Understanding Human Behavior | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 21 Understanding Human Behavior | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 21

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

September 12, 2023 By

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

Quiet, please. Quiet. A Tuesday post. (a modest reflection on the Doctrine, a view of the familiar through eyes of the jaded; eschewing the repetition, lets see what we can do this grey September morn.)

Nothing earth-shattering in terms of novel-insights, transcendent descriptions or instantly convincing explanations of the working (and workings) of everyone’s favorite personality theory.

The Wakefield Doctrine is predicated on three characteristic relationships a person has with the world around them (and the people who make it up*). These are the relationship of (the):

  • clark (Outsider) as in, not a part of, something missing, don’t give yourself away or something bad might happen, the answer is information you missed very early on in life but if you can uncover it (without the people around you discovering your deficiency then there is a chance you can become a ‘real’ person
  • scott (Predator) lets go! screw the intellectual, subjective crap… when the last time the abstract imaginary world done anything for you? the minute you take your eyes off the world around you is the second you stumble and starve or trip and be over-come by the one coming up in your rearview
  • roger (Herd Member) sequence is everything how the hell can there be a Right Way if the sequence of action (or information (or process)) gets all jumbled-up You can’t Offer the Proper Life to anyone if it keeps changing, now can you?

 

 

* that ‘people who make it up‘ thing? heavy borrow from Castaneda and TA (no, scott! Transactional Analysis…known, back in grad school days simply as ta). What we take from both is that one way to view reality is as a story. We’re, all of us, silent Narrators of the story of Us and the World. And, despite the provocative ‘silent’ thing, we all, to varying degrees, are aware of the stories of those around us. And…and! As we hear the story from others, we are telling our own stories to everyone we encounter.

ok, so, sure, nothing radical or weird there.  lol, hello clarks! don’t worry scotts and rogers with out-sized secondary clarklike aspects, it’s ok. nothing here that will usurp or upset the dominance of your predominant worldview, just a touch of  ‘additional perspective’.

Share
Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , ,

Monday Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

September 11, 2023 By

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

(Will try our best to produce a little original content at the bottom of the following RePrint post.)

-the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘of clarks and pre-emptive denigration’

May 4, 2015

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)John-Grimek-le-premier-Mister-Univers-1948-dans-un-mouvement-special

(Note for New Readers: the Wakefield Doctrine is about nothing, if it’s not about understanding ‘the way that we relate ourselves to the world around us’.*)

This concept of pre-emptive denigration initially emerged from a conversation about how clarks tend to laugh too often. No! yeah, I did so say that! And I mean it, even though I suspect that making this statement will generate multiple  parentheseses and feet notes…*

clarks laugh too often and, these events of laughter, are (often) the manifestation of preemptory denigration. We (clarks) laugh, (and self-denigrate), to take the pressure off  ourselves. A clark will, at times, take on a responsibility that becomes the focus of attention of the people around them. It may be at the job or in class or perhaps even calling out a teacher who appears to be singling out our child in a negative fashion. No matter what the individual circumstance, there are times that clarks find themselves the center of attention. Somebody out there want to tell the Readers what the biggest fear of a clark is?  Anyone?  lol…. no, don’t worry! I won’t insist on a Comment. lol.  Z?  no, I know you know! lets give the others a chance.  Christine?  (well, yes… fear of failure is close, but we’re going for something a little more personal.)  Kristi? (  being wrong?  very good and quite close! but still something more… or less specific).

New Readers: the Wakefield Doctrine maintains that we live in one of three worldviews (personal realities). The personal reality that we grew up in is referred to as our predominant worldview and is sorta what others call personalty type. We have clarks (the Outsider), scotts (Predators!!!) and rogers (people who live in the world as a Member of the Herd). The really tricky part of this Doctrine is that these personal realities are real. They are not: interests or inclinations, (they aren’t) tropisms or sub-conscious drives, nor phobias or likes and dislikes. The world I woke up to this morning is the reality of the Outsider. And my way of relating myself to the world today is the most efficient and effective in terms of successfully navigating the course of my Monday, May 4th. Oh, yeah!!  one other thing. You’re born with the potential of all three. You live in only one, but have the potential to have the behaviors and strategies of ‘the other two’ at times and to certain degrees (most often at times of duress).

ok! times up! the answer? ‘scrutiny’.  What clarks fear the most (well, not quite, what they fear the most, but the way that clarks express to themselves, what they believe they fear the most), is commonly called scrutiny.

….where does the time go?!  Quick wrap up:

  • clarks laugh too often in order to ‘hedge their own bet’…. (ex: I will write a book about the Wakefield Doctrine. No, don’t worry I won’t mention names or addresses… ha ha)
  • clarks do not do this hedging because they don’t take themselves seriously enough, but because they take themselves too seriously
  • clarks, being Outsiders, have way too little sense of acceptable risk of failure (as defined by themselves, but ascribed to everyone around them)
  • the pre-emptive denigration?  ‘I’ll give my best shot, hope you’re not disappointed’  ‘I don’t know, yeah I can try’  ‘Look, if this doesn’t work out…’  ‘Before I start, maybe I could ask a few more questions, you know?’

You know, this book writing isn’t as easy as it seems. (ha ha)

 

 

* and this concept is so key and so easily misunderstood, that I’ll point out that what was just said was ‘the way that we relate ourselves to the world around us’ not ‘how we relate to the world’. This is a very common mis-something…but that one little word, ‘ourselves‘ totally makes all the difference in the world.

** I will make this my last footnote, someone out there is absolutely correct. I do sometimes underestimate my Readers and do not have to explain everything. Although, in  my own defense I’ll say, “I’m still striving for the Perfect Post, which, by definition, will be directed at the New Reader. But you’re right, I need to stop with the extra explanations

*

Thanks and a shout-out to Friend of the Doctrine Cynthia for modeling a Doc-tee in the photo at the top of the post. A true multi-capable person, while it may still be in a remodel phase, totally worth your while to stop by at Art Funky Media.

 

Share
Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , , ,

Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

September 6, 2023 By

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

We know you’ll understand; are doing a 3rd in a row RePrint post.

(Well, yeah, how Readers will respond is predicated on how they relate themselves to the world around them (and the people who make it up).

So, expectations not met:

  • clarks (Outsider) hide reaction from pretty much everyone, spend whatever time available in your head (lol) trying to figure it out and devising a plan to avoid it in the future
  • scotts (Predator) either: a) bust their balls (if in the presence of the agency of the disappointment) or, if not available: 2) make a non-spiteful joke to bystanders and move-it-down-the-line
  • rogers (Herd Member) feel good, (in that anticipation of recognition of personal qualities that you know are under-appreciated sort of way), console the nearest clark by listing the unredeemable qualities of the agency of the let-down and get to work! (showing anyone in the room, the Right Way)

On with the re-run. (And, as the one true pleasant surprise in the day-to-day classroom life in olden high school: there’ll be a movie (or, if you’re real, way-old) a ‘filmstrip’.

Hump Day1 the Wakefield Doctrine ( “…dentists are to surgeons as firefighters are to cops …”)

January 29, 2014

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)Firemen mourn the closure of Clerkenwell fire station, after finishing their last-ever shift there.

 

(Today we will take a break from the Write-a-Post-write-a-Book Series, and address a couple of Reader questions and concerns and such.)

The primary attractiveness vectors* when interacting with the opposite (or near-opposite) sex and the three personality types:

  • clarklike female: head<>feet<>face                         easy target: rogers then scotts
  • scottian female: body<>eyes<>personality           easy target: rogers and other scotts
  • rogerian woman: clothing<>hair<>friends          easy target: …er, not easy, you know, there’s like so many guys who don’t appreciate how much work goes into what she does and keeping up with the trends and…

So that we have equal time, genderistically-speaking:

  • clarklike male: shoes<>clothes<>(secret)personality  easy target: yeah, right
  • scottian male: body<>lack of escape route<>body         easy target: roger then clark, if no else around and has the first aid kit handy then a scott
  • rogerian male: fashion affectation<>talent<>friends  easy target: clark is easiest and will do if there are noscotts in the vicinity, and if the drugs or the inspiration are too strong, then a roger

 

So lets look at the eyes of a roger (and a scott):

Jack’s  a scott… (yeah, no kidding!) You see the eyes. It is not just that he is staring at Stewart (James Spader), but the intent/intensity is quite marked. That is the gaze of a scott. Go out today and watch the people you associate with, hang out with, are married to… if you see eyes like this, then you have arrived at the the first step (of) the process of identifying a person as a clark, scott or roger. The second step is to watch this person further, and decide if their behavior is consistent with what we know the behavior of a scott to be. (Are they a little, overly-exuberant? Are they fun to be with? Are they constantly joking/telling jokes, do they appear to have difficulty sitting still?) What you are doing, in this phase of personality type identification,  is inferring the (actual) reality that they are experiencing.* Once you have decided which of the three they are, the Doctrine will take care of the rest!**

James is so a roger… and his character Stewart’s eyes? they’re are all over the damn place! Watch him, watch his eyes (particularly in the context of what he is saying)! He looks to the left, he looks to the right, he looks directly at Jack, without flinching and with equal ease, he looks out the window!! Remind you of something??  (You younger Readers may miss this reference)…. ever watch those old fashioned ‘lion tamers’?  (No! not Siegfried and Roy, I mean the real old timer,  big round cage, with these like ‘stands arrayed around the interior and the Lion Tamer would go in with a whip and a chair ( yeah, scott  just like your date last night…) And this person would make the lions (and sometimes tigers) sit and stay (and a number of other ‘tricks’ that now, seem just plain cruel and childish, but that was in the last Century and humans were remarkably un-sophisticated).
In any event, the point I am trying to make here is that at the climax of the act, the Lion Tamer would do something like get close to the lions and turn his back on them. To show us how brave a man he must be and (show) the lions how dominant he feels he is.
James Spader, with his eyes is trying to do that with Jack.

Didn’t we tell you how much fun and how constantly fascinating this Wakefield Doctrine is?  And we have not even delved into what is about the reality of the scottian personality it is that makes this behavior permissible!! For that you need to call us next Saturday!

1) you want a quick id of a personality type?  at work or at school, the person who goes around announcing it’s ‘Hump Day’ and makes like it’s something to get all up about?  total  roger!

* come on!  you know what this means!!  you look in the mirror and you make the decisions to enhance your strong points (ha ha scott!) and downplay your weakness with the aid of clothes and fashion and prayer… you know! dressing for succeeding

*

Share
Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , ,

et tu Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

September 5, 2023 By

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

Hey, sent this (post below) to myself the other day! Let’s see what it is we thought we needed to recall/re-read!

‘and a thousand telephones, that will not ring’ the Wakefield Doctrine: the theory of personality predicated on three characteristic worldviews

November 13, 2012

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of personality that you get to enjoy with your friends and them, before it gets all famous and mainstreamy and everyone will know about it)

Question: If your husband is a roger and you are a clark, is it true that they never accept how much you have changed over the years, since you first met?
Answer: Too true1

(Welcome to ‘ya shoulda just asked Tuesday’! We will be presenting some common questions and the semi-comprehensive answers…along with a little commentary, mostly to let us get away with dividing the page into block quotes.’)

Question: My best friend is funny and fun to be with, but sometimes when we are around other people he gets like, mean even goes and picks on me. But this happens only with certain people, this big kid that (my friend) knows. What gives?

Answer: Chances are your friend is a scott and the person that, when they’re around, your friend starts acting mean?…well, that other person is a scott too, but they are what we call dominant (to your friend). So your friend, even though he is picking on you, doesn’t mean to hurt your friendship… it’s a pack2 thing, you know?
Answer: jeez, if you say so

(This question deals with the changing pack order (from the scottian perspective) and it’s effects on the behavior of a scott. Note: this question (and by implication, the experience cited), will most likely be posed by a clark. Do you know why that should be?)

Question: My fiancée and I are getting close to the Big Day. When we first got engaged, we both agreed to keep the ceremony and everything on the quiet, low-key side, but lately, ( the wedding is in 3 months), she has been talking more to her sisters and some of her old friends and it seems like the guest list is getting bigger and bigger. What gives?

Answer: She is probably a roger. Forget about changing her mind. It means a lot to her, in a way that you will never understand.  So relax! Sneak a couple of your friends that she might not have approved when the guest list was small, she probably won’t even notice now, and if she does make an issue of it, say the following to her (word for word): “I understand how important family is to you now. And even though I am not close to my family, you have shown me that my feelings3 of friendship with (fill in the names of you friends) make them like family. Won’t you let my family join your family …darling?“

(And there are those who would say, ‘Hey Wakefield Doctrinaires! Sure you have a uniquely clever take on personality types, but what about practical applications? Huh, what about those?‘ Well, here ya go! Who cannot not identify with this situation? …not counting the rogers, of course!)

Question: My boss is nice enough, but it seems like he tries too hard to be, like my friend or something! Every day it is ‘how are you doing?’, “is there anything I can do to make your job easier?” I mean, all the time! I can’t get any work done when he is in the office, he is always offering to ‘help’! I might be able to deal with this, except that every time I do get some work done that he needs to sign off on, he always finds  fault! And if I come up with something on my own initiative (he likes to say that he wants me to try to ‘think outside the box’) he is either totally negative or acts like he is amazed that I actually did it myself!  Should I quite my job?
Answer: Probably.4

(This Question deals with a scenario that is all too common. And, although we do not propose that all bosses are rogers, we will say this, ‘If your boss is a scott you have: a) a good time everyday up until the day he decides that it is time to change careers or b) a lead pipe cinch of a sexual harassment lawsuit, so the day you get tired of her shenanigans, ‘it’s sayonara see ya in court’
If your boss is a clark, then we know the following: a) if your clarklike boss is female then her boss is a roger, if your clarklike boss is male then his boss is a scott!  and b) they (clarks) make great bosses, will stick up for you totally against all opponents, but jeez! enough with the leadership by consensus! Get a set, yo.

That music referenced in the Title of today’s Post? Totally weird. I’m sitting and watching TV and a commercial comes on and before I can hit ‘MUTE’ I hear the music in the background (of the commercial) and I’m off to the great and omnicient google… and here we are

 

1) rogers are about consistency, if they are about anything at all! The worldview of the herd (rogers) maintains that history, tradition, continuity…consistency is of the greatest good! The worldview is also one in which the individual’s relationship with the world-at-large manifests primarily in emotional terms. So when a (lasting) relationship forms, the details of ‘the other’ person are important, in a sense, manifesting the emotional investment. So, as time goes by, even though people change and grow and develop, the roger will still insist on seeing the ‘original person’

2) scotts, in the initial behavioral metaphor: like pack animals, i.e. wolves, dogs, lions and such. The social ranking in the pack is one of simple dominance, an alpha at ‘the top’ and everyone else in order of strength/prowess/capability downward from there. It is a primary characteristic of the scottian personality type to establish ranking when entering a new (social ) environment. Literally going from person to  person, figuratively pushing them on the shoulder in order to establish ranking

3) emotions! always play the emotion-card when dealing with rogers!

4) you could try to…nah, don’t even bother.  Maybe if you got to the Doctrine sooner, you might have learned enough to invoke your own rogerian aspect to re-configure your work relationship… but too hard, too frustrating, easier to get another job. But then again, most bosses/middle managers/supervisors/Principals are rogers!  so maybe you should be asking about the Wakefield Doctrine School of Self-Improving Oneself…school

*

Share
Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , ,

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- Part Next

August 22, 2023 By

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

As promised, the follow-up to yesterday’s post

As to the language describing the core Doctrine concepts, has it changed over time? If so: Compare and Contrast

Once again a Reader has offered, (consciously or not), the suggestion of a perspective that, while not directly bearing on today’s stated theme, is one that offers perhaps an even more interesting look-see at this here Doctrine, here.*

Mimi’s Comment to yesterday’s Post:

All things being equal, perhaps they are about equal.

Yes, in the everyday sense. All (three) have strengths, weaknesses and ‘omg-you-can’t-be-serious?!?!! or ‘that’s what you think/how you’d act/the way you feel!??!’

(lol) We all have our own experiences with the more outlying behaviors of ‘the other two’ personality types in our lives. And, even if we can’t see it in our ownselfs, if lucky we afford ourselves of the opportunity to witness another person who shares our predominant worldview doing something that is total ‘wtf’?**

That said, we’ll take Mimi’s ‘the three are equal’ and raise her the admittedly less obvious, but definitely worth the stretch, view that the three predominant worldviews are one fractured whole person.

The (unstated) goal of the application of the perspective made available by applying the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine (out-of-breath-emoji here) is take advantage of the strengths of ‘the other two’ predominant worldviews. And, before you say it, as a personality theory, we recognize that it is not practical to think one can simply decided to ‘be a roger‘ or ‘go at them like a scott‘1.

Well, not quite.

From the very beginning of this theory of clarks, scotts and rogers there is the belief that while we may not have grown up relating to the world around us a(n) Outsider (clark), Predator (scott) or Herd Member (roger) we did, and still do, have the potential. The innate ability. Whatever the cool wordification for the capacity to act in a given circumstance.

Ok… too clarklike in our writing. (There! See?!?! Just Demonstrated the rogerian ‘honest, self-crit’ of my public behavior here. And… Hey! This is kinda fun! Lets go steal a car!!)

 

 

* New Readers? There’s a reason we recommend reading as many old posts as possible. It is beyond our ability (and focus) to present a totally comprehensive list of characteristic behavior/responses of all three predominant worldviews. (Bonus note: we just said ‘behavior/responses. That choice of verbs over nouns would allow a determined enough person to, dare I say it, reconstruct the entire Wakefield Doctrine. Being focused on relationships (to the world around us and the people who make it up) we did not say: traits and tropisms. But that’s not important now.) What we were about to say regarding the choice of words in the introduction above is that our choice of words were indicative of a clark, finding themselves lacking the succinct and eloquent words to complete the sentence, choosing to indulge in what we probably (and, mind you, a certain pride), pidgin intelligence.

** and surely this experience is the most difficult. to get ourselves to the point of being able to observe, appreciate and identify with another person of our own predominant worldview. Which is, of course, the ‘point’ of this post.

  1. extra credit to whoever shouted, “What about secondary and tertiary aspects, huh? What about. them! ‘nother post yo. But, seeing how you brought it up, what say you Comment the thesis and we’ll see what we can do.

 

Share
Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , , , ,
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »