…the Envelope, please!

April 16, 2012 By 18 Comments

(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
Filed Under: Lead Stories, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

(you can feel the excitement in the air!! relaxing music will now be provided) …and the Nominees are! the Wakefield Doctrine’s First Annual Post-writing Contest, Friday the 13th Edition

April 13, 2012 By 7 Comments

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

(Hey!  Alex!!  yo  can we borrow some music? )  CLICK ME

So everyone, try to sit back and relax. The secretly Appointed (secret) Judge is poring over ( as opposed to ‘pouring over’ ) (yum, yum!) each and every one of the Posts!
Every Judgmental tool and instrument is being brought to bear; no expense is being spared in this process.  We gots (your) participle accelerator, (your) tonsil and adverb extractors we have even arranged for a very special and private room just in case there are any (‘specially irregular verbs) that need privacy for a conjugated visit. Don’t anyone worry about nothin.

 

The Nominees for Writer of the best/funniest/cleverest/’how-cool-was-that? Post (using ‘a dead balloon is a dead ballon’ in the Title of) are:

 Progenitor roger
One of the original Progenitors, 1/3 of the namesake of ‘the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers’, (the) roger hails from a small end-urban area in a state often referred to as ‘South Central New England’. His rogerian credentials include: ability to play the 12 string guitar without sounding like 2 mandolins having sex, deliberately (and without having to be threatened with a side arm) engaging in the “Pastime” of Civil War Re-enacting and being heard at a formal Dinner Party to reply to the offer of a second serving, “No, thanks, I think I’ll surpass on that!”

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

 

Jennifer Wilson
One of the first of the second generation of people to come to the Doctrine, read and understand it and not say to us, “…if any of you people even think about trying to contact me again, I will have a restraining Order on you faster than you can say, wtf!” Jennifer is sort of the Fay Wray of the Doctrine, particularly in the context of this blog. Being a scottian female, and writing her own little Post ( “…ha, ha, he said Post!”)  Jennifer has a way of presenting the Wakefield Doctrine that is accessible and readable and the rogers, are drawn to it like rabbits trying to swim out of the Great White Shark Exhibit in Sea World.

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

 

DS#1
…you know how clarks can be overly-rational, too analytical and emotional-devoid giant brains with little feet and long fingers (to type with)? Well, that is why we are fortunate to have DS#1 ’round here. So a clark, yet with a kindness and humanity that says to all the clarks out there, “hey! you can become as welcomed by the scottian people and embraced into the herd anytime you want! Just learn what I know and you won’t even have to shave half of your damn head”

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

 

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’ 

 

Molly
Molly is, of course, one the ‘new generation’* of people here at the Doctrine and, as such, brings a certain perspective on our efforts that is quite crucial. In fact, this whole Post-writing Contest is kinda all her fault, lol she is the source of the semi-eponymous phrase that comprises the only requirement of  this first Annual Wakefield Doctrine Post-writing Contest!.

When a Dead Balloon is not just a Dead Balloon

So click on them links, Read the Posts then, (and this is very important), come back and Comment on your favorite Post.  The Contest remains open until 12:00 pm midnight.
If you would like to enter the Contest, send us an email to this blog (the Contact button’s on this page, somewhere) or write us a Comment, to the effect: “oh yeah? well read this, bunions!” and do not forget the actual phrase, ‘ a dead balloon is a  dead balloon’ must be in the Title.
Send in your link to your Post and you will be entered to Win! (Grand Prize will be awarded on the basis of Readers Comments and by the (secret) Judge’s decision.) The Winner will be announced on April 17th.

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

Saturday and the Wakefield Doctrine a theory of personality you can sink your teeth into

April 7, 2012 By 2 Comments

 

A Scotsman, an Englishman and an Irishman are sitting in a bar in New York reminiscing about home.
“Back in me pub in Glasgow,” brags the Scotsman, “fer every four pints of stout I order, they give me one fer free!”
“In me pub in London,” says the Englishman,”I pay fer two pint’s o’ Guiness and they give me a third one free!”
“That’s nuthin’” says the Irishman, “Im my pub back in Dublin, you walk up to the bar, they give the first pint fer free, the second pint fer free, the third pint fer free — and then they take you upstairs and you have sex for FREE!”
“Is that true?” asks the Scotsman. “Has that really happened to you?”
“Well, no,” says the Irishman, “but it happens to me sister all the time!”

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine!  This thing is so efficacious it’ll make you puke.  No, really!  the Wakefield Doctrine does everything those other personality type idiots claim to be able to do, except that this is the real deal. I wouldn’t lie to you.  Now those other  people who write these Posts, them guys say ‘you got to understand this, and you need to appreciate that…fuck that.  They’re right  and  it will work like they say, but that don’t mean nothin, if you don’t use it right and have fun, whats the point?. But… if you do use it right, you will have the edge on everyone around you right now and everyone you run into later on…unless you find someone who already knows about those Wakefield Doctrine people,  don’t worry about nothing, you won’t, cause they’re probably sitting in front of a computer somewhere indoors.

What the hell good is something if it doesn’t: a) get you more of what you want, b) let you take less of what you don’t want or c) get you laid? Huh? What!

I was such an ugly kid that when I played in the sandbox, the cat kept covering me up.

I could tell my parents hated me. My bath toys were a toaster and radio.

(Rodney Dangerfield)

But you better pay attention…this Doctrine thing is good, you need it and we have it…pretty simple, isn’t it?

Real quick:

  • you see people the way that you do, the way that they are  (for you…)
  • people see you the way that they have to see you, and that’s because of the way they are…
  • the trick is…you are both right
  • the Wakefield Doctrine lets you know how the other person thinks that the world works…maybe the same (as you) and maybe different
  • if you know how they think the world works that gives you an edge over them, ’cause they don’t know that there are other ways to see things…like the leopard can change his spots.
  • …and the best part is, chances are, they don’t know why you know what you know…they think you believe them!

So there ya go. The Wakefield Doctrine. good tool…fun thing to do and a whole world of people who will never see it coming.  Have fun!

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

clarklike females ( Part 1) …”and you are sure that they are not just stuck-up?” the Wakefield Doctrine and personality types

February 23, 2012 By 68 Comments

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

While most of the Old Timers here at the Doctrine might prefer to keep things the way they have always been, satisfied  laughing at the antics of the scotts and yelling and shouting,  ’what a bunch of rogers those people are‘ as we drive around Wakefield on Saturday Night, we can no longer settle for that simple, amusing form of entertainment.
Why is that? What is wrong with that?  After all, we  know what we mean when we point to a person and say, ‘hey! see that scott looking bored over there? who wants to bet I can make him get all hyper?’  Well, while that served our purposes in the early days, the readership of the Wakefield Doctrine is growing and with this growth there is an increasing  need to understand this thing of ours in ways that just did not occur to us in days prior, aka the ‘good old days’. Well, times change and the Wakefield Doctrine is nothing if it is not flexible.  So what’s up with the drive to expand the knowledge base? Why are we being driven, cajoled, posed-the-thoughtful-question, asked to explain how the Wakefield Doctrine applies to life and people and such?
Two words: Molly, Claire, Nell and (now) AP -that’s why.
They are the new generation of people who have happened upon the Doctrine blog and ‘get it’,  they see the use and values it has to offer. The thing is, they have learned about the Wakefield Doctrine from this here blog. They do not have the background understanding that some of the older DownSprings have, but they do not have the limitations that these selfsame old-timers are subject to, and so Molly and AP, Claire and Nell are asking questions about how the Doctrine works and how it might apply in situations that simply never occurred to some of us.  That’s just great.  (lol, and all italics aside, it is great! The Wakefield Doctrine is moving in directions that none of us thought it would and it is still fun, so welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine!)

To the topic of today’s Post; clarklike females (Part 1)

(New Readers are reminded that the Doctrine is gender neutral, which just means that ‘type’ precedes the gender. The Doctrine is also culture neutral so that the examples of culturally approved (or dis-approved) behavior is for the purposes of illustration only.) In this case:

So what are we to assume from this photo of the fetching Ms. Paltrow (if that indeed, is her real name!)

The external, observable characteristics of the clarklike female have been long-established; the style and fashion decisions  are best described as eclectic. There is a creative quality to ‘the look’ that most clarklike females aspire to that is quite unmistakable.

(“Yo clark!  DS#1 here.  As a clarklike female let me  pick it up from here”)….. speaks to their inner nature(?)  Fashion and the female clark = simple expression. Yeah sure, that’s it.  If you don’t already know this about theclarklike female,  footwear will figure prominently into their “look”.  Spot the boots worn “inappropriately” and you most likely have a clark on your hands.  Look at the pic above.  Only a clarklike female would wear what appears to be “combat” boots with an otherwise sexy, tease-me outfit. LOL  Combat boots sexy?  Yes, for some men.  But that says more about the man than the clarklike female and better left for another post.

It has been said within the pages of “this here blog here” that clarks are the “blue monkeys”.  Yes and no.  When it comes to the fashion thing, there is a degree of measurement, a level of blue that differentiates the clarklike female from other clarklike females.  And it can be boiled down to the level, type and/or method of accessorization.  Hats, scarves, jewelry (yes particularly jewelry)….  It goes without saying that it can be challenging to newcomers of the Doctrine to spot clarklike females based solely on their clothing/fashion sense.  Remember that to a clark, fashion walks hand in hand with posturing and body language.  Let’s do a compare/contrast thing -  if we were to take Gwyneth, remove the boots, put stilettos on her feet and position her either on her back or side then we would be looking at a scottian female (if we didn’t already know she was a clark, that is)  So what does this picture imply?  Challenge.  Mystery.  Inaccessibility.  Protection.  Confidence (real or imagined).  Individuality.

Having knowledge of the Wakefield Doctrine for many a year, what I have not had is the challenge of speaking about it with those who are newly discovering it’s simple, yet at times nuanced facets.  It is proving more difficult than I thought to explain my people:)   There is an almost instant type of connection…a knowing that is instinctive when clarks speak to each other.  It is easy to jump ahead and assume that another clark already knows what I mean when perhaps it takes a little more clarification.  blah, blah, blah, blah blah.

Interesting perspective, DS#1 … for (newer) Readers, the ‘blue monkeys’, is a term that we use around the Doctrine to reference the propensity of clarks (both male and female) to manage to stand apart from the crowd. Interestingly, if you ask a clark why they want to: dress, act, sound in a manner that sets them clearly apart from the norm, most (clarks) will honestly not know what you are talking about. They will deny that they are deliberately attempting to set themselves apart from the crowd, if anything, they will maintain that they just want to blend and be accepted.  ( Where did the term, ‘blue monkey’ come from?  according to some stories there was a sociology (or it might have been a psychology ) experiment conducted in the 1960′s in which one young monkey was taken from their troupe, dyed blue and return to his fellow troupe-mates. Apparently monkeys are not color-blind and the monkey was totally ostracized and outcast and all the kinds of things that the group likes to do to the outsider. I don’t think they killed him, but I could be wrong on that.)  ( It might have been green dye, but the term has come to be used to connote a person who inadvertently or un-consciouly manages to present himself/herself as a undeniable outsider.)

(Molly here… )  While I would agree with DS#1 that there is an instinctive knowing, when two clarks meet, but it does not make the awkwardness of being an outsider go away.

clarks are reserved.  They tend not to volunteer too much information — at least not to begin with; therefore, getting to know a clark takes some persistence.  clarks also don’t like to pry…  So, you can imagine how it is when two clarks meet.

clarklike females also influence a reserve in others.  In a social setting, when a male is flirting with virtually all the females present, though he will flirt with the clarklike female, it will be different somehow.   He will treat her with more respect than he shows anyone else.   More than once, I have had people comment (concerning a random flirt), “He must really like you — he’s treating you differently.”

As to fashion and the clarklike female, I was really surprised to find out combat boots were standard dress code.  Clark challenged me to talk to DS#1 about clothing — I thought it sounded dumb, but I took him up on it.  After all, what could she know about my wardrobe?  But I was the one in for a surprise.  I’ve owned my combat boots since I was 15… in fact, I’m wearing them right now…

One of my favorite clarklike females is Julie Andrews, with the many, varying roles she has played.  She is always poised sincere, even when having fun.  She doesn’t take any nonsense, even when jumping into chalk pictures or attending tea parties on the ceiling, and there is always an element of creativity.  Now, if you look through pictures of her, you may not see the hats, scarves and jewelry mentioned (unless you are looking at pictures of Mary Poppins), but her posture and eyes still give her away.  No matter how straight and tall she stands, there is a slight slouch, and even when she looks straight into the camera, you can see that she is somewhere else.

I liked your point, Molly,  about how clarks tend to not volunteer information. I don’t get how (some of this) can be, but most clarks seem to share the sense that things told to us in confidence (or even simply in a one-on-one conversation) are meant to be held in confidence. We, as a people, tend to not be in the know in most social environments, as part of the price of membership is that the individual is expected to contribute information to the group. A very rogerian thing, but most likely the reason clarks are often out of the loop…
I also liked the concept of ‘when two clarks meet’… it was noted early in the development of the Doctrine that you can tell you are talking to another clark because there is a tendency to ‘bump into each other’ conversationally speaking (lol)  Both (clarks) will start to say something at the same time and then stop and…then both will … you know  (and sentence fragments!  We loves our sentence fragments, which is no problem if the other person is a clark, of course!)
oh, and ‘the slouch’  damn!  it’s still amazes me to see the characteristics show up where they are predicted to… New Readers? one of the primary identifiers of the clark personality type is a certain slouch in posture, a slightly overly causal stance (standing and seated)… it has everything to do with the fact that we are on the defensive…kinda

Shout out to Nell and Claire and AP… stop in guys. I am sure we will hear from Ms AKH and possible the Progenitor roger (yeah, right). Good discussion, yo.

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

..(BONUS).personality types, (INSERT) insights into behavior (TODAY)and a little backstory (ONLY!)for good measure! the Wakefield Doctrine

January 30, 2012 By 3 Comments

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

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

YouTube Preview Image

 

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!

*the ‘extra’ words in the Title today were supposed to look like they were ‘drawn’ over the original Title, you know…graffiti like   whatever

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

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