the Wakefield Doctrine | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 3 the Wakefield Doctrine | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 3

TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

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

Each week a number of exceptionally skilled and talented bloggers gather here and link in a list (or interpretive rhetoric or any format their individual creative impulses may demand) on the topic of gratitude. Not as simple and/or simplistic as it may sound. After all, ‘gratitude’ is one of the more elusive frames-of-mind available to any of us. And, not for nothin’, way beneficial.

The following is a list of the things that have elicited a state/awareness-of this state of gratitude for us

1) Phyllis

2) Una

3) the Wakefield Doctrine

4) the Hostinae (and Andrew): Mimi, cai, Misky, Denise, Kristi, Dyanne, Lisa, Knitcat and Andrew they provide that one quality that all successful bloghops must possess, community.

5) the Six Sentence Story bloghop

6) our late-March, early-April weather was interrupted by a couple of days of ‘oh, so this is what a late-May nice day felt like...to our parents‘. lol

7) front meadow update (yes, new addition with the sunflowers see Grat #9 below)

8) something, something

9) oh, yeah… new sunflowers (a lotta pressure on them Helianthus annuus least round in these parts) err the round, yellow things to the left of the sidewalk

10) Secret Rule 1.3 from the Book of Secret Rules aka Secret Book of Rules. specifically, the approaching completion of one’s list of Grats is, in point of fact, a legitimate item for said list.

 

music vids

*

*

*

*

You are invited to the Inlinkz link party!

Click here to enter

Share

Friday -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘of changes and mis-memory’

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

ruh roe

Ree…Print!

 

It is not necessary to understand this…M. Eckhardt

The topic of today’s Post is: Discourse and Discussion  (quick definition so we will not get any shit from people saying that this blog is amateur scholastecism),
discourse: from the Latin discursus; the act of running about. Sociologists and philosophers tend to use the term discourse to describe the conversations and the meaning behind them by a group of people who hold certain ideas in commonAlright lets start there people, the sooner we get through the “serious” part of the Post, the sooner we can get to the music videos. This the Wakefield Doctrine Lesson of the Day. The question before us is:What is the goal, the perceived object of the act of conversation/discourse for clarks, for scotts and for rogers? (and as a follow-up question), What does the Doctrine offer to aid the person trying to effectively communicate with a person of the other type (clark, scott or roger)?First up, clarks. clarks value knowledge information above all, therefore they will attempt to bring as much fact, knowledge, information, inference and implication as possible to the discourse (see?). You will know a clark by the fractured sentence structure. Their goal is to offer (the listener) the maximum choice in paths to take, because (to a clark), everything branches off everything else and each branch offers some information that is discrete from other (branches). That accounts for the (heavy) use (as opposed to light use) of parenthesis. It is a clarks way of saying “hey! by the way, had you considered this…?
Sample: “what is it that real people do with all the time in between sentences?”Second up, scotts. scotts need to know: are you predator or prey; are you dominant or submissive. For that we require a verb.
Sample: “Hey!” secondary example: “pretty simple, isn’t it?”

Last, rogers. rogers are not using words to communicate or carry specific questions, rogers use words to exist. They live in a purely social world, one comprised of people, however these people, all being rogers do not interact. Instead the rogerian members of the herd are relating to each other…and s0 the only thing to talk about is the past. The past of each of the other members of a herd is the topic of all rogerian discourse. That is why rogers tend to be good at writing, they are laying out a world, not imparting information. It is a fabric of emotion.
Sample: “did you hear what she said about him…?”

Now you know how each of the three converse/communicate/engage in discourse/run about. What good it this information? Glad I asked. So you can understand the other person, knuckleheads! There is this old saying, “clarks are crazy, scotts are stupid and rogers are dumb”
Why is it necessary to mention this?
Because the best tools in the world are useless without the skill of the person using (them).  And skill in the use of tools involves understanding the material/the object that the tools are being used on as much as (understanding) the tools themselves.
You know that clarks are trying to impart too much information, so take what you need and ignore the rest.
The scott is barking aggressively at you, so decide if it is in your interest to be prey or predator/submissive or dominant and bark back  or roll over.
The roger is spreading information throught your workplace about you, and you do not want that. Take a clue from terminex and contribute information into the network of your own, it will work its way into the social matrix and maybe surplant the bad information.

That concludes the Lesson of the Day. Now to the entertainment portion of the Post. We have a mix, two music video and one movie clip for the scott, the roger and the clark. (In that order, in case, you are a new Reader)

*

Share

Six Sentence Story -the Wakefield Doctrine- “Of Dreams and Airliners: Ian Devereaux flies to Chicago”

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

This is the Doctrine’s contribution to the Six Sentence Story bloghop.

Hosted by Denise, constrained by a sentence limit (high and low) of six, there are worse ways to spend the remaining time you have on earth.

Previously

Prompt word:

STEAM

I felt the vibration of my cell phone interrupting something all too rare in my life since I gave up drugs and celibacy: a full-on lucid dream.

I was being chased down Thrawl St in Victorian London by two men dressed in light-brown cassocks and, (in the way of dreams, lucid and otherwise) cut through an alley adjacent to the Black Church in Brașov, Romania. The bells were tolling midnight as, from the shadows, I watched a woman in a plus-sized habit of the Order of Lilith bracing a tall man dressed entirely in black; he exuded menace and she clearly had the upper hand as he handed over a small, brass and gold clockwork object.

Taking my phone from the inner breast pocket of my suit coat, I read the text: ‘Answer your phone…’

“Listen to me closely, Ian, that steampunk sonovabitch Egmont is somehow using his Time Mechanism to send the Goddaughter and Sister Mary Manic into the past; they’re back, but you’re surely next.”

I must have sounded shocked or touched or something, “Anya, you called to warn me, I don’t know what to say.”

“Easy there gumshoe, this is me doing triagé; the truth of the matter is your fellow adventurers Rosetta and Aclima are in their twenties, they’ll bounce back from any psychic bruising in less than a week, you, on the other hand, are not; so pay attention and with any luck when you land at O’Hare in an hour, they won’t have to William Shatner you off the plane”

 

 

 

Share

Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

RePrint?

sure, why the heck not?

(oh yeah!  before this shortcut: the Wakefield Doctrine is an additional perspective on the world around us based on our relationship (since, like right from the start life) with it there are three of (these) and the one you have based your social strategies and interactional styles of behavior upon is your personality type (aka predominant worldview) you only have time to learn/practice one and while the ‘other two’ ways to relate to the world remain as potential, one is all you gots, luckily, it’s the perfect personality type based on the personal reality you exist in (and have, since you was babies) clarks are Outsiders not to be confused with introverts, but to be fair, lets say during our young school years, we summered in Spectrum-ville, (lol); scotts are Predators full of life and determined to ride all the rides, they will nip at your hells and be at your side for the climatic showdown all guns a-blazing while laughing the scottian female will totally have a derringer and maybe a knife (or two) with wicked martial/marital skills (“We’re surrounded, one chance. Now go!! I got this!!!”) and rogers of Members of the Herd so certain you’d think (or chose) to believe what they say, but the thing is it’s not what they say, it’s what they know that’s important, ready to be reliable, often distracted/offended by the novel, they will surely be remembered by their works if not their thoughts.)

 

ok, we promised a RePrint

… no, you’re absolutely correct how the above all ee cummings manual of style (ish) is sufficient

the coolest thing about the Doctrine is that you already know what you need to know to take advantage of it’s curious organization of views of the world.

one thing: the Wakefield Doctrine, while possessed of the glorious ambition to allow us to see the world as the other person is experiencing it, is not for everyone.

the Wakefield Doctrine (and it’s perspective) is for you, not them.

 

 

Share

2’s Day -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

To decide what the predominant worldview of another person, start by discarding the ‘no fricken’ way’ of the three.

Too many people, (not you, Faithful Reader!), allow themselves to get caught up in the laundry list of characteristics that they, (incorrectly), believe are the determinants (of ‘personality type).

To which we will remind all, the three personality types:

  1. clark (the Outsider) clarks think
  2. scott (the Predator) scotts act
  3. roger (the Herd Member) rogers feel

Two out of three, how hard can it be to select the correct worldview?

To wit: knowing the character of each of these remaining predominant worldview, look around… through their eyes.

Two distinct world(views) but! (this is the part where your reading comes to the fore) each is different from the other… maybe the number of 1st person pronouns, or 3rd person or ‘Hey!’

Two, like the optometrist’s googles, (‘look at the chart, is this clearer, how about this? now, is this better or worse?’)

To experience the world, (in a fairly shallow degree), means the scene you are comparing is ‘clearer’ through the lens of one predominant worldviews than the other.

To our conclusion:

  • learn the three relationships, inside and out
  • if obvious indicators, (of a person’s predominant worldview), is not evident, i.e. the eyes of a scott, the slouch of a clark, the social ease of a rogers then go for a side-by-each approach
  • they will reveal themselves
  • and you will immediately know more about them than they know about themselves

2 Pretty simple, isn’t it?

 

*

Share