Understanding Human Behavior | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 6 Understanding Human Behavior | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 6

Too/to/two [z] day -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

Last week we were looking at the Wakefield Doctrine (or, more properly, the perspective afforded by it) as a foreign language. Well, more to the point, as if it were the language of a non-native country that you found yourself waking up into without any knowledge of getting there or the means by which this transport was achieved.

Damn! Horror and Ecstasy Singularity!

New Readers? Today’s post has become one directed, pretty much solely at the clarks out there. Not to worry. There’s something you should know about the Wakefield Doctrine. The primary value of our little personality theory lies in both the reason it exists and the reason it is such an efficacious-frickin tool for self-improvement, to wit: ‘You can’t get it wrong, you can’t break it and you don’t have to learn it, you need only allow yourselfs to recognize it.’

wait?!! what? Which of you in the amorphous cloud of clarks, (conforming to the shape of the rooms that we move through, assuring both maximum proximity to the center while never getting more than an invisible step out the door) just said: “Doesn’t that sound like the three predominant worldviews of the Doctrine? And, since I/we have been granted quotation marks, why is there never an UnReliable Narrator in these little speachlettes?

Allow us to retort*

That would be a reasonable insight. About the statement in the first sentence directed to New Readers. That quote is a (Hey! New word for your Faithful Curator!) ‘pleonasm’.

Back to the business of how anyone with the desire can ‘get’ and apply the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine to their advantage today.

(Just was thinking: ‘More instructions? On the best method or simply provide examples of observations?)

Here’s an simple statement:

scotts and rogers have zero percieved need for the Wakefield Doctrine (or anything like it). clarks do. In fact, the thing about our little personality theory is that the people who ‘get it’ are not all, omg! what a new take, seminal statement, sheer genius!… no. we (clarks or scotts/rogers with a way significant secondary clarklike aspect) on encoutering this thing of ours are: ‘Yeah. That makes sense. Reminds me of the stuff I thought about when I was a kid alone/growing up where something critical was missing/at work yesterday. Cool’

We recognize the Doctrine like a lost twin/half a duprass/punchline to our favorite joke. We don’t really need to learn it. We now have a new vocabulary to help us navigate the strange world we woke up to, one morning when we were too young to know why, but old enough to know not to insist that the people around us explain it.

Anyway, getting off-track. Yes there is a commonality in the statement that correlates to the three predominant worldviews. We’ll leave it as extra credit for anyone wishing to explore it as independent study.

 

 

* courtsey of the writer of the screenplay of ‘Pulp Fiction’ and the Department of Redundancy Department…and the Natural Guard**.

** you’ll need to be old or a clark to uncover the source of this quote (hint: Firesign Theatre)

Share

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

Sure, a RePrint post never hurt no one.

New Readers? Ask the question. The one you, (clarks and those with significant secondary clarklike aspects) want to ask. Ok. One hint: it rhymes with ‘What’s the quickest way to establish what the Doctrine personality types apply to my friends and fambly?’

a) consider the person. of the three (clarks, scotts and rogers) which is the ‘No fricken’ way’? Discard that one. 2) with the remaining two, side-by-each, count the pronouns; c) with the one (of the remaining two predominant worldviews) ask your questions: i. Does this person experience the world as I do? If yes. Throw out your previous answers and start again. (But not before reading three non-Six Sentence Story/TToT/Unicorn Challenge posts).

You got this.

Hello no, no there is plenty of room down here in front y’all should come on in and set awhile

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

This is the blog that has it all! Clever photos (from the treasure trove of drawings and pictures and paintings to be found in/on the internet), catchy and occasionally intriguing music videos graciously pre-donated by the self-less people in and around youtube and other similar take-one caches and information (god! do we have information, not just a lot of information but all kinds, information that is: true, accurate, mis-informed, well-intentioned, subversive, coercive, divisive and mostly free; all presented in a way that best serves the ultimate judge of value, us.) And this blog has what no one else has in, on or around the Internet, it has the Wakefield Doctrine. Which is, as Regular Readers will attest to, a unique, beneficial and fun way to look at the behavior of those in our lives. Whether at home or at work or at play, with the perspective of the Wakefield Doctrine, you can finally understand why our family and friends and co-workers do the things that they do! And have fun doing it! Oh, and by the way? with the tools you will acquire from understanding the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers, you will not only understand people, you will be able to predict the behavior of the people in your life!  (Pretty not-bad, eh Missy?)  Once you are able to determine whether a person is a clark or a scott or roger, then you will be able to reliably and accurately predict their reaction to virtually any situation.

(Well, it’s true…) With the information contained in this blog, (in the Pages and these Posts) you will learn pretty damn quick how to spot a roger or a scott and/or a clark. With the information contained in this blog, (in the Pages especially) you will learn to see the world through the eyes of the other person, you will know the nature of ‘the relationship’ between the person and the world (they believe they are in), With the information contained in this blog you will come to understand yourself  better and be able to change whatever you might want to change (if you are a clark) or take advantage of the other persons need for change (if you are a scott) or simply be even more certain of your place in the world (if you are roger). All this and more.

A note to New Readers and/or Visitors “Be sure to try this at home. All that you read is not done by professionals, it is all done on a whim and a prayer. Perhaps a better description is (courtesy of the Progenitor roger) this is improvisational academics. But why the hell not, the only person you can hurt is yourself (if you are a clark doing it wrong) or the other person (if you are a scott and you will surely get it wrong at the start) or no one cause you know there is no point to it (if you are a roger).

Very Important Point…even though it is written throughout this frickin ‘zoo-as-personality-theory’, the most basic premise to the Wakefield Doctrine is that the three types (clarks, scotts and rogers) together comprise the range of ‘behavior’ of all of us. The potential range of behavior might be a better description. Put another way, all of us, including the scott who has wandered away 2 paragraphs ago, have the qualities of all three. The Wakefield Doctrine says that at one point in early life, we become predominately one of the three. But we never lose the potential of the other two. (As a slightly obsequious bit of flattery, it is further maintained that anyone getting (this far) in the Doctrine is a somewhat more superior example of their type. An un-alloyed clark would have decided in the first sentence that they had already thought of this and move on, the full throttle scott would have skipped all this and gone straight to the video and stayed only if they liked the song and a pure roger would not have stayed any longer than it took for him to decide that this was not Family Tree dot Com.) But you are not like that, are you?

(Oh yeah, the Wakefield Doctrine is also gender neutral and culture neutral.  But I am out of clever ways to present an example of this, while still making the distinction among the three).

So come on in, read this shit and tell a friend.

If you stay around you will see that we have a number of regularly repeating themes/features/characters whatever. There are people who will write Posts and portions of Posts, these are referred to as Progenitors and DownSprings. You will also see reference to Friends of the Doctrine, people who have their own blogs and/or websites and come and contribute from time to time.  And there is Mill Fill High. This is an “imaginary” high school with students and staff that you will see turn up from Post to Post. As a device Mill Fill has been fun and useful, for example, there are a couple of Posts from late last year/early this year, that consisted of a ‘Lecture’ to the CSR 101 class (it will make sense later) where the Progenitor roger and DownSpring Ms AKH and glenn all had the opportunities to expound on the Doctrine. All in a safe and supportive environment. Aren’t blogs wonderful?

So stick around and see if you can pick up on this things of ours. There are some movie clips to illustrate behavior as seen in clarks, scotts and rogers, those are helpful. And there are Comments from Regular Readers that will also help you get to that point where, in the course of the day you will find yourself saying, “Damn! That has got to be one of those scott people!” (Correct term is scottian, pronounced sco shun).  Most likely your first eureka moment will be in response to rogers, given that there are so many of them. In any event, have fun and let us know what you have questions on…remember the saying, “there are no stupid questions, there are just your questions”.

Oh, yeah….hats (for your damn heads). You will see in the Fashion Center examples of Wakefield Doctrinefashion items. From time to time we have contests and from time to time we just give these fine, fine head coverings away. Well, today is your lucky day. For the first two Readers who write a Comment there will be sent (to you) a (nearly free) hat (for your damn head). That simple.
(The ‘nearly free’? That just means that we require a photo of your new hat in front of a recognizable local landmark, with or without the support of  (your damn) head. As we have said before, camera-shy clarks can get one of their more attractive friends to model the hat. All we want is a photo(s) of the hat and the geography. Example from about a month ago is Mel wearing his hat (on his own damn head) in front of a lighthouse in “Michigan”. Yo, thanks Mel.   You get the idea, no?)

Mr. B! Sure come on up and take a bow…lots of new Readers…no, I don’t think they need to hear your side of the story…nobody cares anymore…I know! I’m as surprised at that satement as you are…whats you gots, B?  (yeah something on that end of the spectrum…we have a little scott who is feeling kinda sad and a little mopey…gimme sumpin to cheer his ass up…)

*

Share

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

so, we were talking yesterday about the language of (one’s) personal reality. For illustration, example and ‘damn! I’ve done that!’ among the clarklike Readers allow us to retort.

In the context of the Doctrine that not only includes core vocabulary: ‘Excuse me‘… ‘Don’t mean to…’ ‘If only…’ with the nature and character of the world out there* as object; there is, of course, technical (and learned and, like universally respected) aspect of language that’s way beyond the scope of this Post.** But this guy Korzybski is fun to read.

And besides, the Wakefield Doctrine has never had the ambition of being mainstream-accredited. (That’s kind of a lie, we’d of loved being all world famous. This thing of it is, we lack the requisite level of rogerian aspect. Which, in our case, is a pretty-fricken weak tertiary aspect.)

New Readers! You have a predominant worldview aka personality type. It is that of the Outsider (clark), a Predator (scott) or a Member of the Herd (roger). Just one of ’em. Thing to remember is that the two characteristic personal realities that do not define the relationship through which you interact with the ‘real’ world (oft referred to as ‘the other two’), did not simply go away. They remain an inherent potential. And some people, well, some have higher levels of what we refer to as secondary and tertiary aspects, than others. We, your Humble Narrator*** offer the example of a clark with a significant secondary scottian aspect. How do we know that? Great question!

Consider a simple clark, one without a significant secondary or tertiary aspect. Well, for starters, you’d have to get to work trying to actually find them. oh, they’re there… disguised as the leafy vegetation at the edge of the metaphorical watering hole. clarks are all around you but prefer not to be noticed except when it is a controlled occurrence.

ProTip: Hey! How to spot a clark in a crowd at school or work or the local quicki mart. While they are not the center of attention, they are close by. If you’re lucky and there is a center of focus for the group, listen carefully. The person speaking, if a scott, is very often Jerry Mahoney*****, the clark is Walt. If the person speaking is a roger, then listen for the muttered, but very funny commentary that comes from the crowd.

Damn! That brings up the question, How do I quickly identify the predominant worldview of the people around us? Tune in tomorrow!

 

*easy clue to being an Outsider, i.e. to think of the world as being ‘out there’ as in apart from (us)

** see what we did there? yeah, roger, we knew that you knew and was just not going to tell us you knew

*** clarks have sometimes**** been described as people who: ‘abhor being the center of attention but will not tolerate being ignored’.

**** ok, a lot of times

Share

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

Where were we?

oh yeah, here:

So to the three moving parts:

  1. clarks (the Outsider)
  2. scotts (the Predator)
  3. rogers (the Herd Member)

We are, all of us, born with the innate predisposition to relate to the world in one of three manners/styles/character. And these three ‘styles’ (that other ‘normal’ personality typing schemes and theories refer to as ‘personality type’) we call, ‘predominant worldviews’. Ever body’s got one. And, as a bonus, we never lose the potential of ‘the other two’. The two that did not manifest as our personality type remain a potential influence on our lifes and behavior)

Three personality types. Three ways to relate (ourselfs) to the world around us. Three (well, actually two. But we were really enjoying the anaphora…lol) instances where the secret to understanding (and being understood) lies in being fluent in two (very) foreign languages.

Intrigued?

Congratulations! You are demonstrating certain qualities that those who have come to this blog and stayed were possessed …of errr by.

Whatever.

ProTip: You know how we’re always talking about how personality types are reflections of how a person relates themselves to the world? That is the same as saying the person’s personal reality is…. that of the Outsider or the Predator or the Herd Member. With us so far? cool If you’ve made it this far, the idea that we all live in a certain, kinda limited but totally real-reality that is…..personal.

The thing, (useful, enlightening, fun), about this personal reality metaphor is that it makes the business of ‘language’ simple and straight-forward. We’re a clark. We live in the (personal) reality of the Outsider. We have a certain language to allow us act and interact with the world at large. (We good so far?)

ok, staying with the clark example. We act, as does everyone, with the world described in a certain language. We communicate, to varying degrees of success, with the people in our lifes, (and world in general), employing the vocabulary of the Outsider. For the most part, we’re all in Esperanto mode. We get what you’re saying. You know we just asked you, ‘Where is the bathroom?‘ Its just that when we add, in our endearing manner, ‘ We apologize for the imposition of our presence…‘ that the difference in languages makes itself felt.

…from the perspective of clarks, scotts and rogers, of course.

Outa time!

Questions are welcome.

 

Share

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

Where were we?

Before we connect to last week’s series of Doctrine posts, here’s a RePrint. Somethin’ the New Reader should find interesting and…well, accessible.

Let’s take a read, shall we?

FAQs + WD + wtf = Enlightenment and Self-Improvement Wakefield Doctrine-style

We all know that it is a time-honored technique, when in the middle of the Summer’Re-run’ season to write a Q & A Post  (or as our clarklike Readers might prefer it, Q & I(nference) & (modified)Q & A(interrupted).  This saves the really good, original material for the Fall, when everyone is back from vacation and/or holiday and are ready to read online blogs. In addition, the use of a Q & A Post helps Readers who may have a passing interest in the Wakefield Doctrine, by allowing them to see that other people have the same questions*, which makes them? (all together now, rogers!!). Our scottian Readers have no more need for a Q & A than say a polar bear who happens upon an ice floe where 3 seal pups have been abandoned by their mother.

So lets get on with the Qs and the Answers!

Q: Alright, are you  guys for real, or what? Sometimes I read things that make sense in a serious and thoughtful way and the next thing I read is something about a girl in an imaginary High School. Whats the deal with you people?
A:Yes, we are for real. At least, as real as can be assumed about anything that you find on the internet. The Wakefield Doctrine really is the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers and there really are people who think in terms of all personality types being clarks or scotts or rogers.

Q: Sometimes I am (a scott) then other times I must be (a clark). Whats up with that?
A: You’re a clark

Q: Hey, wait! You can’t be that sure, on the basis of only one questions!
A: Yes I can. ( I’m a clark)   The question you should be asking is, ‘why does it seems that sometimes we are one form, other times others’? The answer is, of course, that we retain the capacity to experience the world as the three types, but have one (of the three) as a dominant view. i.e. clark, scott or roger.

A:  I heard that you have been doing this for more than 2 years, what have you learned about the Wakefield Doctrine that you did not know when you started?
Q:  How much fun and how satisfying it would be…this is the clarklike  answer. There may (or may not) be an answer to this question from the others in the Comment Section of this Post. But I would say, to amplify my answer, I am amazed on a daily basis how damn correct and ‘accurate’ the Wakefield Doctrine actually is! As a tool for self-development it is remarkable, as witness the progression of stunts and Posts, hats (for your damn heads) and trips across the country and latest of all, the Video Friday Interviews. I defy any clark reading this to say that the videos alone are documented proof of the efficacy of the Wakefield Doctrine as a personal development system.

So, there you have it. Questions and Answers and even a damn, borrowed music video. Is dis a system, or what?

 

*     I have been asked to not use my favorite joke about questions, so I won’t**
**   …unless you really want to hear it!***
*** in which case you have to go ask DS#1 or Ms. AKH if it is alright

Yes, I have seen three gigantic rogers before…but no, not this gigantic  lol

*

 

Share