…the Envelope, please!

(shhh, she cleared her voice let’s settle back and read… the Winner is about to be announced!)

Dear fellow Wakefield “Doctriners” ^_^

I believe that this was the toughest and funniest contest I had to ever judge – although it was a first for me. I can tell you this, each and every one of your entries has diverted me exceedingly and each in different, yet completing ways. So before I come to the point, I’d like to congratulate YOU ALL for the quality of your writing and review (big word here…not so much the point).

THE CRITERIA were these:

Good – Fun to read – Clever – ‘How cool was that’… as a (secret) judge I assigned stars (5 max) for each criteria. Then, you got “doctrine points” for each comment & like/Google Share your entry collected because the reader is king/queen and has the last word in my world ^_^.

Roger: db(2)+ 1.5 ml He = db(2) – 1.5 ml Co2 (a dead balloon is a dead balloon)

You wrote a very interesting piece that first brought question marks all around my head (you were not the only one having this effect on me though ^_^)… this is a good thing by the way. As I read on, your tone made me think of the main character in a book that I had just finished and liked a lot (“The History of Love” by Nicole Krauss). So I read with a smile on my face all along… I have looked in my own mind to find the file of my own “particularly fond childhood memories” but I do not think it is placed behind my left ear… I could not say since I have not found it entirely yet – just bits and pieces that I wish were as rich as yours. In short, I smiled – even laughed a bit, agreed with you most of the times as I related and wondered about life – longer than my daily dose… I loved the journey you took me on.

Jennifer: What does “a dead balloon is a dead balloon” have to do with Personality Types? Nothing.

You got me laughing just with your title, which is quite unusual with me. What’s with the fear of clowns? I never understood it! I don’t particularly like them either since they never made me laugh… hmm… well, okay… maybe I do get your point here ^_^. Your entry was filled with the type of humor I am very fond of, so thank you for that and for your great choice of music video as an illustration. I loved that concert by the way!

DS#1: Through the looking glass where a dead balloon is (really just) a dead balloon somewhere over the edge…

I am such a fan of Lewis Carroll’s stories… I was ecstatic when I read your title and read expectantly your entry. I was not disappointed at all… no surprise here… that is brilliant writing, the kind that keeps you on the edge yet not over it. You created vivid images in my mind and your story had dogs in it which got me melting from the start. Thank you for the wonderful reading! I enjoyed every second of it.

Clark: while, ‘a dead balloon is a dead balloon’ the quality that gives life to the (non-dead) balloons is imperishable and therefore hold(s) out hope to all balloons’

Alright Clark… maybe you’ve got the award of the longest title in the history of writing contests ^_^. Your entry puzzled me in a very good way… which means that your intent of being both amusing and wry is reached, no question. Is information really the reality of Clarks? Yes… maybe, depending on how you define information… could philosophy be a type of information? I’d say that in my book at least it could be. I have to admit that I loved this sentence: “A ‘dead balloon’ is to a ‘live balloon’ as clarks are to scotts and rogers”… made me laugh for one and then think… “the space within and between permits life to exist”… interesting train of thought.

Molly: When a Dead Balloon is not just a Dead Balloon

Do you know how I react when I feel something bad or embarrassing is about to happen in a story? I fast forward to make sure that I am heading towards a good ending, and then I go back to the bit I could not read… your modern fairytale had such an impact on me, which is an extremely good thing. The quality of your writing and your storytelling blew my mind Molly. Beyond that, what you said was quite the message too…

The winner of the Doctrine’s First Annual Post-Writing Contest is:

YouTube Preview Image

Our very own Downspring#1 with 28 Doctrine Points for her great

‘Through the looking glass where a dead balloon is (really just) a dead balloon somewhere over the edge…’

CONGRATULATIONS!!!

^_^

*
**
***

/Your Friend of the Doctrine & Secret Judge, Clairepeek

 

Share

How to know if the Wakefield Doctrine would be useful in your life, the Wakefield Doctrine and the challenge of self-development

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine.

Gather  a group of 50 couples (100 people) together in a room. Tell them that you will grant them one wish, but that wish must be to improve some aspect of their relationship.   80 percent* of these 100 people will immediately think of or look at the other person. Why is that? And who is the 20%? (who did not immediately look to the other person). What difference does that make?  if 80% of the people responded in a certain way, doesn’t that make them the normal ones? Why is this list of questions continuing? Hey, is this another trick question?!

Two things to take away from this Post today.

  1. Most people (which means rogers and scotts) don’t feel they should change their personality
  2. The Wakefield Doctrine is a very useful tool for understanding another person and it is very useful in changing behavior
  3. The Wakefield Doctrine is for you, it is not for them
While the above may come across as un-necessarily clever and kinda obvious, it speaks to the heart of the matter when it comes to ways and methods of self-improvement (in general) and how the Wakefield Doctrine is useful in specific terms. The part about how the Doctrine is for you and not for them? That is a key point for those people who are Reading and learning about the Wakefield Doctrine at the present time. People who are ‘getting’ the Doctrine at this point represent the 20% group, for the most part. While we are beginning to see some (exceptional) rogers and scotts begin to learn about this thing of ours, for the most part we are talking clarks. Not surprising, of course, as clarks tend to be the more intellectually adventurous of the three personality types. And, as a people, we are looking for ways to make sense of the world anyway.
In the following days we will be focusing on ‘our 50 couples’ in order to better understand what the Wakefield Doctrine can do for you the Reader and your spouse/SO/friend/sibling/caregiver, (you know the other person, the one who is the key to improving your life).
But since time is limited, lets talk about couples! There are almost always two people involved which means there is a 87.5% chance that one of them is a scott.
First Exercise!
Which is the one most likely to not look to the other person (if they were in our group of 50 couples)
(first 10 in no particular order):
Michele and Barack Obama
Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt
Laura and Rob Petrie
Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher
Portia de Rossi and Ellen Degeneres
Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise
Jada and Will Smith
Bill and Hilary Clinton
John Lennon and Paul McCartney
Antony and Cleopatra
OK first the easy question. Who in the list above would not be looking at the other person?  (if you need some help, go here.)
Reading the Doctrine for the First Time? Not to worry, if you are not comfortable writing a Comment (and thereby earning a (nearly free) Wakefield Doctrine hat (for your damn head), you can go to one of the DownSprings and read their blogs and ask them for hints. (We did say that this was not a test…right?) In any event if you would be more comfortable, then go ask Claire Peek or Nell Rose (if you are in a continental frame of mind) or perhaps Molly or Steve (if Big Sky country is more to your tastes), Ms AP might have some pointers at her FB page and of course, there is Ms. AKH (if ya got the nerve) or DS#1.  Hell, if you want to go to a Progenitor (and you have the afternoon off…lol) then slide on over to the roger’s blog.
YouTube Preview Image

 

* There is a reason for the estimate of 80%. This percentage is derived from the (likely) number of rogers and scotts in the general population. (60% rogers, 20% scotts and 20% clarks)

Share

© 2009-2012 the Wakefield Doctrine All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright