Understanding Human Behavior | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 22 Understanding Human Behavior | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 22

Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- “…Better Wait than Never (a) Back-to-School 1968-style”

August 9, 2023 By

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

As promised.

Damn!

First, a shout-out to Mimi* for reminding us of our promise to free-hand a post on the nature of this time of year.

The Wakefield Doctrine is gender, culture and age neutral. It doesn’t matter if’n you’re a seventy-one-year-old high school Freshman, a nineteen-year-old dropout starting her first day at the local supermarket bringing grocery orders out to the cars of people indulging their crowdaphobic tendencies or a recent immigrant from a country that does not appreciate them.

(What’s that? Yeah, the Doctrine maintains a standard that evolves and includes developments such as non-binary identity and the like. We have a work-friend, a scottian female, who was the first person we introduced to the Doctrine (in the workplace). Consistent with being a scott (with a strong secondary clarklike aspect) she got it immediately. And insisted we should change our nomenclature to distinguish between male and female clarks, scotts and rogers. Naturally, we listened to their impassioned thesis, nodding encouragement, our face that of a five-year-old watching a professional shoe salesperson tie the laces of their new footwear. And, after the presentation we smiled and said, ‘No.’

lol. Seriously, we did all of the above. But being a friend, we awaited the final quod erat demonstrandum. She was, (and remains), a friend. In any event, we explained that the Wakefield Doctrine, being grounded on the notion that it is the character of the person’s relationship to the world around them and the people who make it us that determines personality (type). That gender is, for our purposes, a manifestation of the being, not a distinction between types of beings. Society and cultures and even physiology all have an effect on the being, allowing for/encouraging to/preventing from all sorts or expressions, demonstrations and manner of interacting with the world. In fact, in the early days of this blog, we looked to the scottian man and woman as illustration of how these influences inform behavior and style of interpersonal relationships.

But that’s for another post.

This is supposed to be a ‘freehand written’ back-to-school post.

The First Day of School:

  • clarks (Outsider) everything bad and wonderful about the world combined with a hyper-awareness of the fact of not-being-a-part-of. Of course, clarks get through the first day of school, (which, as you’re thinking, applies to: all grade levels/ college (if so inclined)/employment/ professions/marriage and life-altering physical developments, somehow, for the most part, ok. Like Dante on Maundy Thursday thinking, ‘How hard can this be?”
  • scotts (Predator) you know how, you’ve not had a chance to eat in the course of a workday, nothing bad, in fact, you’ve been ‘too busy to eat’ and then, against all reason, you stop at the supermarket to get something for dinner? a scott stepping, (ok, bounding), up the steps into the school bus, a sense of excitement tempered only by the caution to not ‘tear off more than they can chew’
  • rogers (Herd Members) a cautious sense of satisfaction that the world beyond the family is what they thought it would be; sure larger and fuller of variables and unknowns, but even as they walk down the aisle of the bus they sense there is order, kids are sitting according to a Rule; the roger‘s that first schoolbus trip is everything the the bride and groom feel as their limo pulls away from their wedding church.

 

* the hardest working woman in the blogosphere**

** we’re sure James wouldn’t mind, us borrowing/adapting his moniker and such for Friend of the Doctrine, Mimi***

*** hey the caesium fountain atomic clock ain’t got nothin on her, you could start a Rush song to the downbeat of her content being posted

 

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

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine- “… of tissue paper and hidden pins.”

August 7, 2023 By

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

‘Regular’ Readers will be rolling the subtitle to today’s post around in their (metaphorical) mouths by now. Some will concentrate on any random word that appears, others will, remembering an admonition* from the earl(iest) of days here at the blog, simply wait. Knowing, as do we all, the Answer is never simple, (but) always accessible.

Speaking of Answers. That’s easy. It’s not the answer that provides the benefit, it’s accepting the question.

ok, ok, will stop with the opaque “oooh! I divine the the secret of the universe’. (Clearly there are some times we appreciate the mechanism of the ‘RePrint’ post more than others. After all, there is only so much to say about the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine. Of course, about the relationship between us and the world around us and the people who make it up. That’s the near infinite part.

Ya know?

So, let’s stay with the method and print an old Doctrine post.

As to the (near) infinite supply of blogpost topics, themes and inspiration? Consider:

  • There will be a clark in your day ahead. You will see them best by not looking (or throwing something weird into the room first, the clark will respond with… enthusiasm).
  • witnessing a scott (in any multi-person social context) is like being with friends, watching an old TV series, (one of your total favorites), and realizing you had, somehow, not yet seen the episode. Don’t shout, “I’ve never seen this one, but you should…” (As a matter of fact, remain quiet. No sudden moves.) There will be interaction between the scott and… well, whoever she/he decides. Enjoy the show. Save the critique/appreciation until you’re alone.
  • bumping into a roger. sure, kinda hard not to, the Herd Member comprising easily 66% of the population. Like that movie ‘A Quiet Place’. Stay calm to the point of serene, don’t contribute to the conversation … blend into the Herd. You can remark later. When you’re safe from scrutiny

Well, that was pretty interesting. (Remind us tomorrow to reprint a …err RePrint. lol)

The thing about relationships being endless? In number, not (necessarily) tenure. The Wakefield Doctrine describes three relationships with the surrounding world to which we, as humans, are heir to from the day we are born.

  1. clarks (the Outsider) real simple: It’s not merely that we don’t seem to belong here, it’s that we seem to be missing a key bit of understanding. Whether that understanding is (of) ourselfs or the people around us is not important. What is important is our belief that we must learn the reason before we are discovered (by nearly everyone else). The hope lies in the ‘nearly’ of the preceding sentence. There are other Outsiders. We can learn from their mistakes. We can benefit from their successes when we share with them. (At least to the edge of their comfort zone.)
  2. scotts (the Predator) the coffee of the human experience. lol. No, not merely the caffeine, the coffee. They aren’t overcoming a weakness, roger. The Tasmanian devil (of Warner Brothers cartoon fame) is not seeking to demonstrate his/her view of the world. They simply exist in the here-and-now, knowing that there is only one real place, one genuine time. Now.
  3. rogers (the Herd Member) there is, for this predominant worldview a Right Way to live/act/respond. Nothing more is needed. And, oddly, (for rogers being the essence of society/culture), they will seize the intended meaning of the David Oglivy quote at the beginning of this post. Well, to be absolutely accurate, the quote is down below, the reference is above. Details are important. (To paraphrase: The Details will set you free.)

enough.

time to get out there and see what the day holds.

The Wakefield Doctrine.

 

 

*there are no stupid questions, just your questions. That ‘joke’ (bon mot when we’re feeling clever**) is borrowed, or maybe better to say ‘inspired’ by a famous adman in the 1950s, David Ogilvy who said, “The customer is not a moron, she’s your wife.”

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

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

August 2, 2023 By

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...

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.

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

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

August 1, 2023 By

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.”

 

  1. 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!

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

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine- “The RePrints must go on! …again, or is that implied by the ‘Re’?”

July 31, 2023 By

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

Today we have one of the earliest of the Last-Days-of-Summer* posts.

Busy weekend, this past couple of days. As you’d know if you read our TToT yesterday, we attended a concert. Lyle Lovett and his Large Band. Most excellent event. But that bit of diversion (last concert being in, like 2006) threatens to throw off our recent post-writing rhythm.

So, this post. (To any new Readers** the answer is: ‘Nope! Don’t have a problem going back and reading early posts.***)

how early? First-full-year writing, yo.    (for the record? Seeing the illustration I used… brought a smile, twenty-two three(!!) years later.

We know why you are reluctant to Comment

August 31, 2010

Welacome to the aWakefielda Docttrina (dis is da tearey of die clark and da scotts and dem rogers der). This is the place you can really get something really useful from the internet experience. Really. My Doctrine, she gonna make you so a happy that you, you’re gonna wanna say, where she been all my life, eh? Its twue, its weally twue.*Charismatic

When you  “get” this “Doctrine” you “will” finally understandwhy “everyone” acts like they “do”. What confused you about, these so-called “family members” and spouses (nyahh sp ow seses), all them who have been tormenting you while you try to understand what they want and give that to them. BUT! do they like WHAT you do for them? HUH? DO they? wait! wait! I can answer that question!! Call on me! Me!  The answer to your question is:
“No, no they do not”   (Thank you, thank you I studied so hard for this moment. I want to thank the Progenitor scott and the Progenitor roger and all the DownSprings, thank you! thank you! thank you!)

Welll… (as a leading scott would be heard to say, just before totally firing some poor college student who was only working at the timeshare resort for the summer, in the hopes of making some money for school). Little did they realise what they were getting themselves into… In fact, have I ever mentioned that I survived and even flourished in the totally insane, twisted-personality realm of timeshare sales? And that that was only because of my understanding of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)? Well, I did! Remind me sometime to tell y’all about it. It’s about half interesting.)

Anyway, I think I getting back to writing about what the current thinking at the Wakefield Doctrine is, vis ‘a vis getting Readers to Comment and participate and generally get us all famous and shit. Quick background, we know people are visiting and reading the Doctrine and we know that some people come back and read on a fairly regular basis. We also know that (other than Progenitors and DownSprings) there has not been a lot of participation from these putative Readers. So, what gives?
One opinion, offered by Friend of the Doctrine Mel, is that Commenting on a blog like this is kinda intimidating. Intimidating!?! What the hell is that supposed to mean??!! Wft we ask real, real nice for people to write a Comment, we even offer to give them a frickin, free, frickin hat (for their damn frickin heads)! How intimidating is that? Hey!! I asked you a goddamn question! How-Intimidating-Is-That??!!!

So, maybe there is some possibility that people might feel that they are expected to answer in a way that might be judged. But we do not mean that. When I say, “there are no stupid questions, there are just your questions”, I mean that in a kind and supportive way. We have all been where you are, and we truly invite  a reasoned and constructive response to our Posts, do you think you can manage to muster** a little initiative and write something? If we were all rogers here, we would come right out and ask you to Comment in a way that would sound like you would be the one missing out, if you did not Comment. But then, we are not all rogers here. Are we?

While that might be the reason (for the lack of participation) I have recently come to the conclusion that we have simply failed in conveying the basic concept of the Wakefield Doctrine to you Readers. When I think about how we got to this point (of the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) I realise that most of the time has been spent ‘in person’ with people and saying things like, ‘look at that person, watch how they react, they are such clarks or scotts or rogers’. Even more basic than that, the beginning of spreading the word involved people who knew the Progenitors directly, so it was so easy to say, ‘you know how roger always does that’, or ‘now watch how mad scott gets when I…’ It was very easy to convey the elements of this theory of clarks, scotts and rogers, the (future) Wakefield Doctrine.

It is just that, after the immediate circle of friends learned this thing of ours, they were telling people they knew about clarks, scotts and rogers. It became apparent (or at least seemed apparent) that people liked it and were inclined to share it with others and the Doctrine was simply enough to spread that way. And so the Wakefield Doctrine blog came into existence. But the gap, the ‘one wayedness’ of writing a blog is a difficult hurdle to overcome. Combined with what we might charitably call rudimentary writing skills, we need to find a way to communicate the fun, the positive benefits, the value of the Wakefield Doctrine in such a way, that after reading this, people will say, “Yeah I know what those people mean!”

As you see, we have the Raison-ettes writing and contributing in the hopes of providing as much of the sense of the Doctrine as is possible. Maybe the only answer is to take it on the road. Rent halls in large cities and train people directly to carry the message of the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers out to the world.
Sort of like Fight Club.***

*    Stolen from Blazing Saddles, one of the top three funniest movies of all time
**  A ‘muster’ is an assembling of military troops for inspection. This expression, dating from 1575, first referred to passing such a review successfully (Wiktionary)
*** But without the fighting****
**** And without being Brad Pitt*****
*****Hell, without being Edward Norton

 

*aka ‘so, did the weather person mention the chance of snow?

** New to this blog or, even better, new to writing a blog

*** which is more surprising, given that we’re clarks. Heck, clarks abhor scrutiny to the point that, for us, the idea of holding up early efforts in developing any skill is…well, abhorrent. But the Doctrine is, again, demonstrating it’s remarkable benefits, at least here, in the most personal of terms. We can read those posts and smile, seeing a certain writing style showing here and there. (Overlay your own metamorphosis …errr.  metaphor HERE). lol

The effect of the principles of this here personality theory here is amply demonstrated. At least to me. And I’m not just the curator of the Wakefield Doctrine, I’m an adherent!

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