Understanding Human Behavior | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 37 Understanding Human Behavior | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 37

Reprint Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

January 31, 2022 By

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

This just in…

Funny thing, though, went looking for a post written on the 31st of January and got as far as 2014 …without finding one. The following is from 2012. It’s a fairly comprehensive ‘Origins post.

(from January 30th 2012)

In a recent Video Friday Interview, when asked what changes or additions might improve the blog, Claire Peek suggested  providing insight into the ‘why of the Wakefield Doctrine’. (As Claire put it  “…A new Reader might find interesting how the Doctrine was born but especially why….”  )

Far be it from us to shy away from a difficult task, in this case it is not so much a matter of the (historical) record of how the Wakefield Doctrine came to be, but rather the personal side of that creation/evolution/development. That is the challenge for today.

Easy part first!  The ‘Eureka Moment of the  Wakefield Doctrine ( nee the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers ):

In the early 1980’s, Scott (the progenitor scott) worked at a music store in Pawtucket. He was the main salesman and also ran the repair department (of the store), this included not only repairing musical instruments and equipment that he sold, but any equipment that might be in need of repair, including various types of tape recorders and other similar equipment.

One day I happened to stop by the store to visit scott while he worked. While there, a customer came into the store, went to the ‘repair department where scott and I were talking and presented to scott what was known as a  ‘duel cassette recorder’  (This device had the capacity to record two cassette cartridges at once and was most often used to copy the contents of one cassette to another cassette, what we would call today, making a back up. Among the controls on this ‘dubbing recorder’ were two of all the normal tape recorder controls: volume, treble and bass. Where it was different from a single cassette recorder was that it had a Master Volume control dial, which, as the name implies controlled the overall sound output of the device.) The recorder that the customer placed on the counter appeared to be new and had no signs of damage or abuse. (As the customer approached the counter, I stepped back and Scott looked up and said, ‘What can we do for you’?   The customer said to  Scott, “this thing is brand new, it worked for a couple of days, then it stopped working entirely, I can’t figure out what is wrong”.

Scott looked at the recorder briefly, without saying a word and then reached under the counter and brought out some (black) electrical tape, and tearing off a 2 inch piece of tape, taped over the Master Volume control (after returning the dial to it’s highest setting). After completing this, scott slid the device back over towards the customer and simply said, “ There, its all right now”

The customer asked to plug in the recorder, took a cassette from his pocket, tried the recorder, ran it through it’s paces; seeing that the broken tape recorder that he brought into the store now worked like new  thanked scott and walked out of the store without another word. A totally satisfied customer.

From my perspective the world shifted. For reasons not clear to this day, I not only saw what scott had seen (the nature of the equipment problem) but I saw that his solution implied a reality, a ‘context’ that was clearly different from the one that I assumed to be the same as everyone experienced.

That is the factual side of the creation of the Wakefield Doctrine. The personal side?

I had plenty of friends. Or more to the fact, I had a close circle of friends that I seemed to have acquired rather deliberately.  Sometimes, when I hear or read about people expressing anxiety about making new friends in a new school or a changed job, I will laugh to myself. I still find (in the fact of) my own comfort that this thing that real people seem to worry about, (i.e.making friends) is really so not difficult while at the same time/all the time, I feel so isolated from people in general. And the irony of this is not wasted on me! I accept now (as I did back then)  that this is just another aspect to the weird world that I inhabit.
In any event, back to the ‘personal side of the creation of the Wakefield Doctrine, I knew back then that I had two things I could count on: having a small circle of friends who ‘got me’ and living with a pervasive, never-ending sense of lacking something…  fitting in, being a part of, knowing what I was supposed to be doing in order to be like everyone else. Call it what you like, it is this certainty that ‘I am different from’ and  because ‘I am missing something’ that defines who I am and once I figure out what (or where) that missing thing is, I will no longer be different from everyone else.
I suspected then, (as I now know for certain) that the thing I needed to understand was right in front of me, but not having a clue as to what it was like, the only thing to do was try to watch everything.
Watching is not exactly synonymous with living, ( lol a joke for the clarks reading this) and so I would settle for watching as I knew that the life that I thought I was in was not really the ‘real life’ that everyone else seemed to be enjoying.
Finally, the moment described above, the scene in the music store. That I would make the leap from what I observed to what I knew, what I concluded (about reality and people) was nothing less than a total frickin gift… if I had a stronger rogerian aspect, I imagine I would go on at length about inspired insight, or serendipity but I do not have that strong a rogerian aspect. If the truth is not obvious, I have a strong (barely restrained) secondary scottian aspect. But that is a whole ‘nother Post.
So as the Lady once said, ‘that’s how it began’.

OK!!  Time to close the Post, unfortunately on  sad note…as I know that most of you already know,  Robert Hegyes passed away late last week. So we will close with the theme song to his, chef-d’œuvre

 

You looking for the Bonus Inset?  Right this way, yo. This is a clip from a Post written last July, very good explanation of the clark, scott roger thing!  We figured, hey this layout really needs shaking up, so lets do an overlay Title/new Content*

The Wakefield Doctrine has 3 personality type categories: clarks, scotts and rogers. You are mostly one (of these 3) but you still have the other 2 in background.
…and when we say personality types? what we mean is, “What kind of world do you walk out to every morning”?  Because this Doctrine is not about your likes and dislikes, favorite colors or foods, interests, hobbies, avocation or inspiration. It is about the nature of your reality.

Yes, you read that right. Reality. Each of the three types of personality in the Wakefield Doctrine experience a different reality. Nothing weird or earth-shakingly different. No crystals or herbs or inner vibrations required either. Just this:

  • clarks exist (in the world) as the perennial outsider. They are normal in every other respect, it’s just that they know that they don’t belong, they are not like other people. But, at the same time clarks are the quiet, creative, funny (except you have to really pay attention or you’ll miss their jokes), self-deprecating, hardworking people that are there all around you all this time;
  • scotts are so in your life (and you will get this description only if you are not a scott) but they are the natural leaders, natural salespeople, natural entertainers… you getting the theme here with this personality type? natural. scotts are the people who live life by the moment without restraint, consideration, forethought, it’s a wonder they live as long as they do
  • rogers (you know who you are, and right now you are denying it) rogers are the everyday, friendly, easy to talk to people that populate every workplace and classroom and corner bar. rogers will be the person you turn to when you have a secret and rogers will be the one you turn to when you want to learn the latest gossip, they are the engineers, the lawyers, the doctors and heart and soul of every PTA and neighborhood watch program in the world.

The Doctrine is different from all the other mainstream and respectable personality and self-improvement systems out there because we insist that it is not just you, it is the world itself that accounts for your life, it’s trials and tribulations, good times, bad times (we know you’ve had your share).
What sets us apart and the reason you should spend time here, is that the Wakefield Doctrine offers everyone a set of tools that is specifically meant for not only your personality type, but (these tools) are meant to work and be useful in the world that you are living in today!

*

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

RePrint Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

January 24, 2022 By

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

Quick re-post.

So, you ask, “Excuse me Mr-and-or-Ms Wakefield-Doctrine, is there a methodology to your selection of posts for these reprint (aka, back in the days of television* as ‘re-runs’) posts or is it totally random?”

Yes. Both. Today, a combination. We searched a phrase, ‘another set of everyone’, got three returns. Re-reading the first, came upon footnote 4 and said, “Hey! We’re going to the dentist this morning! Cha-ching!”

the Wakefield Doctrine Open Enrollment Day!

September 22, 2012

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

For reasons that I do not understand, we have a Post today. Perhaps it is simply that the pattern is established, i.e. that I write a new Post every other day (or third day) at minimum. Maybe it is because I have a feeling that the body of knowledge that is the Doctrine is going through yet another ‘growth spurt’. It might even be that I know that there are some Readers out there, who are on the edge of taking the leap and writing a Comment.

Whatever1

So lets keep this short. Here’s the thing:

The Wakefield Doctrine is a way of looking at people, the way they act, re-act and inter-act. The Wakefield Doctrine is a way of understanding our relationships: (with) our spouses, our friends, our jobs and the gigantic bunch of strangers that comprise the world. The Wakefield Doctrine is a tool, one that we can learn to use on ourselves to make the good things that we do better and the bad things that we do… better. The Wakefield Doctrine is a way of looking at the day to day  world that will provide us with amusement, insight and understanding. Most of all, the Wakefield Doctrine is good for:

  • getting your noisy boyfriend to not shout when you are standing in a slow line
  • convincing your girlfriend that while purple really is ‘her’ hair color, that just maybe, for her job interview she might want to go natural
  • realizing that even though your boss always finds mistakes that you have made, that you know that you can do the job better than anyone
  • convincing your husband that, while it is important to research all major purchases, perhaps taking 6 weeks to decide on lawnmower brands is a bit much
The Wakefield Doctrine is predicated on the idea that we all live our lives in what can best be called individual worldviews (a less threatening word for personal reality) and that all people are born with the potential to live in one of three distinctive worldviews:
  1. the ‘world’ of the Outsider, where there is a gap, a critical difference between us and the rest of the world, especially the people, those who exist in this worldview, we call clarks
  2. the reality of the Predator, this world is characterized by the predator-prey existence that we see in nature, those who grow up and develop in this worldview are designated as having the scottian personality type
  3. the world of connectedness, the world of belonging to the group, sometimes referred to as the herd this person, referred to as a roger develops a personality type that is predicated on the world being a quantifiable place that is subject to discernible Rules
At an early age we pick one of these three and that becomes our personal reality. We call this the predominant type. And a big difference between the Doctrine and ‘mainstream personality systems’ is that we look at the reality first and the personality type second. Makes much more sense.
Finally, while we all live our lives in one (of three) characteristic worldviews, we never lose the capacity to see the world as the ‘other two’ do. In fact,  in some people, one of the other two ‘aspects’ is developed to the point that it influences the choices and actions of that person. For example, I am a clark because my reality, the world in which I grew up and developed my ‘personality’ is that of the Outsider. I also have a highly developed secondary aspect, that of the worldview that we call a scott. That shows in some instances and, in a sense, it accounts for some of my ‘personality’ that is not strictly the result of living on the fringe.  However, that does not mean that everyone develops their ‘other two’ aspects to any degree, some people are pretty much all of the type of their predominant worldview, showing no signs of the other two.  According to the Wakefield Doctrine, all people relate to the world consistent with the world being one of the three: clarks, scotts and rogers. We know all the stuff we do about people simply because we are able to see the world as they see it.
Hey! you people who are ‘on the edge’ of writing your first Comment? Here is your opening! I want…no, I need you to add to the list above (of the things the Doctrine is good for)… I know you got something. Come on! S. and H, I see you out there. and MJ and D and the rest of you scamps5

 

 

1) as the kids2 would say

2) by kids we mean people who are:

  • not as old as us3
  • confident enough to use whatever slang word they think is appropriate ( clarks )
  • sure enough of themselves to know that they are ‘tuned in’ to the ‘young people’ and can talk to them like they want ( rogers )
  • just don’t care what words they use, they will capture your attention no matter it they have to set their own hair on fire ( scott )

3) which is most everybody it seems, we can say that ’cause this is the internet4

4) which being a virtual world, allows us to pretend that we can appear to be anything to anyone simply because we are not likely to run into them at the Dentist’s office or the health and supplement section of  the grocery store

5) we are a little weird about privacy here, most of us use a damn pen name (French, ‘Nom de Bic‘ ) so you can sign in however the hell you want.

*

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

Real quick, couper et coller, post -the Wakefield Doctrine-

January 19, 2022 By

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

Was gonna ‘work on’ my Six this morning. Then thought to myself, I thought, “Come on, dude there are quite a few people out there today who were not hanging out here, back ten or eleven years ago. You know, people with lives. People whose names rhyme with Mimi.”

lol

So many fantastic colors, I feel in a wonderland.

July 26, 2010

Welcome to:

the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) a unique, effective and fun way to understand the behavior of those around us. Whether at home or at work or at play, the Wakefield Doctrineallows you to finally make sense of the actions and reactions of your friends and family!  It will  also give you the capability to predict (their) behavior in virtually any situation!

Pretty bold claims, no?  No, (apparently not when compared to what else there is out there under the category “understanding people”).
I just did a quick search of the internet using understanding other people/behavior or others/human behavior…damn, there sure are a lot of awfully official and highly respected websites and blogs out there!  Not only are they all very well credentiallated, but they have little pictures of the author, underneath which they let you know that you are dealing with a serious writer-thing…allow me to present some examples:

Smart, authentic insights for solo advisors, practice leaders and consulting firm leaders.

Your real edge is how you do what you do.  Not your methodology but your humanology.  Are you genuine?  Do you really care about the results you’re creating?  Are you likable (but not a sycophant)?  Do you use humor effectively?  Do you get clients the answers they need and help them feel good about working with you?  Even when—especially when—you’re doing tough, game-changing work?

Readers of the Doctrine  know that we are quite comfortable copy-pasting whole websites, photos, videos, pretty much anything we feel will help us write a Post.  The above excerpt got me going, so I speed-surfed through a ton of blogs and sites when I came upon the following “About the Author”.  There was something about the completeness of the bio that totally stopped me in my tracks.  Here is what I read: (am not making this up!)

I’m a professor.  It’s my second career.  Before that I was an activist.  I had lived for six years on The Farm, the world’s largest hippie commune.  I co-founded 20/20 Vision a National environmental organization.  I ran a foundation.  I was director of Public Affairs at The Body Shop International.  I consulted to green companies like Ben and Jerry’s.  I developed water projects in Guatemala villages and earned a degree in Public Policy from U.C. Berkeley..Now I teach college-level psychology, economics, history, philosophy, marketing and sociology at Expression College for the Digital Arts.  With Deacon and other collaborators I research and write academically about some of the greatest and grandest of mysteries, the origins of life, how hierarchies emerge (like from physics to chemistry to life to consciousness), the physical origins of purposive systems (about how mattering emerges from matter) the relationship between energy and information and the nature of information.

I have three children ages 28, 25, and 18.  I play upright and electric bass (including 7 string) and sing in jazz, funk, soul, rock and folk bands.  I kid around a lot.  My students say I teach as though my hair were on fire.  I love a good conversation.  I’m pretty bad at small talk.  I speed listen to audio books and prefer it to reading texts.

A few months ago I heard the only definition of spiritual that I’d subscribe to:  An open channel between intellect and feeling, rationality and gut, taking theory to heart and heart to theory.  Most academics don’t trust this approach.  They think it distorts the theory and that detachment is better.  I think it certainly can distort, so my main aim is to figure out how to create the open channel without distorting.  I’m primarily interested in how to cultivate a sophisticated gut–wisdom–by means of more skillful and subtle critical thinking skills and methods.

Ask a question or send a topic.  It could well turn into an article

 

Damn!  No wonder we are not being contacted by major universities and/or multi-national corporations.  Our “About” content so totally sub-par!  Really need to spiff up the resume and maybe monetize a little and perhaps some sponsorship from a Consultants-R-Us blog.  That might be the best path.

Wait a minute!  Hold on now, there is something about the two clips above that is, somehow  familiar…what the hell is it?…where have I seen… direct short sentences, but “…methodology…humanology…” there ain’t no such word!  Hey! there’s a clark in there somewhere!  Yeah, that’s it!
And the second one…what is it about those long, very impressive sentences…”I ran a foundation…I consulted Ben and Jerry…I developed Guatemalan villages…I teach everything to Harvard Deans…I sing in funk-soul-rock bands… isn’t that a lot of personal pronouns?…Wait a minute! …” roger!!!  Come out of there! damn only “an-ascot wearing,-smoke-a-briar-pipe-while-holding-a-carved-Meerschaum-in-one-hand-with-the-other-resting-on-an-authentic- medieval-globe-all-while-listening-to-a-Miles Davis-interprets-Giuseppe-Scarlotti-album-(as played by Pat Methany)”, only that level roger could write an About Me like this.

We came “this” close to deleting the whole Post this morning as being either: “poor Wakefield Doctrine, we are not as famous as everyone else is” or “jeez all those other writers have better bios than we have”.  And then the obvious became obvious enough…in the above examples you see a roger and a clark writing blogs without stopping  to consider the implications and ramifications of their un-realized potential aspects stuff.
Hey, we do that kind of stuff everyday without breaking a sweat! (No example of a scott  writing a blog, the scotts are on TV selling self-absorbing, free handdrill-powered sweat rags, which double as mascara applicators).

Better now.

Besides, if we were to re-write the About Section here at the Doctrine, there simply would not be enough room.  What with DownSprings Joanne, MS AKH, glenn, Phyllis and DS#1 and, of course, we would not leave out Janie and Britney and Jimmie,  and Mr. B. not to mention the Slovenians and Mel and Jason and Ronin and Pixieblonde and all three Progenitors .  Damn, there really is not room for all of the “authors” to do a proper About the Author…unless…

“And the Above all are founding Members of the “Millard Fillmore Gregorian-Jazz Glee Club and FUnk Revival Band”.

*

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

Monday Reprint -the Wakefield Doctrine-

January 17, 2022 By

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

You wanna hear one of the more interesting insights into the nature of reality for one of our three predominant worldviews?

…but! Before we do that, lets go old school and make some provocative claims and

When you learn the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine you will be in a position to know more about the other person than they know about themselves

Everyone works as hard at getting through the day as everyone else

Each and every person you encounter today is living the perfect life

…that was fun, right?

(Only problem would be from whatever defines the readership demographic today. One of the three, they be, ‘Yeah, what else is new?’, the other two: (laughing) “Alright!” (silence) “I don’t want to burst your bubble, but you’ve over-looked one thing…“)

Better yet, lets go way old school and bulletpoint them person-al-ity types:

  1. clarks(the Outsider) distinguishing expression of relationship to reality: Upon awakening in the morning, (or dragging oneself back from reveries), the thought often is heard, “Well, no point holding off any longer, time to get back out there and deal with life.”
  2. scotts(the Predator) distinguishing social strategy: If it moves chase it. If it holds it’s ground, challenge it. It it chases you, run. All in the name of the joy of living.
  3. rogers(the Herd Member) distinguishing ambition: To discover within, (and practice without), the Right Way. Share this insight/gift/quality with all who are encountered, ignore any who do not acknowledge the benefit of being taught it.

so, you’re asking/laughing/sneering, ‘When you gonna lay ‘one of them more interesting insights’ on us?!

Here ya go:

clarks are afraid of nothing except the world around them and the people who make it up.

Thanks for coming by!

(Extra Points for any Reader what starts to mutter, “Wait just a minute! What about the Everything Rule?”)

(Double extra points for anyone thinking, “The title said ‘Reprint Monday’ and the last time I checked, today is Monday! I want my money back!”)

ok! ok! on with the Reprint

Hey! We stumbled across this short, little post from December 2013. We’re guessing, though the thing was written in December, it was an attempt at a tribute…homage… montage of the famous ‘I have a dream’ speech by Martin Luther King.

…and, as the cat would have it, today is Martin Luther King Day!

damn, you can’t make this stuff up.

(The absence of what would have followed this reference to the reprint is proof of efficacy of this here Doctrine here. At least in terms of clarks.)

(from December 2013)

 

hey!! dig this

the Wakefield Doctrine Manifesto

(i have a dream): that there is a place, a life where clarks are free to be assholes and not regret a single negative response from those around us, to live in a world where we are free to be boastful and self-promoting without fear of our heads swelling up or our face falling; a life in which we can act as we know we must without having to deal with a fear that a total stranger (who we will never, in fact, actually meet or talk to) might disapprove, (i have a dream) of forcing scotts to the ground because we think it’s funny and ignoring rogers in front of the herd because we can’t be bothered with their bullshit (i have a dream) of a personal reality where clarks can touch others in mind and spirit without needing to hide behind parenthesiseses or humor or obscuring words or phrases or stuff
(i have a dream) of a personal reality where we can live as a person who experiences the world of the Outsider, the reality of the Predator and the life of the Herd member in balance and without reservation

*

@thewakefielddoctrine #the wakefielddoctrine

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

Re-12-Print Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

January 3, 2022 By

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

Not having a direct bearing on our post, a time-travel story by the master himself, Robert Heinlein. (In our defense, today’s post contains the word ‘time’, a bunch.)

 

Time sure flies when you’re alive, don’t it?

Went searching for a Reprint and stumbled upon one the most satisfying of previous works: a post that is as close to being ‘on topic’ as is reasonable and…and! one that is Date Congruent*.

So, while I had originally intended to discuss either: 1) the Everything Rule or B) the ongoing effort to write the perfect Wakefield Doctrine Post1, what say we proceed to the reprint.

(The title of today’s post? The reprint is from 2010, as in eleven (or so) years ago?)

ha

ha

(From January 3, 2010)

Time.

In the time it takes to write this, it is about time this subject is addressed, when will it be time to get serious….it’s about Time.

The un-marked Rolodex stopped spinning this morning and came up Chambers Brothers, which means the topic is Time. (I will say with pride  that I resisted the Pink Floyd and stayed with the original source.)

On with it then.  Everything can be seen in light of the Wakefield Doctrine, ever thang.  Even Time.  Especially Time.

(BTW I did make some New Year’s resolutions, and primary among them was to present the Doctrine in as effective a manner as possible, which means that every Post/any Post contain something of the ‘real world’ that will offer concrete and objective expressions of the Wakefield Doctrine.  And I will not stint to present the Doctrine in as many different ‘contexts’ as may make themselves available.)

Time to start?

clarks are of the future, scotts of the present and rogers of the past.
(for clarks) the future never arrives, (for scotts) the present is over too soon and (for rogers) the past is essential.

All very obvious, but what are we to learn about the ‘worldview’ of each of the three in this context?

clarks, as well known by now, live in their heads.  They inhabit the world as outsiders, for various reasons clarks feel the need to earn the respect and acceptance of virtually everyone else they encounter.  Implicit in this statement is the idea that they must make an extra effort, to compensate. Being clarks, they are perfectly suited to the task; come up with a plan, something no one has thought of, in order to do something to redeem themselves…in the future.  clarks are doomed by both the (false) premise and the un-manageable definition of success.  But clarks live in their heads and their strengths are their downfall.  They are trapped by an idea, false to the rest of the world, but true to circular logic inherent in a worldview of ‘me and the rest of the world’.  And as Time passes, the requirements of the gesture that earns the respect of everyone else, grows and grows. Impossible expectations become a way of life that trades effort for acceptance, surrenders any chance to realise the falseness of the original distinction in exchange for the illusion that one more plan might be the one to make it all worthwhile.

scotts, people of action, they are the ones that live in the here and now (without the serenity).  Actions speak louder than words? Actions speak in place of thought.  The very distinctive trait of scotts, their living in and of the present, imbues them with certainty.  If your mind is reflected in your acts and your acts are of the present then you will have a certainty of purpose, which is why, for good or (very, very often) bad, scotts are the leaders.  Most people, most of the time prefer to listen (and by extension, follow) the person with the most certainty, conviction, sureness.  That would be your nearby scott.
(There is a ‘test’ utilized in sales, specifically timeshare sales, in which the sales representative will meet the customers, talk about what they will be doing in the next couple of hours and then abruptly say “follow me”.  Without hesitation, without looking back to see if the customers are, the rep will walk off.  If they  follow a sale is a near certainty, if one or both people have not followed the rep knows there is work to be done.)
The negative aspect of Time to a scott?  (One word: ‘getting old’).  Age. scotts are not the ones who ‘age well’.  Since most of their lives are lived physically, in action/in motion the decline of health and physical prowess is anathema to the scott, both male and female, (for parallel but slightly different reasons).  Want to scare a scott? tell them they are getting old. (might want to be sure your exit path is clear first, though).

rogers? too easy. (Is there a genealogist in the house?) Call from the Department of Redundancy Department1, for the first rogers  to pick of the courtesy phone…As we know the strength of rogers is the source of their limitations.  They organise and they preserve (for posterity).  But Everything a roger deems valuable enough to preserve is considered Perfect.  (As in, ‘improve on this? are you crazy didn’t you just hear the guy say Perfect?). For a roger, ‘if it is worth doing it is worth repeating,…without change or alteration’.

Damn, what a busy morning we gots here.

BREAKTIME!!!!

OK,  back to work.

Let’s consider the ‘point’ of todays’ Post.  Time is the universal, inescapable common experience.  Only problem is that we all live through it differently and more importantly, we all view the effects of Time in very different ways(or to be more exact, three different ways).  And the Wakefield Doctrine is nothing if it is not an effort to find new ways to see the world through the eyes of another person.

(Hey Slovinanss!, it’s snowing out.  Early class!  Go out there and step into the shoes of the others, have some fun.)

Messrs. Chambers, if you will…

 

1) phrase from the totally wonderful Firesign Theater (just find an old person, ask them), specifically from a line in the ‘I Think We Are All Bozos On This Bus’ album. (Album? hey I did say old person)

 

* not a ‘real’ term for time relationships**

** what? No, thank you! Some topics are more effective at triggering SOC-writing than others. Surely there is nothing more efficacious in stimulating a desired mood, not counting chocolates, a wall poster of something poignantly optimistic, or a bottle of sangria*** than mentioning time (and, without question, implying time travel).

*** provided the time and era was Middle College-dorm and one had just aced their MATs****

**** Why, yes! You’re correct, there was a time, in these pages, when that little aside would have been far more explicit and, for that matter, funny. But time do change some things. And, next time? Raise your hand and identify yourself for the other Readers.

 

1) the perfect Wakefield Doctrine post: one which a Reader, here for the first time, (and not hearing of or about the blog, the Wakefield Doctrine or any other tipoff from one of you people), reads it and understands the principles to such depth as to allow them to use our little personality theory that very same day. This would, of course, entail recognizing the clarks, scotts and rogers among the people of their world.

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