the Wakefield Doctrine

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

Time of the year for one of the more fun holidays. No, not Boxing Day nor Black Friday or, even (the less popular, based on emergency room stats) Tag a scott Day.

We’er talking one of the Big Three (ok, maybe Four)… holidays that, when observed through the lens of a certain, pretty-cool-once-you-get-the-premise-and-a-few-typical-behavioral-markers, personality theory, causes a person to say, “Wait a darn minute! You said you’ve never heard of the Wakefield Doctrine or any of the three personality types!”

New Readers: the Wakefield Doctrine (‘the Doctrine’ to the cool kids) is an additional perspective on the world around us and the people who make it up. Short form: there are three personal realities in which we all grow-up, develop our social strategies and effective worldviews, these three are:

1. the Outsider (clarks) holdidayistically-speaking this person monitors and influences the experiences of those around them and nudges ‘the other two’ in whatever it is they, the clark, has decided is in their best interest, (unless, of course, the clark is in self-punishing withdrawal mode, then they will simply paint a un-ignorable bullseye on their back, in muted, but festive colors)
2. the Predator (scotts) holidayistically-speaking, this person is the essence of holiday celebration. Think Grasshopper and the Ant, only a lot of the Ants die trying to keep up with the Grasshopper who, for their part, isn’t irresponsible and lacking foresight, they’re just in it for the girls/guys  good time.
3. the Herd Member (rogers) holidayistically-speaking this person is the Ghost of (fill-in favorite holiday) Past, Present and Future. If there was a way to embody a recurring, socially-grounded celebration to include all of the benefits and only some of the cost, (to be paid on credit), here’s your guy/gal. Hell, if it wasn’t the Right Thing to celebrate, we wouldn’t be marking the calendar, now would we?

Anyway. Thanksgiving is approaching in Oceania. We will not squander the treasure trove of examples, illustrations, manifestations and indications of how the Wakefield Doctrine is so, so …prescient and totally ‘at-a-distant’ for human behavior. Stay tuned.

fun stuff

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

Open your pages to where we left off last week, please.

what?

Fine. Put your bookmarks into Page Wednesday.

Given we’ve hinted at a topic in our post title, lets go with:

With a proper understanding of the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine you will be a position to know more about the other person than they know about themselves.

It’s true.

ok, not to get all dramatic (aka rogerian) but we just pulled ourselfs out of a shortcut to posting this post. aka RePrint post.

Don’t get us wrong, it was a good ‘un. And made sense (for the early years, that is), but, if the truth be told, more often than one would think, we write to learn and practice this here personality theory here.

So, how is it we can know another person better than they know themselves?

When you are engaged with:

• clark know that they will not tell you everything, as knowledge (and his slutty half-sister, information) is the only coin-of-the-realm they believe they have and, besides, revealing all about a person, place or thing invites scrutiny
• scotts they act with out (necessarily) thinking, rely on their instincts and often battle their prey drive; any inquiry should be brief, succinct and lead to action or actions, hopefully involving chasing and retrieving
• rogers words are nothing more than fricken coat hangers (mostly the cheap, dry-clean type with a non-slip cross piece, if you see the equivalency of anything close to a all-wood high quality hanger, like from a custom clothing shop, you have them at their most vulnerable. (Ain’t no time to indulge in R. King)

OK!

Tune in tomorrow when we talk: Creativity and three personality types of the Wakefield Doctrine

*

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

(If we might continue?)

iii) The three predominant worldviews, aka personality types of the Wakefield Doctrine are:

1. 1. clarks (Outsider)
   2. scotts (Predator)
   3. rogers (Herd Member)

So there you go.

What? Define each. Give list of characteristics?

What do you think this is, the Oscar/Meyer ABC schedule?

Here is all you need to complete the picture: ‘The Three Personality Types of the Wakefield Doctrine’: it comes down to relationships, as in, ‘How do I relate myself to the world around me and the people who make it up’. (Hint: We said ‘relate ourselves to’ not ‘relate to’.) Critical point. Like we said, the Doctrine is about (a) relationship.

Second necessary part (for your successful assembly of our little personality types.) Wait. It’s already been provided above. ‘Outsider’? ‘Predator’? ‘Herd Member’?

(ed. Don’t feel bad. A lot of clarks do that. You know, be so excited and in such a hurry we neglect to read every single line of instruction, rather than only the ones that give the impression of ‘getting closer to the Answer’.)

Hate to get rogerian sounding on y’all,  but. “The Wakefield Doctrine is not an/the Answer. It is only a Suggestion”.

Suggestion massaged into a Proposition: Suppose everyone lives in a reality that is personal. Nothing weird or gigantic. No flying without planes or total self-acceptance in the here and now. Just personal, in a zone outwards from the mind, the body, the heart. In this zone, things are as the individual’s nature would have them be: a world where thought and reason combined to create belonging; action becomes love and acceptance conveys peace.

like that, ya know?

Fortunately for any New Readers two things happened once this blog saw the fluorescent/LED(ish) light of reality: a) the characteristics of the three personality types became self-perpetuating, to the extent that followers found ‘new’ examples of characteristics consistent with the Doctrine and 2) people found this thing useful, valuable and fun.

what more can we ask for?