Views on Life, Memories of Growing up and the Wakefield Doctrine

March 24, 2012 By 1 Comment

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

One thing has always been true, here at the Wakefield Doctrine.
It has consistently been true that our Readers are people of exceptional qualities. We have used the term, flexible intelligence and we frequently use the term FOTD* and most often we will simply refer to ‘the Readers’. Whether you Comment or not, ask for a hat (for your damn head) or not, or even send us a photo or not (Jasmine…the weather is nice now…send us your photo), this blog has grown because of the influence/input/suggestions and criticisms of you, the Reader.

We totally appreciate your coming here and reading these Posts over the course of the last few years.

We have tried very hard to find ways to illustrate the principles of the Doctrine, all in the effort to make it easy to apply this tool/personality theory to situations in your own life. Especially critical to the success of this effort, has been the increasing number of people who write Comments, join in discussions and otherwise provide fresh insights into the value and use of the Wakefield Doctrine; especially those we call Friends of the Doctrine (FOTD), and the people who call in on the Saturday Night Drive.

What we have not done so well is to share the voices, the vision (of how the Doctrine works in real life) their experiences…their perspectives on how the Wakefield Doctrine can be a very helpful tool to understanding ourselves and those people in our lives.

That is changing…  we are now entering a phase where what you read here is not just one person’s vision, a single individual’s choice of words…a solitary viewpoint. Those of you who have been regular Readers of the Doctrine will see more opinions and views and ‘ways-to-say-it’ in the coming weeks and months. …and we hope that with this change you will also join in the Discussion.

Today’s Post is the beginning of that Discussion.

(For the group) the First Question is:

“Of all the jobs you have had in your life, which was the one that you were awful at…because of your predominant personality type?”

Downspring#1:  I think I have to go back to the food waitress thing.  Not feeling very confident and a little more self-conscious than usual.  It was awful.   At the time, I needed a job and I really wanted to try waitressing (I had a scottian female friend who made good money),  which is why I showed up the first day even though I should have stayed in bed. The other thing I remember is not getting a comfortable “vibe” from the place or the people.  As a clark, if I can “connect” (but not with another clark – history points to a scott) with one or two people at least, then initially there is a feeling of “alright, I guess I can try this out”.  It did not take me more than one day to decide….”I’m outta here!”

Molly:  The job that makes me cringe, when I think back to it, was working in a Dry Cleaner as a tailor.  Tailor was the job description, but 90% of the work amounted to mending.  I was good at the actual job and the favorite amongst the customers… but I didn’t get the work environment.  All the bitching, moaning and backstabbing were beyond me.  My co-workers complaining about their miserable lives also confused me… especially since most of them had been in their perspective situations for years.  Good God — Do.Something.Already!   As soon as we could, we moved from the area.

clark: possibly my first, (maybe second) real job was pumping gas at a gas station, this was the 1960′s when gas stations were both gas and auto repair/service. My job was to get out to the gas pumps as soon as the customers drove in and ask what I could do for them and be friendly…and outgoing… I think I lasted 2 weeks part-time after school and weekends. The reason that the owner of the station gave was that I didn’t seem to have any enthusiasm (an employer refrain that I would become all too familiar with)…apparently I was not a sufficiently eager beaver. lol

Clairepeek: Just like Downspring#1, I have to say that my first and only job in London as a semi-gourmet French restaurant waitress was pretty awful. I was hiding behind the bar, doing the dishes and hoping nobody would notice me; of course at the time, this was an opportunity well provided by my employer, who thought that my English was not good enough to be anywhere near the customers. As an outcast waitress, I had to go up in the street, in the evening, and entice customers to come and eat at that place. I was dressed with a mini black skirt, a white shirt and black flat shoes. It was September and already freezing outside, but I was not allowed a coat. For two weeks I said nothing, until a new waiter came in who did not want to take this “crap”. He urged me not to take it either and we both quit one week later. As a “facilitator”, I have always despised conflict – whatever its form – so I needed the push of someone else to put my foot down in order to “facilitate” my own sanity and therefore well-being.

Phyllis: Chairside assisting for my Dad, a dentist, before I had a rogerian expression. My expression was definitely not assisting. Too much blood and spit and I never learned the names of the instruments. Dad ended up having me do the bookkeeping – more up my alley.

 

(For the group) the Second Question is:

“When you look back at your childhood, with an understanding of the Wakefield Doctrine, when do you think you see the earliest, clearest example of being the type that you are?”

Molly:  When I was three, my parents moved from Montana to the family farm.  My grandparents were moving out of the house as we were moving into it… but I didn’t understand what was going on.  I didn’t realize we had moved and that this was now my home.  For years, I felt that the only place I could call my own was my bed.  I lived as a guest in the home for three or four years, until I finally understood that we were not going back to Montana.

clark: when I was about 5 or 6 years I entered the ‘age phase’ when my contemporaries ‘discovered’ tickling…everyone would go around and get the weaker ones on the ground and torment tickle the person until they cried or got mad. One day I thought, “I need to not be ticklish anymore, then they won’t have me at their advantage (or words appropriate to a 5 year old clark*)” and I proceeded to  make myself not be ticklish…on a physical level, not repress the reaction, not be able to hold out…just plain no more tickle reflex.

Downspring#1: this is proving a more difficult task than I thought.  So, with the caveat that I may come back in and delete this, here goes.  I cannot recall exact age, just that I was either first or second grade (6-8 range).  There was a Navy family that lived across the street (their name is on the tip of my tongue!).  My memory tells me there were about 4 kids in the family. They were somewhat of a “wild” family but  I was friendly with them.  The time of year is unclear but I remember getting into it with one of the older kids about the existence of Santa Claus.  I did not back down even at his obnoxious insistence that he (Santa) did not, nor did he ever exist.  The confrontation ended with me storming off to consult my Dad about this.  I may or may not have told the kid I’d be back with my Dad to set the story straight.  Or something like that. lol

Clairepeek: I have to say that I was not premature in starting showing my clark-like personality… I was probably around the teenage phase when it happened; the day I heard my teacher tell me that I should stop writing because I had no talent, no creativity and absolutely not the mind to become a writer. That day, although I first followed her advice and for a long time after that, on that day I knew I did not belong to the crowd; I knew I would swim against the current all my life and be quite solitary to the external eye, but my head was full of my own world already.

Phyllis: I guess it was when I started defining “my boxes”. I started trying to live within my means at the age 11. I did not want to be dependent on anyone. I started making log cabins (just in case my parents disappeared). I tried to be aware of all the purchases made on my behalf and be as minimalist as possible. I often wore hand-me-downs from my sister who was much shorter than I, even though my parents could afford new clothes.

(For the group) the Third Question is:

“(We know that we all have the capabilities  of all three personality types, but only one is predominant) if you could switch with one of the other two, which would it be?”

clark: I would go with becoming a roger. Mostly because, as a clark I know there is a place, way deep inside where I keep a reserve of…aggressiveness, directness, which ever of the words that describe the scottian characteristics and I know that, under duress I can get to those qualities and bring them to the surface…for a specific purpose, usually a situation of extreme threat or duress. I cannot do that with the characteristics of my rogerian aspects…and when I come close to doing that, the ‘after effects’…how it feels after a moment of rogerian behavior is decidedly unpleasant.  So, to step into the world of the roger (that capacity I know that I have) and act and feel and live as a roger would be interesting and then I could not constantly question everything… them rogers is so damn certain… lol

Clairepeek: Well, to follow in your footsteps Clark, I guess I would then chose to become a scott because it is the personality out of the three that I cannot summon at will. I’d love to see what happens when I finally get to act with such confidence that I become at last the boss of my own company. It would be interesting to see how, without any hesitation, I introduce myself to others without feeling my blood rushing to my ears and feeling my entire body screaming it wants to be elsewhere… ^_^.

Downspring#1: I’m with Clairepeek on this one.  I also would choose to become a scott. As a clarklike female, well as a female, it seems there is at the least, a fundamental ability (culturally stimulated) to be “social”.  I have found it easier to develop my rogerian characteristic  due in part to my having worked in retail environments during part of my professional career.  Claire has hit the nail on the head.  My scottian characteristics are such that I cannot easily “summon them at will.”  It seems that only under situations of duress or if I am too tired to care (and therefore not overly self-conscious) am I able to express/summon my scottian characteristic(s).  As a clark, I am not intimidated by the typical stuff – scary, screaming people, or traveling to new places…..but more like things such as being the focus of attention.  Again, like Clairepeek talks about:) Hey! has anyone noticed that so far only we like people are participating in this thing? lol Yeah, well fuck them, right?!! (see, got my scott on)

Molly:  At this moment in time, I am very content being a clark.
There is a line by Savatage that says, “The person I am are the parts that I play.”  I think this pretty much sums up what it is to be a clark.  We live in a world that is full of situations, and each one has different parameters…  We simply find out what our role is and fill that part, without really acting.
In regards to homemaking and making/keeping order, I am working on developing my rogerian aspect, while keeping the attitudes out of my relationships…  I don’t find the attitude appropriate for raising children, since it is too easy to take their behavior personally.  When they misbehave, it becomes, “Haven’t I taught you better than that?!?”  With an underlying attitude of, “How dare you embarrass me like this?”
Likewise, if my job is to meet people and make them feel welcome, I’m sure it is my scottian side that is on display.   Assign me the job of hostesses and I will greet every person and make them feel welcome…  I am always amazed at how many people think of me as a friend, or someone they can confide in, after doing a job like that.

Phyllis: I am happy with being me – a female roger.

 

Well this has been fun and enjoyable…

 

Until we figure out the how to display the names of the people who created this Post, we’ll just get all crayons and construction paper on it.  So in alpha-botanical order:

 Claire Perez Ekman                  DS#1                                  Molly                                   Phyllis

 

 

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

the Wakefield Doctrine: keep these simple rules in mind, everything will be just fine this week…

March 19, 2012 By 8 Comments

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

You woke up today, the start of a brand new week.

Now, without thinking too much,  pick one of the following phrases that best describe how you feel:

A) hopeful with a touch of anxiousness

B) eager to get out into the world or work or school or homemaking… anticipation bordering on excitment

C) calm, self-assured with a sense of purpose

What your choices really mean, depending on which of the three personality types you are:

If you are a clark and you choose:

A)  hopeful with a touch of anxiousness  then you are thinking  ( …”ah…ain’t life grand! )
B)  eager to get out into the world or work or school or homemaking… anticipation bordering on excitment  then you should be thinking  ( check your homework again, make sure you did not study the wrong chapter for the test )
C)  calm, self-assured with a sense of purpose what is important is that you  ( stop doing the drugs,  alcohol and/or sleep-deprivation  stop! you cannot keep this up! )

If you are a scott and you choose:

A) hopeful with a touch of anxiousness   you might be hearing in your head: ( whats the matter, did your clarklike friend do something un-expected on you, like state that you were wrong? )
B)  eager to get out into the world or work or school or homemaking… anticipation bordering on excitment if this is how you are feeling then: ( you probably are not getting enough exercise )
C) calm, self-assured with a sense of purpose… ( lol  yeah right!…on your death bed maybe )

If you are a roger and you choose:

A) hopeful with a touch of anxiousness  don’t worry: ( your friends will not suspect that you had a dream in which you broke all the rules and laughed while doing it )
B) eager to get out into the world or work or school or homemaking… anticipation bordering on excitment  but then again: ( you know the fun herd is out there…well worth the trip through the gaunlet school bus/timecard punch line )
C) calm, self-assured with a sense of purpose…( don’t you ever get tired of being like that?! )

 

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

…’blue monkeys, and bullies and tomboys, oh my!…’ excerpt(s) from the upcoming Book about the Wakefield Doctrine

February 6, 2012 By 1 Comment

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

From the Introduction:

 

The  premise of the Wakefield Doctrine is that rather than assign a personality type because of the traits and behaviors a person appears to have,  use the (observed) behavior and traits to infer the character of the worldview in which that individual is living and experiencing their lives. Put another way,  ’we do not think of people being born with or acquiring traits that make them clarks or scotts or rogers, rather we say that any person existing in the world of a clark acquires behavior and strategies that are effective in dealing with the reality in which they find themselves; it is the worldview of the person that accounts for the personality typing, not the other way around.”
This perspective accounts for the unique value that the Wakefield Doctrine to allow an understanding of a person’s behavior in situations, to know the nature and characteristics of the world of a clark (or a scott or a roger) is to allow one to successfully extrapolate behavior in other unrelated situations.

 

The Wakefield Doctrine both demonstrates itself and provides a unique insights into  certain distinctive, idiosyncratic stages of human personality development, to wit:

tomboys: pre-pubescent scottian females

 

A tomboy, or occasionally tom girl,  is a girl who exhibits characteristics or behaviors considered typical of the gender role of a boy, including the wearing of typically masculine-oriented clothes and engaging in games and activities that are often physical in nature, and which are considered in many cultures to be the domain of boys                   ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomboy )

 

Lets just think about this from the perspective that the Doctrine allows us…

Wait!  New Readers!! Wait a minute…don’t leave so soon! Let me show you something… no, really…nothing gross or creepy,  just how the Doctrine can make it real easy for you to know all about the person you are trying to figure out!  (You are trying to figure out another person, aren’t you? )  ’Welll…’  as our friend Alex is fond of saying, wait ’til you hear how easy it is to know all about that other person. So, even though I am leaving the above ‘false start’ above, lets start over again with this here Post here.

There are two types of Readers reading this Post today, Monday the 6th… a) clarks and 2) scotts and rogers. You clarks?  well, you pretty much will want to be left alone to figure this thing out because, as clarks:

  • you are very quick to understand the new and weird things in life, which is as it should be ’cause you yourself are pretty much a new and weird thing (people-istically speaking, of course!)
  • you already have something a lot like the Wakefield Doctrine working in your own head and right now all you want to do is see if there is anything we have that you can borrow to improve your own system
  • …you really need to get comfortable with whatever it is we have here, before you actually do anything, like …you want to be sure you understand first… and thats fine with us… take your time…there’s plenty of time…you have spent most of your life thinking and refining your plan and double-checking to be sure you got it right, if you ever accidentally do anything real…don’t worry about it…better to be careful than to do something that will make you look…whatever

(and) the ‘other’ group of Readers, who we refer to as ‘scotts and rogers‘, you are still reading because:

  • you are bored
  • you like the pictures and the music videos
  • you are still bored
  • a friend sent you here and they will not shut up until you come and read about the Doctrine thing (and) you are hoping it will let you understand this friend of yours who you like a lot and they are funny and weird and interesting and even though they (this friend) is kinda on the passive side, every now and then they get something in their heads and they will not fuckin shut up about it until you do what they want and besides, when they really get interested in something they get a little scary about how they will not take no for an answer… you know  that friend
  • …yes, we know how easily you get bored.

So there you have it. The two groups of new Readers of the Wakefield Doctrine blog.

The book? The one referred to in the title?  Yeah we are doing that thing, we will be putting the Wakefield Doctrine into a form that is less clarklike and much, much more accessible to the rogers and the scotts! If you have to ask why, then you need to figure out which of the three personality types you are and then you will know.

OK, just a short Monday morning Post. We hope the group of men ( the ones that you do not know on any form of personal level) succeeded in overcoming the other group of men (that you did not know either) in the contest yesterday! “GO! Groups of unknown Men”!!

If you have any questions go as AKH or DS#1  and if you really want to have some ‘fun’  go to the rogers’ blog and leave a Comment

 

YouTube Preview Image

 

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

the Wakefield Doctrine’s three personality types….” I know I have seen them somewhere…I’ve got it! Fairy Tales!”

January 17, 2012 By 4 Comments

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

Lets have some fun with this here Doctrine here.

You all are familiar with the characteristics of clarks, scotts and rogers, at least enough to recognize them in your close personal friends and/or family units, correct?1 (And), you have read here that the Doctrine is a unique and productive system of understanding the behavior of the people in our lives, right? The Wakefield Doctrine takes a unique approach to personality in that we say, “It is not the list of habits and self-descriptions that define and establish your personality ‘type’, no frickin way! Around here we say: “We all exist in one of three characteristic realities, and it is our appropriate and effective responses and reactions to the world, as we are perceiving and experiencing it, that determines if you are a clark or a scott or a roger. That lets you know which of the three personality types you are, then when you turn your attention (and the Doctrine) upon the people in your life you will learn so much about why they do the things that they do, that you will laugh and hurry to write us and tell everyone how useful this thing of ours can be; how you learn about the other person is as simple (but not easy) as the rest of the Wakefield Doctrine. What you want to do is observe the other person’s behavior and  infer the nature of the world they are experiencing“. That is what makes the Wakefield Doctrine unique and useful! This is true simply because if you allow that, say a clark exists in a world in which they are ‘natural outsiders’, then everything about the behavior of your clarklike friends makes so much more sense. You will not necessarily change how you feel about their lifestyle choices, but you will have a better understanding of the why to their behavior. The same applies to your scottian friends and your rogerian friends, of course.

For the purposes of today’s Post, we will think of Fairy Tales simply as Myths and Legends written for the masses. We do not lay claim, nor do we need to assert the requirement for an advanced understanding of the sociological, anthropological or any another -ogical in order to derive some understanding of the Wakefield Doctrine in the context of the tales that most children in most cultures at most times in the history of mankind are…exposed to. Lets just say, hey we all know about Little Red Riding Hood! Was she a scott or a roger or a clark? You know, like that!  ( Quick reminder! the Wakefield Doctrine is also culture neutral2, which simply means that despite the range of expression afforded individuals in any given culture, you can distinguish a clark from a scott from a roger. )

( ‘Hood’,  you’re up, yo)

The story revolves around a girl called Little Red Riding Hood, after the red hooded cape/cloak (in Perrault‘s fairytale) or simple cap (in the Grimms’ fairytale) she wears. The girl walks through the woods to deliver food to her sick grandmother.

A wolf wants to eat the girl but is afraid to do so in public. He approaches Little Red Riding Hood and she naïvely tells him where she is going. He suggests the girl pick some flowers, which she does. In the meantime, he goes to the grandmother’s house and gains entry by pretending to be the girl. He swallows the grandmother whole, and waits for the girl, disguised as the grandma.

When the girl arrives, she notices that her grandmother looks very strange. Little Red Riding Hood then says, “What big hands you have!” In most retellings, this colloquy eventually culminates with Little Red Riding Hood saying, “My, what big teeth you have!” to which the wolf replies, “The better to eat you with” and swallows her whole, too.

A hunter, however, comes to the rescue and cuts the wolf open. Little Red Riding Hood and her grandmother emerge unharmed. They fill the wolf’s body with heavy stones. The wolf awakens and tries to flee, but the stones cause him to collapse and die. (Sanitized versions of the story have the grandmother shut in the closet instead of eaten, and some have Little Red Riding Hood saved by the hunter as the wolf advances on her, rather than after she is eaten)

The tale makes the clearest contrast between the safe world of the village and the dangers of the forest, conventional antitheses that are essentially medieval, though no written versions are as old as that. The original was supposed to be a warning to young women about the sexual appetites of men (and the wolf-like qualities that they possess).  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Red_Riding_Hood )

Damn! topic complexity exceeding of credible scholastic credential for treating subject manner!! “Warning! Warning!! Danger, Will Robinson!! Danger!!”***

(Quick reference to one of the other popular Fairy Tales, as found in Western culture, at any rate… Ms. White!! take it home!)

The English translation of the definitive edition of the Grimms’ Kinder- und Hausmärchen (Berlin 1857), tale number 53, is the basis for the English translation by D. L. Ashliman.

Once upon a time as a queen sits sewing at her window, she pricks her finger on her needle and three drops of blood fall on the snow that had fallen on her ebony window frame. As she looks at the blood on the snow, she says to herself, “Oh, how I wish that I had a daughter that had skin white as snow, lips red as blood, and hair black as ebony”. Soon after that, the queen gives birth to a baby girl who has skin white as snow, lips red as blood, and hair black as ebony. They name her Princess Snow White. As soon as the child is born, the queen dies.

Soon after, the king takes a new wife, who is beautiful but also very vain. The new queen possesses a magical mirror, an animate object that answers any question, to whom she often asks: “Mirror, mirror on the wall / Who is the fairest of them all?” (in German “Spieglein, Spieglein, an der Wand / Wer ist die Schönste im ganzen Land?”; in Italian “Specchio, servo delle mie brame, chi è la più bella di tutto il reame?” ) to which the mirror always replies “You, my queen, are fairest of all.” But when Snow White reaches the age of seven, she becomes as beautiful as the day, and when the queen asks her mirror, it responds: “Queen, you are full fair, ’tis true, but Snow White is fairer than you.” Though in another version, the mirror simply replies: “Snow White is the fairest of them all.”

The queen becomes jealous, and orders a huntsman to take Snow White into the woods to be killed. She demands that the huntsman, as proof of killing Snow White, return with her lungs and her liver. The huntsman takes Snow White into the forest, but after raising his knife to stab her, he finds himself unable to kill her as he has fallen deeply in love with her. Instead, he lets her go, telling her to flee and hide from the Queen. He then brings the queen the lungs and the liver of a boar, which is prepared by the cook and eaten by the queen.

In the forest, Snow White discovers a tiny cottage belonging to a group of seven dwarves, where she rests. There, the dwarves take pity on her, saying “If you will keep house for us, and cook, make beds, wash, sew, and knit, and keep everything clean and orderly, then you can stay with us, and you shall have everything that you want.” They warn her to take care and let no one in when they are away delving in the mountains. Meanwhile, the Queen asks her mirror once again “Who’s the fairest of them all?”, and is horrified to learn that Snow White is not only alive and well and living with the dwarves, but is still the fairest of them all.

Three times the Queen disguises herself and visits the dwarves’ cottage while they are away during the day, trying to kill Snow White. First, disguised as a peddler, the Queen offers colorful stay-laces and laces Snow White up so tight that she faints, causing the Queen to leave her dead on the floor. However, Snow White is revived by the dwarves when they loosen the laces. Next, the Queen dresses as a different old woman and brushes Snow White’s hair with a poisoned comb. Snow White again collapses, but again is saved by the dwarves. Finally, the Queen makes a poisoned apple, and in the disguise of a farmer’s wife, offers it to Snow White. When she is hesitant to accept it, the Queen cuts the apple in half, eats the white part and gives the poisoned red part to Snow White. She eats the apple eagerly and immediately falls into a deep stupor. When the dwarves find her, they cannot revive her, and they place her in a glass coffin, assuming that she is dead.

Time passes, and a prince traveling through the land sees Snow White. He strides to her coffin. The prince is enchanted by her beauty and instantly falls in love with her. He begs the dwarves to let him have the coffin. The prince’s servants carry the coffin away. While doing so, they stumble on some roots and the movement causes the piece of poisoned apple to dislodge from Snow White’s throat, awakening her (in later adaptations of the tale, the prince kisses Snow White, which brings her back to life). The prince then declares his love for her and soon a wedding is planned.

The vain Queen, still believing that Snow White is dead, once again asks her mirror who is the fairest in the land, and yet again the mirror disappoints her by responding that “You, my queen, are fair; it is true. But the young queen is a thousand times fairer than you.”

Not knowing that this new queen was indeed her stepdaughter, she arrives at the wedding, and her heart fills with the deepest of dread when she realizes the truth. As punishment for her wicked ways, a pair of heated iron shoes are brought forth with tongs and placed before the Queen. She is then forced to step into the iron shoes and dance until she drops dead. (Other versions imply that she dies of a heart attack.)(?!  OMG! Lol) (  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White  )

Lets apply the Wakefield Doctrine, aka the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers to these two popular myths/fables/cautionary tales/Emily Post Guides

The scotts?

The clarks?

Any rogers?

I think, given the late hour, rather than try for a full-on analysis, we will just give a hint: the Hunter Figure (in the LRRH…?)  I’m getting a pretty strong rogerian vibe…
Also, don’t forget as you pore over these tales, that there in nothing wrong with finding more than one of each of the three personality types within the same Fairy Tale. There may be 2 scotts or 3 rogers…that sort of thing.
We consider it to be part of the strength of the Wakefield Doctrine,  that we can infer personality types from various perspectives.
For example, we may see the obvious predatory nature of the Wolf (again in LRRH), but what about Riding Hood, her ownself? Is that innocence genuine or is is contrived? If the former, then maybe a clarklike female, if the latter, then you have to consider scottian female or (even) rogerian girl. But the real value in this exercise in applying the ‘lens’ of the Wakefield Doctrine to get comfortable with the concept of attempting to infer the world that another ‘person’ inhabits, on the basis of their actions and reactions and manner of dealing with a situation.

So have fun! Write us your Comments. Don’t be concerned if it seems that the topic is too big and/or unwieldy for the scope of this Post. This is just practice ‘spotting the clarks and the scotts and the rogers‘ out there!

 

YouTube Preview Image

 

1) If you are willing to say that you cannot, then we applaud your honesty and say, “Good Reader! Now get your ass over to this Page and read up on the Wakefield Doctrine and then go to the Page on clarks, and then the Page on scotts and finally stop at the Page on rogers. It won’t take long, 5 minutes per will do it. Then hurry back to the Post’”

2) the ‘also’ alludes to the fact that the Doctrine is also gender neutral

3) Lost in Space, of course! Probably should stick to TV shows and recent movies…more …within my ken, as they say.  (They do? Who the hell says, within your ken? What the hell does that even mean?)

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

Video Friday! Episode 2!! the Wakefield Doctrine (wherein we reflect upon the significance and importance of the new Readers and participants in this) personality-theory!

January 13, 2012 By 2 Comments

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

Lets just go right to the Video!

YouTube Preview Image

That was fun! Hey, you know what the hardest part about writing these Posts is, at least lately?  Writing from a rogerian point of view.1 We know what it should ‘look like’, we know how the words should ‘read’, we have even had discussions on Saturday Night Drives about the ‘shape and tone’ of the rogerian style. But it is a lot like learning a new language. At first you memorize the words and common phrases and practice pronunciation. Then you begin to form whole thoughts and complete sentences (in this new language), finally you either get everyone in your language class to agree to speak only this language, or (better yet) you go to the country where they speak the language and try to get through a day.2

In any event, we will not be going into a long discussion of the challenge of writing in the rogerian language. For now we will direct your attention to Comments from the Progenitor roger, and DownSpring Phyllis (in the previous Post) and anything you will find on the Secessionist Rag, or mostly teachable. Those are written in the rogerian style. We bring this up as we are going to be making a concerted effort to bring in some (new) rogerian readers, or better I say, we will try to get the rogerian Readers out there to get more active with this Doctrine thing.

To that end, let me ask the question: Is there any interest to either: a) modifying the times of the Wakefield Doctrine Saturday Night Drive or 2) adding another ‘time slot’ doing an additional ‘call in’ show? We could do a Sunday morning or afternoon (which might be useful to our more time-zone challenged Readers). Just wanted to get the idea out there! Let us know your thoughts/impulses/feelings.

 

(cool, vintage music video:  only Hendrix could do a line like “…carnival traffic noise” and get away with it!)

 

YouTube Preview Image

 

1)  not as concerned with the language of scotts, mostly Hey! Fuck! come over here and ‘hey, pull my finger’ Mostly the written language of the scott is as the spoken language, very direct: noun-verb-object.  Pretty simple, isn’t it?

2)  people who actually do learn or teach foreign languages are invited to add to modify this description (of the learning process) apologies to any Rosette Stoners who may take offence at my simplification of an arduous and complex process.  (danke)

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