship to the world. We all have the potential for each. We end up with one. We never lose the potential to experience the world as do the ‘other two’. But just one. (It is well beyond the scope of this post is a discussion of ‘the Everything Rule’ which simply states: Everyone does everything at one time or another. Which is to say there is nothing that is uniquely inherent to one personality type. The difference lies in how a thing is manifested in whichever predominant worldview (aka personality type) you chose. This is, of course, because the Wakefield Doctrine is grounded in the relationship one has with the world and people and Life…and such.

clarks think; scotts act and rogers feel

The Wakefield Doctrine is for you, not them

(to be cont’d)

hey, old people… we’ll save you the keystrokes on this song

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

TToT-the Wakefield Doctrine-

May 12, 2024 By clarkscottroger

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

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

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

May 7, 2024 By clarkscottroger

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)

December 9, 2013

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

“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.

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

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

May 6, 2024 By clarkscottroger

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*)

May 6, 2014

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

(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.