self-improvement | the Wakefield Doctrine

TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine-

September 17, 2023 By clarkscottroger

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

This is the Wakefield Doctrine’s contribution to the Ten Things of Thankful (TToT) bloghop. Entering it’s twenty-third year of continuous expression (online), (sixteenth in the analogue non-virtual world), the TToT manifests the best and worst of the potential of the blogosphere.

For us here at the Doctrine (Wakefield Doctrine blog motto: “Still?!?! How is that even possible? By your own admission (and insistence) there are only three personality types in the whole thing. And those, you so slyly insist are, in fact, characteristic relationships’. Don’t even get us started on that… ok, your passive aggressive persistence has worn us down again. Go ahead hit us with your list. You will anyway.”) It speaks for its-own-self. Following is our list

1) Una

2) Phyllis

3) the Wakefield Doctrine

4) geographical location i.e. close enough to the ocean to drive there ‘just because’

5) writing and such

6) bloghops Six Sentence Story and the Unicorn Challenge

7) The Day of The Doctrine Hoodie (see Grat 9 below) This is for illustration purposes.

and, of course, hats (for your damn head))

(hat photo courtesy of FOTD Alex )

8) something, something

9) So. The thing was, Denise and Cynthia and roger were on the call-in last night and the topic came around, (as it so often does), to beauty, pride and fashion. Naturally thought of hats and doc-tees (as seen in one of last week’s posts) and the Wakefield Doctrine hoodie stepped up stage center. The question is: which should be the first in a line of Doctrine-inferred clothing?

Vote in the comments below.

Please.

10) Secret Rule 1.3

music vids

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

TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine-

September 10, 2023 By clarkscottroger

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

Hey, ho! Looks like we got picked up for another Season! Thanks to all the ‘Teers for your effort. Without y’all with you cards and mail campaign, we might already be on Netflix. (There was an expression, aka fan meme, on one of our top three shows: Community: ‘Six Seasons and a Movie’.

So keep the cards and letters coming. Tell you friends! (Friends not included or provided. Your social network may vary.)

To provide marketing help, here’s an elevator pitch that you’re all free to use when you encounter a friend or relative who, in a moment of vulnerability says, ‘The internet sucks. There’s no one who isn’t spoiling for a fight. Even worse, there’s nothing on cable worth watching.’

Say to them. ‘Go to the Ten Things of Thankful bloghop. They use a ‘list format’. It’s all about writing the things you really enjoy. But it’s also about things that other people enjoy. Link up with them and you’ll lose twenty pounds, your nail fungus will disappear and your days of wondering if all the negative people might be right will be over. Guaran-fricken-teed!’)

Our list for this week.

1) Una

2) Phyllis

3) the Wakefield Doctrine

4) the Six Sentence Story bloghop for fun, serial fiction and the Unicorn Challenge for…well, like accepting the gift certificate to a day’s visit to the health club that everyone cool goes to and might even not stare. At least not too much

5) (hypo-grat*) the continuing process of establishing a perfect lawn for the cottage. Or, as most of the pros will say, getting the foundation of a perfect lawn to build on next season

6) other favorite shows: the Good Place, The Magicians and, of course, the king of the ‘hey-what-can-we-do-on-an-0ngoing-basis-that-has-the-feel-of-an-underdog-sport-yet-the-drama-is-impressive-even-if-the-crowd-size-is-not-of-LPGA-golf?’ by god, you’re right! We’ll call it ‘How It’s Made‘

7) * ‘hypo-grat’ further proof that this ain’t your great-aunt Earline”s gratitude blog. (ok, it is a grat blog. But how many of the 678,003 such blogs allow, encourage even, the listing of things in our lives that, well, suck. The TToT do! Well, there is a certain approach that, in and of itself, is an advanced and rather sophisticated perspective on the world around us and the people who make it up.

8) something, something. Wait! Got a Surprise Grat! The internet. What?!? Sure that’s on every list and half the embroidered doilies in the world. Wait Let us explain. The first song on the music vid? Heard it on the college station we listen to. Well, Friday I’m driving to the office, the song came on. Standard sounding R&B… until the guitar solo in the break. Damn! Most excellent. Anyway, we searched the Youtube high and low, for, like 45 minutes. Found the song but not the same version. This morning had another go and… success! (the first music vid)

9) cohostinae Mimi and Lisa and Kristi and Dyanne!

10) Secret Rule 1.3 ‘If ya gotta ask, you’ve probably broken it‘

music vids

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

TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine-

August 27, 2023 By clarkscottroger

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

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

1) Una

2) Phyllis

3) the Wakefield Doctrine

4) the Six Sentence Story

5) the Unicorn Challenge

6) work (for it’s flexibility in scheduling)

7) Nick’s latest post

8) Mimi (for her TToT)

9) something, something

10) Secret Rule 1.3

music vids

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

Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- (RePrint, as promised)

August 2, 2023 By clarkscottroger

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

… as promised*.

Hey! While we have you ‘on the line’** don’t forget, tonight is Wednesday night which means the gates open for the Six Sentence Story bloghop. Ever ones gonna be there, you should stop in. Serially! While not the most skillful of prompt-post writers, we have been told by unnamed others that the Doctrine’s contributions have a certain, je ne sais quoi, no matter what the weekly prompt word might be. Be that as you may*** stop by and check it out. You can thank us later.

[We won’t take offense if anyone feels that the premise of the following is outdated and without value in the contemporary blogosphere. But, we always assumed there is a value to links-out to other bloggers. Maybe the algorithm that ‘more-links-the-better-for-the-linkee‘ has long since sailed. Until convinced otherwise, we’ll keep at it. So, keeping with our mention above of many talented writers at Denise’s Six Sentence Story ‘hop, lets see if this shortcut/combined link works: Sixarians from last week.

the Wakefield Doctrine just like Summers of old… a re-run! …Post from August 2011

August 5, 2014

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

Rizzoli and Isles ain’t got nothin on these two…

From August 2011…. You know what’s funny? This (reprint) references a failed collaborative writing project. Well, if you go to his blog now, and the Wakefield Doctrine does, in fact, recommend that you do, you will find an un-failed collaborative writing project! Denise (over at Girlie is co-writing a story with the Progenitor roger. And it’s getting pretty good! the roger, being the wildly creative, blog-risk taker that he is, is posting each chapter as they are written. So, when you go over there to read it, you might want to scroll down to Chapter 1 and ‘read your way back to the top’. Be sure to Comment (tell ’em ‘the Doctrine’ sent ya!).

As we all know, the Progenitor roger ( nom de plumage RCoyne ) started his little blog in the hopes of creating a Collaborative Writing Project. Attracting and combining (the efforts) of the full range of talents, that seem in so plentiful supply in cyberspace, it was RCoyne’s hope to produce a totally original literary work, (and) given the apparent variety of interests  found among people in the blogosphere, it  would have been one helluva a blog.
….It failed, of course.

This is not to disparage RCoyne’s idea nor his Intent. It is a reflection upon the fact that he is a roger….or more precisely, it is a reflection upon the inherent limitations of the aspects of being a roger. Do not misinterpret our feelings on the matter, we are making this statement without placing the onus entirely on roger (or his people). This statement is equally true of the other two personality types, the clarks and the scotts. Each of the three personality types, that comprise the Wakefield Doctrine, represent a worldview, a ‘reality’, if you will; each a perspective  that is unique and (one) that has great strengths and terrible weaknesses.
(Readers! Remember that the Doctrine maintains that all people are possessed of the qualities/the potentials of each of these three ‘types’ and while we become predominately one of the three, the other two aspects are always within us, waiting to be called upon by the dominant personality. At times of extreme duress or peril they are available to be called upon.)
We call this…the…. Mystery of the Wakefield Doctrine and the Proof of the 3 Personalities

What is the mystery of the rogerian personality type that prevented RCoyne’s blog from taking off?

What should have the roger done, in order to be successful with the Seccesscessionisticalationist Rag?

Why are we picking on the roger so much?

Lets start with what we do know, about rogers:

they believe that Life has rules and that if followed everything will be as it should be

rogers believe that reality is essentially quantifiable, that 2 + 2 equals 4 is true now and will always be true, even after the human race is extinct

the world is perfect to a roger, we use the word in the sense that implies completeness and order, as opposed to virtuous or good

rogers experience the world in general and people in particular with an organizational bias predicated on the herd mentality, ‘like gathers with like and excludes that which is not like’ (or some such nonsense)

for a roger, the ‘backstory’ is more attractive than the narrative, (an example from the progenitor roger: early in the days of this blog, one particular Post drew an exceptional number of Comments, we asked  roger what he thought about it and he indicated that he didn’t bother reading the Post, he only read the Comments)

rogers are responsible for civilization, for the development of civilized society, for all social development and refinements beginning with cavemen and moving forward to the Present

in expressing their perception of the world as a place of rules, rogers become: Doctors and Lawyers, Accountants and Engineers, Surveyors and Writers of Popular Fiction, Missionary Families and Dynastic Families, Pioneers (geographically), High Priests and Politicians, Homemakers and Trendsetters, Judges and Executioners

The rogerian component of the Proof of the 3 Personalities?  rogers are the only ones who can ‘ manage and maintain‘ the scottian element of the population. Without rogers, we would all be living under bushes, darting out to drink from nearby streams at dawn and duck, shoulders hunched in anticipation of the attack from the nearby  Umbrella Thorn Acacia tree. Damn! The thing about scotts, they are all drive, instinct, appetite. Someone, ( I think it was Claire ), was recently musing about the three-ness of the Wakefield Doctrine and that got me to thinking about Freud (have not got a clue) and his Id, Ego and Super Ego. Who out there does not see that our scottian element is so the Id. And while it is essential to life, appetite and impulsivity, left un-checked would be kinda short-term.

Let us end today’s Post with a little example that came up in a recent letter to Molly, in which we were discussing the difficulty encountered in distinguishing between a (very) robust roger and a scott. Both are active, and charming and totally gregarious. But if we watch these two walk into a social gathering ( a party, a picnic, a business conference) what we will see is:

the scott will make a noise (figurative or literal) immediately upon entering the space…this is meant as a first effort to flush-out any other scotts
the roger will stand in a prominant place at the entrance and wait for a sign of recognition from the various herds making up the crowd
the scott will go to the first person they can get to and start to tell a joke about the fact that they (the scott) are present
the roger will go immediately go to the first person they recognise (provided the person is another roger, if however, the first person they recognize is a clark, the roger will wait)
the scott will go from person to person and tell a joke or introduce themselves to each individual (if there are too many people, in which case the scott will treat each herd as a person)
the roger will either join a herd or gather clarks to start a herd….and wait for a scott.

Bottom line: the scott sees the social environment as a hunting ground, therefore everyone is either prey or predator. If the scott encounters other scotts then ranking must be established, either dominant or submissive, as long as they know where they stand.
The roger, on the other hand, sees the social environment as an expression of themselves. All that the roger encounters is either of the herd or not of the herd. Those that are ‘not of the herd’ are as important and valuable to the roger as the outsiders. Rogers cherish outsiders, they are the dross that accentuate the beauty of what the roger builds in his little herd.

Hey@!

* You remember, yesterday’s post!

** if you have to ask, ask your parents.

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

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

August 1, 2023 By clarkscottroger

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

Alright!

Who said, “Hey! Can you please find and post an old post today? We’d really like something from the era, more technical than readable and one where the focus is on ‘the other two’*.

Can you do that for us**?

Yes. Yes we can.

Guess what?

We’re outa time. (Yeah, all of us tipped out of true vertical by the application of aviary plumage.)

Be sure to return tomorrow. Same URL Same IP address and we’ll have a post from August 5, 2014

* a Doctrine phrase that refers to the ‘remaining worldviews’, after (an) individual’s predominant worldview is accounted for. This concept is important as it allows a deeper understanding of seemingly contradictory behaviors. Example: as Readers of this Sunday’s TToT post know, we went to see Lyle Lovett and his Large Band on Saturday. Lyle is, (imo and for instructional purposes only¹, a clark with a secondary scottian aspect and a significant rogerian tertiary.

Well, had a New Reader been sitting next to us at the concert, they might’ve commented, (aloud as they probably wouldn’t have a keyboard…)

…Wait! What the hell!! omg!

We just ran into a fact-of-life as we typed that last semi-jokey characterization of a person recognizing the clarklike demeanor of Lyle.

Damn (* cont’d) we just came face-to-face with the reality of the passage of time. Specifically, when this blog started in June 2009 cell phones were available and used. Not, however, to the degree of pervasive-to-the-point-of-supplanting-traditional-modes-of-communication. (Semi case-in-point: our seats at the concert were 2nd row center mezzanine. A totally clear view of the ‘floor seats’. People without cell phones were the exception. A sea of TV-blue-glowing rectangles.)

So my joke was anachronistic. Out of date in a critical detail. So what.

We’ll tell you what.

We value comments from Readers who have recently joined us. This ‘recently’ is very relative, of course. We’re using it to compare those who started reading when the intended RePrint was new (2014) and those who have found us, say, in the last two, three years. Our mind goes to Mimi, Nick and them.

While they totally get the principles of our little personality theory, so much so that, more often than not their Comments generate new posts and Doctrine discussions. But on occasion there is something, more likely than not a reference to one particular stage or another of how we describe the Wakefield Doctrine, that they will say, what is (fill in the blank). Denise and Cynthia and Phyllis will not wait for me to write an update and just state: ‘You know, you haven’t reminded us that ‘the Wakefield Doctrine is gender, age and culture neutral’ in, like an age.”

The thing is, I don’t always stay mindful of the new (and newer) Readers.

Probably a classic mistake, i.e. forgetting that every Reader has not been here since the beginning.

And that’s the ‘learning moment’ for me this morning.

The joke about the concert-goer not having a keyboard with them implies that my ‘story premise’? / ‘narrative assumption’? or whatever the cool, Greco-Roman term in rhetoric that identifies this effect of the passage of time for a writer. Might as well start a post with “And Nick doffed his stovepipe hat as he handed Mimi down from the landau.

But, bottom line: thanks for the opportunity to remember what I occasionally forget.

The Wakefield Doctrine, as an additional perspective on the world around us and the people who make it up, is meant to be used and enjoyed today. Whatever our circumstances may be, there is an opportunity to see the people around us as clarks, scotts and rogers. We do that and maybe, just maybe, we won’t find ourselfs saying, “What the heck! I really thought I knew them better than that.”

one of the first ‘rules’ here was to the effect that one person cannot tell another person what their predominant worldview was, at least not with any force or authority. We do, however, for instructional purposes and practice (and fun among whatever group has gathered), try to figure out if a stranger is a clark or a scott or a roger. Good clean fun, ya know? But, in no way binding upon anyone.

** your hypothetical Readers! well, duh!