Understanding Human Behavior | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 30 Understanding Human Behavior | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 30

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: , , , , ,

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: , , , ,
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »