Posts Tagged ‘relationships’
Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
You think that it is natural to fall in love?
Friends of the Doctrine Jen (writing in ) ‘Break the Parenting Mold’ and co-hostini Kristi at ‘Finding Ninee’
are musically enhanced lifeforms and do this thing on Tuesdays which is to present an idea/concept/dream/desire/wish/curse/emotional state and ask y’all to propose a series of songs that provoke the state with the listener (That is what I believe they are doing, but you might want to double check over at theys blogs, just to be sure and all.)
This Tuesday it being: ‘Forbidden Love’
Well, on the issue of forbidden love* the Wakefield Doctrine would say:
clarks: yes…but the odds are they (the other person) will never know
scotts: yes…and they (the soon-to-be-loved-or-beloved-or-possessed )don’t stand chance
rogers: yes…but if you have to include the other person (the object of a too, too personal manifestation of instinct) it will ruin everything
to the musical proof:
but then reality enters the situation
time goes by
no! not cynical
to end it all
* clarks: well, if you think we should
*scotts: yum, yum
* rogers: well, as long as we remember who’s idea this was
It is still true that this blog (Wakefield Doctrine Redux) is intended for content that is more challenging (to the Reader) than is to be found at the ‘main’ Wakefield Doctrine blog. That does not mean that we can not or should not use this site to promote and/or drive traffic to the Doctrine.
What all this effort is for, to reach out to the world and make the Wakefield Doctrine available to any and all people who possess the necessary intellectual and emotional strength to understand what we offer, if not to get people to go to the Wakefield Doctrine blogsite.
To borrow from the film industry (we know they will not mind!):
(Grapes of Wrath).
Forgive the non-sensical Post Title. It is very early in the day and sometimes a silly title gets the words out of the keyboard more efficaciously than all the coffee in Canada. And that is the first goal. Words. Post. New Content.
This iteration of the Wakefield Doctrine is meant for the more seasoned Reader, those familiar with the basic tenets of the Doctrine, although a new Reader should get something from reading this thing. As fans note immediately, this Wakefield Doctrine blog does not sport clever photos or have catchy music videos, just words. Some Posts have a lot of words, other Posts, not so much, depends. Today will be a brief Post. All this Post is meant to do is to encourage those of you who come across this thing and have sufficient curiosity and/or are intrigued by what we seem to be doing, to take a minute and write us a Comment. Nothing elaborate or insightful, we don’t need analyzin or dramatizin just drop us a line* and tell us how we are doing. Thank you.
And as to what we are doing, at least at this blog, is learning about the Wakefield Doctrine. Now you can say, ‘Of course you are’ or as the scottian Reader might express it, “no shit!”; allow us say that while the Doctrine is a unique and useful theory of personality, totally ready to apply to your life situations, we here at the Doctrine are learning (new) aspects of it every day! Just because Einstein wrote his famous equation (one afternoon after a nooner with Mileva), does not mean that we know everything about it (the Equation, not the nooner)! (Well, maybe some of our Readers are not familiar with the concept…nooner-istically speaking…we’re looking at you, clarklike guys!).
In any event, thats not whats important right now. What is important is that those of us here (Progenitors and DownSprings and Readers) are constantly seeing application and validation of the Wakefield Doctrine. As a theory of personality, the primary use and value of the Doctrine is to help you understand the behavior of the people in your life. Maybe it is better to say, the Doctrine can offer you a perspective on behavior that you don’t have and with it you can answer the question we all ask ourselves from time to time, the Question: “Now why one earth would he (or she) go and do a thing like that? I thought I knew them better than that!”
Once you learn the ‘basics’ of the Wakefield Doctrine, you will simply not be able to interact with people without thinking, ‘what a dick! that was such a rogerian thing to do’ or ‘damn, wanna turn down to ’12’ scott’? or even ‘jeez, I did not know that there was even such a thing as sparkle-infused hair coloring! What is that shade called, metallic candy-apple red?’
The above examples are not exaggerations. They happen when you understand that all people are either clarks, scotts or rogers. The Doctrine is useful. The Doctrine is helpful. The Doctrine is fun!
So, what I started out trying to say was, ‘we welcome any observations or questions or thoughts you may have about how you see the world after you have read about the Wakefield Doctrine.’
We also recommend our DownSprings blogs that they write; like DS#1’s Girlie on the Edge or Ms. AKH’s 3 Personality Types. Go read them things.
Stop on back, ya heah?
* ‘drop us a line’ how old is that expression!
it’s called ‘the Wakefield Doctrine (redux)’ for a reason, yo. The Post you will find here is written for the more advanced student of the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers ). If you are new to the Doctrine, then you might want to head on over to the ‘main’ blog of the Doctrine and get yourself right with the basics. Unless you are a clark, in which case you will be able to fast-forward through the principles of the Doctrine and keep up with us.
Today’s Topic is, rogerian females, the most difficult of all the three personality types to identify, at least to identify quickly. When compared to the other two:
- scotts, as far as degree of difficulty in identifying (both male and female)? Are you kidding me? they just about wear a frickin sign complete with a scanner-ready barcode. Really, if you are anything less than so new that you don’t know that there are three personality types called clarks, scotts and rogers, and you have trouble spotting a scott from a photo, then you need to go back down the hall and look for the classroom with the sign that says: “TONIGHT MEYERS-BRIGGS FOR DUMMIES (…oh wait! THAT WOULD BE KIND OF REDUNDANT)”. scotts you identify because they have a ‘look’ in their eyes that says, ‘predator’. That simple.
- clarks: now with clarks the degree of difficulty is a little higher and the male (clark) is actually more difficult to spot than the clarklike female. The clarklike female is almost as easy to identify as is the scott, with the key to spotting them expressed in word one: their face and head and their feet** You will spot the clarklike female because you are not supposed to miss them.*** There is a saying around the Doctrine, “the clarklike female: her face (and head) say come hither, but their footwear says, ‘feets be true to me now!!” The clarklike male will be easiest to spot by looking to the areas in your vicinity where there does not seem to be anyone doing anything,…(sort of like that old 1 panel puzzle, ‘find the Indian in this picture’ where there is a figure drawn into the background and only when you filter out the noise will you see the Indian). Its the same with identifying clarks, once you spot them (in a situation) you will wonder, how the hell you did not notice them before.
- rogers (of the male persuasion). These guys are next in difficulty level, even though they are everywhere you look: riding bicycles, wearing hats, re-creating horrifying periods in human history, building airplanes and smoking pipes. A note here: male rogers of a certain age are easy to confuse with scotts, the younger, more aggressive rogers are capable of being pushy enough to appear scottian, but listen to them speak. rogers will use the personal pronoun more than any, more than that, they will be self-referential…hey, you’ll know it when you hear it
Which brings us to the rogerian female. To find this one you must know your Doctrine cold, you need to have a comprehensive knowledge of the characteristics of the world that rogers inhabit. We all know that the Wakefield Doctrine is gender and culture neutral, and this is true…for the basic premise. But the fact remains that there are genders and there are cultures, so we must take our understanding of the world that the clark or the scott or the roger lives in and apply it through a filter of gender and culture biases and norms.
In Western culture, at least up until the last 50 years, certain professions were not available to the female women; engineering, accounting, lawyering, doctoring and such. In fact, seeing that in print, rogerian females were pretty much limited to domestic engineering. (ALERT….CLUE TO IDENTIFICATION ) If our goal is to find male rogers, we merely need to go to the jobs and professions that they are naturally suited to; since we are looking for rogerian females we need look only to the places they are to be found….the home. And they are there! Homemakers! All cultures eventually evolve past the stage where the females are found only in the home, but for our purposes let us consider the home as the place we can identify the rogerian female. To aid in this process, let us first look at the clarklike (female) homemaker and the scottian (female) homemaker:
- clarklike homemaker: can be identified in one word: home schooling, and painting the faces of the neighborhood children who come to play at their friends (who have such a neat mom) and lots and lots of food with a heavy emphasis on the homemade breads and amino-acid enhanced fruit drinks
- scottian homemaker: supermom, the one who organises the really cool field trips, the one with the hamburger patties than are just like BurgerKing (cept your parents make you eat burger made with fresh beef), the scottian mom also has this really cool whistle that she uses to call her kids in (it can be heard throughout the neighborhood) and the scottian mom doesn’t mind yelling at you like you were one of her kids, but you don’t mind ’cause at a certain age you realise she is kinda hot
- rogerian homemaker: picture perfect! really, we mean ‘picture perfect’ as in: the meals and the living room and the decor and the yard furniture and the frickin itinerary of the family vacation is exactly like what is described in the magazines! And this is our clue, as all rogers live in the world of the herd, the rogerian female will create and align and conform to a larger herd (the one provided by the culture through the media i.e. Good House Keeping, Red Book, Better Homes and Garden).
These magazines and television depictions of the Proper Lifestyle are the female equivalent of the laws of physics that rogerian engineers live by and the principles of math that rogerian accountants conform to and the Common Law that rogerian judges and lawyers put their faith in. If you are old enough, think: Harriet Nelson as the rogerian mom and Donna Reed as the scottian mom and June Cleaver as the clarklike mom.
Of course, here in the 21st Century, we are not as limited by the culture as to which profession men excel in and which are where women are to be found. But since the Wakefield Doctrine in nothing if it is not a description of the world that an individual lives in, we need to know what avenues of self-expression are available to them!
(whoa, whoa, whoa…not so fast! You have not even heard what it is that the Wakefield Doctrine Theory of Personality types has to Offer.) There is a cost, even though we are spreading the news about the Wakefield Doctrine everywhere we can, most people, including you if you are still reading this Post, have not gotten the message.
That the Doctrine can help you make sense of the behavior of the people in your life is not a question. It can. It has helped people see themselves from a different perspective and it has (offered people) an insight into the actions and behavior of others that until now, had them ripping their own hair out in frustration.
So why are we expecting Readers to pay a price for something that is admittedly available for free? Because of the Wakefield Doctrine tells us of human nature and the three personality types that account for all the people you will encounter today.
Lets start this again.
The Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers ) is a unique approach to classifying personality types. The Wakefield Doctrine maintains that there are three personality types: clarks, scotts and rogers. If you understand the characteristics of these three types, you will not only understand why a person behaves the way that they do, but you will be in a position to predict what they will do before they do it. You will, in fact, know more about the person than they know about themselves.
The premise is simple.
The use of (this knowledge) is unlimited.
The Wakefield Doctrine is not easy ‘to get’ at first, but the rewards of knowing about clarks, scotts and rogers is well worth the effort. So write a Comment, ask a question and it will all become clear.
And if you play your cards right, you might even get a nearly free Wakefield Doctrine hat (for your damn head)
Most of us agree that a reasonable goal in life is to try to live and do well by others while hoping to achieve some degree of self fulfillment and (the maximum) of self-actualization. If you are a scott or a roger , the goals of life will be different (than this) but essentially the same. To find out why, y’all oughta get on over to the Wakefield Doctrine where the reasons for this difference become crystal clear.
Before we begin the discussion about the normal level of emotional/ stress/ anxiety as experienced by most of us when we wake up in the morning, we should first try to describe the ‘information environment’ that we all live in today. By ‘information environment’, we mean to refer to all the sources of news and information that the average person comes into contact with, throughout the course of a day. Furthermore, since we are talking about exposure to information, we want to be clear that this is not just (the information) we might seek out as individuals, but information that is thrust upon us. A typical morning in most Western cultures is not considered complete until a newspaper is read or the morning news show is watched. This is the information we seek. There is a significant amount of information that we are all exposed to that we do not seek out, advertisement in all media, billboards on the highways, even TV that is on in waiting rooms and gas stations and restaurants. All of these are sources of news and information that we are all exposed to in the course of an average day. (One of the most pernicious, and difficult to turn off sources of news and information is people. Our family and friends and co-workers are all eager to share the latest Hollywood gossip, Washington scandal, London weddings and home town tales. All news all the time, 24 hours a day we are bombarded with information.
Lets start with a basic premise:
- Anyone disagree that today we have more sources of information, of the news and current events variety, than we have ever had before?
- Anyone disagree that the ‘style of presentation’ of the news is decidedly headed towards the sensationalistic ?
- Anyone disagree that we get bombarded everyday with ‘bad news’, correct?
I hear a roger out there saying, “yeah, that’s because there are a lot of bad things happening in the world. I can’t simply stick my head in the sand and hope it goes away”!
That is the ‘reasonable response’, rogers are always so reasonable. (Note: you rogerian Readers will have the most difficulty with the suggestion of this Post).
(Think about the word, ‘sensationalistic’…a variation on the root word ‘sensation’, to feel a sensation, get input from external sources, stimulation etc etc.
Why do you think the producers of the news shows think it is necessary to get you to experience a sensation while conveying information (news)? To…get…you caught up in the story.)
The Problem: exposure to News and Current Events makes you feel stress, following stories of weather Disasters and political Disasters and celebrity Disasters raises your (internal) anxiety levels, whether you are consciously aware of it or not. It just does. Everything you see and hear and read is packaged in such a way to guarantee that you react, mad/glad/sad/happy/outraged, does not matter what emotion you feel, just as long as you feel an emotion.
The Solution: I simply no longer expose myself to the “news and current events” environment. I do not read the newspapers, do not read headlines on the google and most assuredly do not watch television news shows. And as a result of this, I find that I am more productive, calmer and less stressed during the course of an average day.
I believe that a rational, reasonable intelligent person, (say…you and me…) cannot watch the end-of-the-world/storm-of-the-Century/wait-until-you-hear-this type TV news shows without spending some part of the rest of the day, stopping and thinking, “no way, they did not say that“.
So, if you watch the Today show, or any of the other morning news shows, you will spend some part of your day recalling what they said, the stories they presented to the audience and (you will) waste some part of your day trying to make sense of what they seemed to be saying.
“Yeah but what about the roger’s statement earlier about how you can’t ignore the news/ you have to know some of the things going on ”
Real simple answer: they (the rogers) are totally wrong on this one.
I guarantee that the world will not collapse if you try this thing. Opt-out of the emotionally manipulative media environment of news and current events in all forms. It will be difficult at first, we all have habits and we have a certain curiosity about whats going on in the world. But once you have broken the cycle, you will find that you do not need to know which Middle Eastern country is the GReat Satan this week, you will discover that as sad as it might be, you do not need to follow a Reporter as they get the inside story on the latest natural disaster.
Do it for your mental health, do it for the quality of your family life.
Hey, glad you could stop by!
You probably do not know it, but this is the first place the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers ) appeared, blogistically-speaking. Nearly 3 damn years ago, we started writing Posts in the effort to let people everywhere know about the Wakefield Doctrine. (Been pretty darn successful too!)
Quick backstory: the Wakefield Doctrine is a personality theory that is based on the idea that all people experience the world in one of three distinct and characteristic ways, as a clark or a scott or a roger. Unlike most personality schema, the Doctrine does not ask about what you think your likes and dis-likes are, we are not trying to catalog your behaviors and could care less about what you think your dominant traits are. We simply say, ‘as a clark you experience life this way…as a scott, the world you walk out into today will look like this…if you are a roger, then you will live in a world that is this way and so on).
Furthermore, the Wakefield Doctrine holds that we are all born with the potential to see the world in any of these three ways, but for some reason, by the age of 3 or 4 we all settle on one (of the three) and that is the reality we grow up in. The ‘other two’ ways of seeing the world do not disappear, simply go dormant, when we talk about a person being a clarklike personality or a scottian woman or a rogerian guy, we are referring to the pre-dominant way of seeing the world.
All the rest of what personality theories try to figure out simply makes sense, if you know the kind of world/reality the person is experiencing. Pretty simple and a damned elegant solution to a problem that has been plaguing mankind since we could see our shadows on the walls of the cave, “why on earth would he or she behave that way”?
With the Wakefield Doctrine you will not only be able to answer that question, but you will be able to predict the behavior of (the other) person in any of life’s situations.
…and we have hats! (for your damn heads).
… did we mention the ‘Call in Show?’ damn, well there is a Call In Show that we call Wakefield Saturday Night Drive…this is a set up where you can call a number listed on the Wakefield Doctrine blog (no, the other one) and you can talk live and in realtime to Progenitors and DownSprings!! Really…all the while, we will be in a car driving around the actual geographically locatable Wakefield!! Now, how cool is that…if you do the right thing, there could be a hat (for your damn head) in it for you!.
All this talk about Saturday Night Drive gots me feeling kinda country, so lets listen to Alan sing us a song…