Understanding Human Behavior | the Wakefield Doctrine

TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine-

May 7, 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.

Founded by the estranged first wife of C.S. Lewis’ long-time driver, Joe, the TToT has become one of the internet’s most enduring grat-blogs. What follows, while in no way intending to represent the sophistication, (and rationality), of most of the other participants in this ‘hop, is what we choose to cite for those people, places and things that elicit the psycho-emotional state of gratitude.

1) Una

2) Phyllis (if you look closely in the review mirror, you can see Phyllis). Why, yes, when the three of us go for a car ride Una always gets ‘shotgun’.

3) the Wakefield Doctrine (the implied ‘which’ in our fav Latin phrase: sine qua non (the ‘not’ being: everything internet)

4) the Six Sentence Story bloghop

5) the Zombie Christmas Project Chapter 7! (Matthew 6:30)

6) end of an interesting writing project/exercise in the form of a co-written Serial Six Sentence Story. An ‘adventure’ involving a new character (in the world of Ian Devereaux) and a long-standing character from Tom (‘Most-excellent Namer-of-characters and part-time chef at the Six Sentence Café & Bistro).

We wrote alternating ‘chapters’ with no effort to coordinate narrative or any other element other than location. We, both of us, claim membership and tenure in the school of ‘seat-of-the-pants’ writing. Tom’s concluding entry: Here Our concluding entry: Here. We both provide backlinks to make the entire story available, which surely enhances the read.

7) hey, you know how, at the end of some Marvel movies, they insert a scene that ties to the movie you just watched? Not really an outtake, more like a scene from the editing room floor? Well, after completing my part of the un-named serial story with Tom, I got to thinking about Rue DeNite and Rocco.

“Syrup?”

Rocco eye-browed the rack of little, squarish glass bottles of pancake syrup that, through the mitosis of condiments common in 4:00 am visits to the local IHOP, ended on his side the napkin dispenser.

“Nah, thanks,” Rue looked down at her plate of biology textbook-sized slices of French Toast, “I could use the ashtray.”

The restaurant was at the tail-end of a customer ebb tide, the forty-four minutes, in the course of a 24 hour day, when more people left than arrived. Never a problem distinguishing between those of the ebb from people of the flow. The former moved with the slow caution appropriate to the end of a day, particularly those for whom success (or failure) has not yet been validated. The latter had, for the most part, the faces of children entering the first grade in Catholic school.

“Hey, Rocco, thanks for, you know, back there.” Rue stared into her coffee mug, “I’m really sorry I fucked up,” giving up on seeing a credible future in the round mocha mirror, “I hate the idea of letting Lou down like this, what with that grammar guy making off with all that cash.”

‘Don’t worry about the money. Ain’t nothin’ in the grand scheme of things.” Rocco dabbed the corners of his mouth with a twice folded and thoroughly archaic cloth napkin.

“I’ll let you in on a little secret,” tucking the napkin just under the overhang of the china plate, at precisely the four o’clock position, he continued, “My boss, sorry, our boss, thinks more moves ahead than Boris-fuckin’-Spassky or, for you Z-Gens, whatever-fricken-acryonm the current AI product is being marketed under. As Lou’d say, “Don’t worry about nothin'”.

“Sure, I’m tryin’, but as soon as we get back from Miami; assuming I’m not in some landfill with my EZ Pass cancelled, I’m gonna put in for some vacation time.” her china mug created a two-beat accent as she put it down on the pink formica, “I’ve always wanted to visit merry ‘old England’.

Standing next to the end of the booth, right-hand extended, Rocco smiled in a way that gave Rue an idea for dance routine when she finally returned to the Bottom of the Sea Strip Club and Lounge.

“Did you go to Catholic School?” Rue shrugged into the overcoat that has body-guard-size too large as Rocco continued,

“Well I did. Don’t remember a lot, but I can spell the shit out words,” the woman at the cash register smiled at his reference to a form of punishment favored by certain orders of nuns,

“One passage from the Bible has stayed with me, I even remember the reference: Romans 12:19-21,

“Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith…”

Rue felt a reflex grin form as she stepped into the early morning parking lot as Rocco’s voice increased in volume,

“…saith Lou Ceasare.”

8) something, something

9) hey, speaking of Friends of the Doctrine, Nick has a new gig (in addition to his regular blog*) as part of a group called ‘The Rhythm Section‘. You oughta go check it out. Tell ’em the Doctrine sent ya.

10) Secret Rule 1.3 from: the Book of Secret Rules (aka the Secret Book of Rules)

music vids

*
*

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

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

April 25, 2023 By clarkscottroger

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

…we were referencing the concept of secondary and tertiary aspects (in the Wakefield Doctrine).

Early on in this blog, the effects of ‘the other two’ aspects provided a proper answer to those who would ask, “Most of the time my son-in-law behaves in manner very much that conforming to the personality type of a clark. But then, not often, but frequently enough, he gets all sentimental and… well, like one of those rogers. You know, very social, quite analytical. So which is he?”

So the thing about secondary and tertiary aspects: we have the potential, but unlike that fact that we grow up and develop our social strategies and style of interacting with the world, a significant secondary (or tertiary) aspect is not inevitable. Especially to a noticeable level, evident in the person’s behavior.

There are some people who manifest their predominant worldview with no sign of a secondary or tertiary. Poster-people for the three predominant worldviews.

The thing about secondary aspect, (especially), is that they (the behavior, attitude, traits and social style that are a person’s response to a given personal reality, i.e. the Outsider(clarks), the Predator(scotts) or the Herd Member(rogers)) tend to manifest only at time of duress. In a bad spot, nothing the person does helps, emergency behavior. Just a flash of behavior that is in contrast to the person on a day-to-day basis.

There is also the case of a significant secondary aspect that is aroused by something within the person’s life that is of standout value. I am an example of that.

Running out of time.

here, read this:

Hey! wait! wait a minute!!

the second topic should be, ‘Fine!! I get there’s a secondary and tertiary aspect. But, by definition (and future RePrint post) the ‘other two’ may be difficult to distinguish from each other. How do we do that?”

“Enough of the theory!” the Wakefield Doctrine “…the real world, tell how it does us any good in the real world, holmes”

November 20, 2013

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

Alert Reader Denise writes:

“…Doctrine! It has provided me with much insight into rogers. In a nutshell: they will always be the ones to say no. They will do nothing to disturb the boundaries, the lines that frame their world. clarksneed to take notice of this. The sooner the better. I leave it in your hands, Clark, to explain to new readership the why. Maybe you need to write the answer in the form of a post.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And since we are talking about rogers**

Our Friend Zoe says to us in a Comment, she says:

“… my new roger is settling in to his new environment a bit too well… coveting my office…I loan my office out readily without reservation, but he made it very clear by saying ” I want that office… when are you leaving?” and has left telltale signs of his usage… I may have a rogerian twist and be a clark at heart… but never piss off my scott.“

Sorry. The ‘damage’ is done.

Not to ‘baby-coat’¹ our assessment, but you are witnessing a roger challenging your membership in the herd. How is that possible, you ask? The frickin guy got there 20 minutes ago and he thinks that he can include himself in the group? ( you say with not a little emotion). What gives him the right to try that? If you are in possession of any of these thoughts, I hate to tell ya, but you have just painted yourself a lovely shade of blue². It is totally ‘too late’.

Not ‘too late’ to make things right, restore the proper balance, achieve an understanding among the players in this little drama…. just ‘too late’ to avoid a ‘conflict’ with the roger in your environment.

If he had perceived you as another roger or a scott he would have:

presented his credentials, not to meet your approval but to allow him to ‘tune himself to the herd’ (you know how the sound of cattle and herds of cows are often presented as a single ‘MOO’ ? well, I think our Progenitor roger will attest to the fact that what is heard as a single MOO is, in fact, comprised as a harmony among the members… your roger probably started with presenting some of his history to everyone he came into contact with…to hear the pitch of his new herd)

presented his ‘soft-underbelly’ if he thought you were a scott (at least, a predominant scottian female)… but this observation is moot, because in that particular tango, the woman leads… (at least initially and to the extent that the average person is able to see

So… now you have yourself a roger feeling like he can enhance his standing in the herd by making you appear more and more the Outsider. Remember, a dominance move by a roger, in contrast to that of a scott is never made ‘alone’. While he may appear to be addressing the matter of use of the office space to you directly, most of his efforts are actually directed to the others in your environment. rogers always work in the context of the group, the herd. It is this ‘contexting’ that rogers will base their strategy on, that and, be on the lookout for (him) invoking referential authority. ( Hey, I know you love your space..I respect that, but we were talking about how, with the practice growing we all need to work together more…”)

All kidding aside. you now have a problem that, interestingly enough, can be seen as a manifestation of the trap that would appear to an inherent aspect of the desire for self-improving oneself. You rightly know that you can ‘over-come’ this person’s attempt to reduce the quality of your personal work environment. But at what price? The Doctrine states that we all retain access to those two worldviews that are not our predominant worldview. In your case, (we hear you say), ‘ a clark with secondary rogerian and tertiary scottian aspects’. but…. but! here is where the conflict begins to manifest. (If) you are a clark, then your personal reality is that of the Outsider…which makes perfect sense given your situation. You can access your scottian aspect and inter-act with this roger as would a scott, and as we have already said, if this were a scott-on-roger thing, none of the the above would be happening. So, you can dominate the roger rather decidedly. But then what? Will you trade your predominant (clarklike) worldview for a victory in a single circumstance? Or… is there a way to reach an understanding with this person? unfortunately, the Wakefield Doctrine says ‘no’.

Well, sorta. We’re playing with the words now. clarks think, scotts act and rogers feel. So, if you want to reach an understanding, you are out of luck. That is not to say that there is nothing you can do, but it should not be thought of as an understanding.

Lets return to a strategy we have previously offered: ‘love your roger‘ This is still the preferred strategy, but it will require a bit more….finessing. Yes, you should ‘love your roger‘, but that does not mean (as is all too often the case with clarks), you must allow him to do as he wishes. But, to love your roger requires that you relate to him on an emotional basis… more than that! you must regard him on an emotional basis. We’re using italics here to convey the idea that, if you are able to know him completely on an emotional basis you will be relating to him as a member of the herd. That’s right! trade that lovely azure coat for a comforting wrap of brown and white spots!

(will continue later today…. )

Wait a minute!! If you haven’t seen it yet, watch the scott and roger…. everything is right there. (the roger looking to left and right for the herd that is his context, his invoking referential authority, his offering of emotional currency…his love).

1) a rogerian expression of sorts… a fascinating characteristic use of language found only in rogers…here, go to the page on rogers down towards the bottom

2) a reference to the description of a clark in the context of a group, or perhaps it would be more realistic to say, ‘a clark in contrast to a group’ in any event, the term ‘blue monkey’ is a remnant of grad school days when we learned of (or came to believe that we learned of) an experiment in which one young monkey was painted (more likely dyed) blue and returned to his troop, you can imagine the result. In the Wakefield Doctrine we use the blue monkey image several ways, as a symbol of the innate outsider-ness that clarks exhibit when in a social setting, and it is also used to refer to (a) clarks self-sabotaging by make an extra effort to ‘contrast their differences.

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

TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine-

April 23, 2023 By clarkscottroger

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

This is the Doctrine’s weekly contribution to the Ten Things of Thankful bloghop. Each week we compile a list of the people, places and things that have, in time recently passed or lodged in the distant memory like a shard of mirror stuck in the plaster in an old building. We list them in a list and link it to the TToT. You’re invited to read and enjoy or write, link and (also) enjoy.

For this week:

1) Una (Saturday Day morning tv)

2) Phyllis

3) the Wakefield Doctrine

4) the Una garden (Phase I Winter’s Rest Soon to be Disturbed)

5) the Zombie Christmas Project Phase Phive (Hey! Readers Clap your hands. Maybe thats all the zombie tree needs to to flourish)

6) Cottage project: Patio and walkway. Gathering bids. Hopefully this Summer

7) Six Sentence Story bloghop

8) something, something

10) Secret Rule 1.3 from the Book of Secret Rules aka the Secret Book of Rules) “…getting to, like, Grat #6 means if you don’t sabotage yourself, you’re home free for the week… almost. To dodge the hubris arrow, best to wait until this, Number 10 before citing it as a Grat. (PS… go back and do something with that blank at Number 9!)

music vids

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

Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘thx, Mimi’

April 5, 2023 By clarkscottroger

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

oh, man!

(this is either: ‘oh man this is the perfect post for the today’s topic?’ or it’s ‘oh man! this is the most on-point post for the topic today!’)

Today’s topic is (as often the case) suggested by/inferred from/insinuated/ and/or ‘jeez, it’s all there, save some typing for the Six Sentence Story tonight, cher’ from a comment by Mimi

(Ok, I’ll concede that point. But only because of my Reply to her Comment. (It would have been killer-insightful and almost, ‘Eureka!* I’ believe she’s got it!’)

~~Tuesday~~ Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- “of occupations, worldviews and the Everything Rule’

April 12, 2017

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

Firefighters are rogers and cops are scotts

While there clearly are some occupations that congeal* with one personality type more than the others, there is nothing in the Wakefield Doctrine that says that clarks, scotts and rogers cannot excel at any and all, occupations, avocations, careers and…hobbies.

The example at the top of this post serves as the best illustration of how some occupations demand personal qualities found in one over the other predominant worldviews. This comparison provides a way to come to a greater understanding and appreciation of the nature of the reality that ‘the other two’** personality types confront each and every morning.

(A word about predominant worldview and personal reality. When the Doctrine refers to: personal reality and worldviews, we mean reality. Just because it’s personal, as in the woman next to you on the bus may not perceive how uncomfortable you are with her gum chewing or the fact that some people just creep you out, before they say or do anything, doesn’t mean it’s not real. It doesn’t mean that it’s in a lesser category of real, reality is real. To the person experiencing it. What makes me a clark (my predominant worldview) is not my inclinations and sub-conscious urges or predilections or tendencies. What make me a clark (or, better, what makes me recognizable as a clark) are the behaviors, learned responses, reactions and interpersonal strategies that I’ve acquired through a lifetime of living in the reality of the Outsider. These traits and reactions and style of interacting are the best I could come up with to deal with the world that I am in. I am not mistaken for a roger, if for no other reason than the fact that the way I relate myself to the world around my is totally inappropriate to living in the world of the Herd Member.)

dig?

About those cops and firefighters… so, one job involves driving cars real fast and if that’s not noisy enough there’s a siren on the roof and the highest expression of the profession is to chase down and capture people…. and tie them up and such. remind you of anyone?

the other job relies on routine and tradition, brotherhood and cooperation and preserving houses and buildings, and forests, if there are no houses on fire, to preserve what is… save people if necessary, the first thing is to put the fire out and not let it spread and destroy other buildings.

…. ok, personality type identification (PTI) aide: picture the firefighter, everyone is in the fire station, maintaining the equipment, polishing the brass and chrome until it shines, coiling hoses now, picture Joe Pesci and Jack Nicholson at the fire station. any problem with that? lol

The Everything Rule? ‘everyone does everything, at one time or another‘ which is to say clarks can be effective cops, scotts can be kindergarten teachers (in fact, a friend of the Doctrine happens to be just that), so there is no, ‘hey that’s a scottian job, you can’t do that!‘ The intent of the Everything Rule is to remind us that it is how a thing manifests in an individuals reality that counts.

* an approximation of what is called a rogerian expression. the maladaptive, semi-aggressive use of language; the result is a shocking and hilarious mis-use/pronunciation/application of a word

** all of us live our lives in one of the three worldviews (Outsider/Predator/Herd Member), what we refer to as our ‘personality type’ is nothing more than a remarkably comprehensive group of social adaptations and interpersonal strategies, as appropriate to the character of the reality we grow up in… we have one predominant worldview, we never lose the capacity to experience the world as do ‘the other two’ personality types. Hence the value in appreciating the other guys reality…provided you’re a clark, of course.

* subtle, but gratuitous link-drop to Nick… one reason: a) he’s got a serial running on his site that’s kinda addictioning** but it’s only on his site and not at the Six and 2) he’s one of the few Proprietors*** that I have facebook linkage and if’n you’re gonna try and game the internet, then why not treat yourself to some muy cool story while your’re there****

** not a ‘real’ word

*** a bunch of ‘people’ what hang out at a virtual-but-fun-place in the blogosphere

**** tell ’em the Doctrine sent ya

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

RePrint Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

March 13, 2023 By clarkscottroger

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

Despite Mondays, of late being days when we reprint old posts as jumping-off points, we’ve never been at a loss for inspiration or topic or ideas whenever we sit down at the keyboard of our solid-state Electrola. This a direct product due entirely to the nature and reason of the Wakefield Doctrine itself.

… lets state the statement that you, if a New Reader, should latch onto at your earliest convenience:

‘...the primary benefit of employing the perspective that is afforded by the Doctrine is to better appreciate how we relate ourselves to the world around us and the people who make it up.’

Of course, this represents more the ‘Why’ as opposed to the ‘What’ of our little blog.

(ProTip: the coolest thing about the followers/readership of the Wakefield Doctrine is that they/it are, for the most part, clarks. No, we amend that statement! The cool thing is that we draw and attract scotts and rogers who are hobbled/burdened (lol… predominant worldview joke) with a significant clarklike secondary aspect.

No! Wait… the actual coolest thing is there are Readers of this blog, there is a readership that has endured since we started writing this thing.

Where is the time going?!@?

lets find something that turns up when we search ‘demographic’ and ‘readership’:

quick morning Post the Wakefield Doctrine (“…you do know that Thursday is the secret Friday of the Workweek, right?”)

March 6, 2014

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

Good discussion in the Comments section, of late. And the Official Doctrine answers are: yes, yes, no, well, if you mean with clothes on, no, are you out of your fuckin mind, yes, yes (and lastly), I’m sorry, you must be at the wrong blog, I think the one you want is over at http://www.ammobroads’nbeer.com … or maybe you need to stop at http://www.crocketingcondomssayingIloveyouwithtwopointysticks.com

alright, now that I have that out of my system. lets get down to the basics:

the demographic of Readers here is beginning to show a trend to the scottian, a surprising but welcome development. the core Readership remains (female) clarks (and possibly male clarks, but they choose to remain unidentified… for reasons still not understood.) I suspect I know why, of course, but I will refrain from saying what I think (well, duh!).

Well, if that’s the case, then clearly we need to address our scottian Readers!

To begin with, we all know that you have to decide for yourself which of the three worldviews is your predominant, in other words are you a scott or a roger or a clark. This Rule was originally intended to prevent Readers from getting all….rogerian on new Readers, like “well, look at the new clarklike females! woo hoo hey girl you want to come over and watch some Ken Burns documentaries sometime?” The Rule still obtains, it is not only for each of us to decide which personal reality we are in, but it is also part of the process of Learning the Doctrine. However….

…seeing how we’re talking about our scottian Readers, this Rule is not quite so necessary. lol not that you can’t make scotts do things, but ‘needing to be protected from rogers‘??!! not so much.

OK enough of the intro. Lets talk about scotts:

mercurial as our friends over at Free Miriam say: “…characterized by rapid and unpredictable changeableness of mood”

natural leaders… this is an often overemphasized quality. the reason why scotts are considered good, natural leaders is because they are not given to ambiguity, they make a decision, done! people believe that ‘certainty equals correct choice’… god bless ’em.

scotts act, clarks think, rogers feel

confident (see: ‘natural leaders’) (there’s an old saying at the Doctrine: ‘scotts are often wrong, but they are never un-certain’)

(keeping the ‘everyone does everything at one time or another’ Rule in mind): scotts make excellent surgeons but not good physicians, cops but not firefighters, madams but not working girls, Teachers of the very young or the hormonally be-sotted (pre-school or high school, of course), a rough carpenter but not a finish carpenter, a Defense Attorney but not Prosecutor, a soldier but not a politician

the social identity of the scott is the pack, as a predator, scotts prefer to work alone but will, should circumstances dictate, gather with other scotts for a common (albeit) temporary purpose

you can spot the scott in any social gathering, they will ‘work the room’… the scott will challenge everyone ‘in the room’, literally (in the case of male scotts) pushing them on the shoulder or figuratively as often the case with scottian women

(at a party): the male scott will have a circle of people around him and he will be telling one funny joke after another, becoming more and more outrageous with each joke, the female scott will have a circle of male attendees, accreting like layers of coral… mostly rogers, of course they will have a clarklike female friend nearby. this friend will not be a part of her immediate dynamic, rather she (the female clark) is used to shed the rogers and re-assure the scott that there is something that she has not thought/said/done a thousand times before… she makes the rogers laugh, her clarklike friend makes her laugh…. (sort of a Le Trou Normand in a social sense of the word).

Ok that’s it for today