Understanding Human Behavior | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 46 Understanding Human Behavior | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 46

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: , , ,

Reprint Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

December 20, 2021 By

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

Someone, this weekend, on the Saturday Night Drive call-in, mentioned the style of the writing in the earliest of days of this blog. We all laughed, as many people do, when recalling the beginning of skill development. Baby pictures, with or without an actual baby. (lol)

We laughed and celebrated the Wakefield Doctrine at that, as it is one of the more universal, easily-identifiable-with effects of applying the principles of the Doctrine.

New Reader: full disclosure, the person behind the editorial ‘we’ is a clark. (With a significant secondary scottian aspect. But that’s for another Post.) And as a clark, they (or we… this sometimes gets a little cluttered, pronounistically-speaking) would be seriously loathe to go back and look at what came before. To be more precise, to be held up for scrutiny, in even the indirect context of considering early skill in the writing thing.

ah!

ha!

As it the true intent of a Reprint Monday, we’ve stumbled across an interesting topic.

What is the kryptonite of all three predominant worldviews?

(Quick clarification, qualification of our thesis: We’re not talking antithetical, in the fundamental reality sense. Today, using the kryptonite metaphor we’re referring to ‘biggest fear’, ‘that which the person fears the most’. You know, like public speaking, heights, and nude spiders on airplanes. The antithetical list is actually way more interesting. Spoiler Alert: they each reflect the other, in a three-way sequence sorta way.)

So, for the predominant worldviews of the Wakefield Doctrine, the three most fear-inspiring things:

  • clarks (Outsider) scrutiny While there is enough to surely fill pages and paragraphs, analyzin’ and dramatizin’ the way clarks feel about scrutiny, let’s try and put it in terms a New Reader will identify with (providing they are clarks). In keeping with the slightly archaic feel of the word itself, scrutiny is the feeling that is engendered by un-invited intimacy. (We’ll be happy to respond with elaboration on this, provided you use the Comment function.) (lol)
  • scotts (Predator) routine Surely the unhappiest of scotts are those who are constrained in choice of activity, while compelled to exert their energy in a manner that is point and meaning -less.
  • rogers (Herd Member) shunning Hey! Here’s an example from the same conversation this last Saturn’s day. And, oddly enough, the best illustration of the original point: our reaction to the idea that our writing was very… different that it is today. There was a turning point, back in the early days, when, in response to the typical free-wheeling experimentation that is common to acquiring one’s voice, in writing, someone said, ‘Be careful. You get too far out there and all your friends will be offended and reject you.’ (Our response) was, ‘Well, if that happens, I guess I’ll just have to get a whole new set of ‘everyone’.’ There was, (in our conversation, of this Saturday past) an invisible intake of breath followed by silence. On the part of the roger in the conversation. It was, not shock, as that is an active state of response. It was more, an existential awe. Beyond the pale, beyond any part of even the most fundamental of assumptions and premiseses…

Interesting, no?

Gots to go for now. You should join us one of these Saturday nights. It’s fun.

 

 

 

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

RePrint Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

December 13, 2021 By

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

New Reader Warning*! We only scanned today’s reprint post. Spotted a bullet-point, thought, ‘How bad can it be? We did see bullet-points, did we not?’

Ok then.

In the spirit of typo-veritas, lets just paste it write** here and we’ll be mostly done!

So, from September first, in the Anno Domino 2015*** we present the Monday lesson.

Of course, the reason there is a Wakefield Doctrine is (to) provide a tool to self-improve oneself.

the Wakefield Doctrine is a unique, useful (very useful) and fun way to better understand the behavior of the people in our lives. Really more of a[n] additional perspective on life, the Wakefield Doctrine begins by posing a very simple, (but deceptively difficult), question: ‘how does that person relate themselves to the world around them?’ The Wakefield Doctrine provides a set of personality types that, on the basis of the description of three distinct ‘worldviews’ (one’s personal reality), makes insight into the context from which a person makes decisions (all types of decisions, i.e. how to act, how to feel, what to think etc), very possible. This insight all puts  you in the position of knowing more about that person. (Or, of course, ourselves, if we’re that ‘other person’ and, if you happen to be a clark, you are so that ‘other person’.) With the proper application of the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine, you need never again hear yourself say, “How could they go and do such a thing?! I really thought I knew them better than that!”

the Wakefield Doctrine proposes three characteristic ways a person relates themselves to the world around them:

  1. (as) the Outsider (clark)  this is the person who is quiet (to the point of invisibility), funny (if you can hear/understand them), a very good listener and (a) near-psychotically unselfish person who will do anything for their friends (except stop beating up on themselves)
  2. (as would a) Predator (scott) fun? exciting? hell! how about exciting-fun creators?!? like that Tasmanian Devil, (on the old Warner Brothers cartoon), except some of them wear heels and LBD(s) to a level of effectiveness as to tempt the FDA to require a warning label… the male scotts are even more so, if for no other reason than the fact that they achieve that effect (on their intended audience/prey) by virtually any means, including, but not limited to, jumping on the hood of a moving car, make really loud digestive (and post-digestive) sounds and generally being exciting to be with, (be sure to have the name of a bail bondsman in your pocket before heading out for the evening with them).
  3. (in the manner of) a Member of the Herd (roger) you want to see how they get those scale model, 4-masted sailing vessels into the bottle? do you need to have someone express an astounding level of enthusiastic interest in what you have to say, hate to forget which is the salad fork and which is the cake fork?? find yourself a roger! they’ll be glad to show you and teach you the history of tablecloths while they’re at it!

the goal of this understanding as to how a person relates themselves to the world around them?  simple. it’s in pursuit of better understanding. appreciation. identification. We strive to become able to see the world ‘as the other person is experiencing it’ and if that does nothing else, it will put us in a much better position to understand the people in our lives.

And… and!  you’ll know what the other person will do, sometimes even before they do! No! seriously! With a sound understanding of the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine, you will know way more about the other person than you have any right to know. …fun, too.

* not our favorite Warning to New Readers. Our favorite Warning to New Readers is, in, fact: ‘Warning. If you persist in reading (these) posts, you will learn the principles of the Doctrine to a sufficient degree to allow you to see the clarks, scotts and rogers in your world. But that’s not our Warning. Our real, no! seriously, warning is that you may not be able to not see the clarks, scotts and rogers in your world.’

** yes, a little play upon words

*** and a thanks to the cat for the suggestion of a music vid. We had been drawing worse than a blank up until this moment. (Worse than a blank? A tune from last week’s Six that was playing in our head ever since.)

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