The source of the knowledge and information contained in this blog. By definition, three sources: clarks, scotts and rogers. Make sense? (If not, then keep reading.)
New Post...the Robt Palmer and coming this week a 'Interview' Post with Glenn and Ms. AKH and Downspring#1 and Miss Dowd don't miss it! 3 weeks ago
New Post coming up: AKH and Denise teach the CSR 101 class...don't miss it! 4 weeks ago
The Leadership Lecture Post is up. Good Post, totally excellent video. If I can't write good.. I can lift great youtube vids. Jean Jean!! 1 month ago
All content back from Glenn for 'Lecture' Post in editing...should be Posting by tomorrow... 1 month ago
Tips for the First Time Visitor…
The Wakefield Doctrine is (both) gender neutral and culture neutral...
If you feel you identify with all three types, you are on the right track. It is the predominance of qualities that make us one or the other...the overall 'style' that makes one a clark or a scott or a roger...
The Posts are in reverse chronological order, newest at the top, older as you scroll down...
It is up to you to decide which of the three personality types you are...
The Posts (to the left) are 'conversations', the Pages listed at the top contain knowledge and information...
The thinking around the Doctrine of late, has been, “hey do we help/let/inform the new Readers of the Wakefield Doctrine sufficiently so that this sometimes…eccentric?(nah)…eclectic?(warm but still not)…ecclesiastical? (no! god no)…blog is clear to the first time Reader?
(or to put that in scottian terms, “Hey! you gettin this or what?”)
Today’s Post will be a review and outline, if you will, of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers). A definition of the Doctrine, it’s goals and an outline of the ways and means (as roger might say) that we employ to present this thing of ours to you the Reader. So read, learn, enjoy (and buy a hat).
You regular Readers, think of this as a surprise Teachers Conference Day (you remember those days off that were never the same time year to year, but were also not regular holidays so you could be home and your parents and the rest of the world went on about it’s business, and you got to see the world like a bunk day without the threat of getting caught?) You people can skip to the bottom (no, not literallyclark) and see what Mr. B has ‘provided’. We will catch up with you at the end, have some news and current events so don’t just leave after the videos.
OK back to our Presentation…
The Wakefield Doctrine is a fun and useful way to view and understand the behavior of those around us, at home and at work and at play. Some might call it a system of personality types, and while we do have three ‘types’ (clarks, scotts and rogers), we are not setting out to assign certain behaviors to the types. Instead we say, here is how this person perceives the world. (Their) behavior always follows from that. Not the other way around. This blog has pages for each, clark, scott and roger, click on the link and you can get more detailed information about each.
So that is what the Wakefield Doctrine is, what we are trying to do is bring it to as many people as possible. We have found that once a person gets the basic concept and identifies the types of people around them, there is no turning back. And this is a good thing. If you understand how a scottian person perceives the world, you will know how they will act in any situation. The same for clarks and rogers. Then combine this knowing how others will act with your knowledge of your own type, and you got it made in the shade. If you know you are a clark and you are dealing with a roger, then (as the song says) ‘you won’t get fooled again’. (Not that it is only about getting fooled, but it is totally about understanding how others see you and how your own view of the world is only one of three possible ways to perceive it.)
So that is the what is the Doctrine. Who is the Doctrine is also pretty straightforward. You will see reference to Progenitors and Downsprings. Progenitors are the three handsome/striking/slightly odd gentleman in the photo in the upper left of this page. The Downsprings are the people who help write this thing of ours, people who learned of the Doctrine and are basically self-taught but show a gift for expressing the Doctrine. You will see them in Posts and Comments and other places around here, be sure to say hi. And finally there are Friends of the Doctrine. These are people who we have met since the blog started and have been of help and support, Mel at the Spatula, Jason at Project: Enlightenment, Ronin at the Renaissance, Pixieblonde at Secondlifewith… as well as others like Kino and Jen and others.
How we do this thing, present the Doctrine is where it gets interesting. We try to present some facts (about the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) with each Post, but often we create a format just to present the information in an entertaing or amusing way. You will find Posts that have Interviews with Downsprings and Progenitors, you will find an ‘Advice Column’ in one Post (written by the very capable Ms. AKH) and finally you will find Posts that (appear to) take place in a High School. Specifically a certain Millard Fillmore High, and even more specifically in the 11th grade AP class: CSR 101. Not only that but you will find characters that return again and…
Characters? You better smile when you say that, even if you are a Progenitor! Never mind him…what he is trying to say (can you say pedantic? lol) there is a storyline here that seems to be developing sort of in it’s own. Starring! yours truely…Janie….Janie Sullivan…like you haven’t gone and looked me up!…as if…anyway these ‘people’ seem to bore easily and then resort to making up situations that involve me and my bff Britney and even our childhood friend Jimmy. Well…being easily distracted once we showed up, (the rogers first CSR 101 class) there was no keeping us quiet, but they’re ok just a little stuffy sometimes…except that Glenn..‘would you like a tegretol in your coffee, Mr M? Anyway we are the entertaining aspect to this Doctrine thingie…but I have to say it is all true…just ask Teacher…he is such a roger…lol see ya
So there you have it. The Wakefield Doctrine. What. Who. How. Why, when, where or some damn thing…
What? Oh sorry and there is the estimable Mr. B who has come to us to help us stay amused and entertained.
(For our scottian Readers)
Now for the rogers
clarks, (yeah that was one of the single greatest guitar licks at the end of the song)
There is much to talk about but first, the fun of fashion, Doctrine Style. Envy the owners of the scottian heads that will soon be adorned by this fine hat.
A fine hat for your own damn scottian head.
Look on this, and feel the desire grow within your heart on behalf of your un-hatted head. Pretty nice, you say? Damn right is pretty nice. Maybe even too nice!
The lucky two with these hats (Ms. AKH and Ms. Pixieblonde) are both fortunate and deserving of your envious thoughts, you should accept that you must earn such fashion. There will be new opportunity for both Men and Women of the clarklike, scottian and rogerian varieties, to earn such headcoverings.
Alright, enough with the hats already. They have theirs and you can get yours if you really want to, but we are not here, writing this to sell hats.
We are here writing this to sell* the Wakefield Doctrine (aka the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers).
And by *sell we mean present to as many as qualified** people as possible the principles and practical applications*** of said Doctrine.
And by **qualified we mean people who upon visiting this blog and reading it’s content are capable of loosening the grip of dogma enough to allow the overlay of the description of the world that the Doctrine offers.
And by ***principles and practical applications of the Doctrine, we mean it offers an alternative, an adjunct to the way most of us interpret the actions, behaviors and intentions of the people we live and work and play with every day of our lives****.
And by****lives, we mean the increasingly rigid lens through which we not only perceive the world we exist in, but we also use as the template which informs our experiences as we live our lives.
Let’s talk about practical applications (of the Doctrine)….the Doctrine tells us that only one of the three (clarks, scotts and rogers) consider a tool that is useful in altering themselves (and thereby their realities) to be a valuable thing. In other words to change themselves. You know who you are.
Another of the three will, if engaged sufficiently in the Wakefield Doctrine, consider the most valuable is as a tool to change others, changing the view that the world has of them.
Finally, the third (of the three) will view the Doctrine as a tool, a weapon, to aid them in dealing with the hostile world they live in.
Tired? Bored? You want what? Come on people, learn firstthen have fun.
(Alright…damn, I wonder if Rev Moon had to put up with this…alright…short break for you attention-span challenged Readers….I see you out there scott. Jeez, try to bring the Secret of the Universe to the masses and what do you get…”More videos!!” and they are not even mine, if it wasn’t for the youtube we probably would have been shut down months ago. OK here you go…)
OK back to work…
(Free hat to the Reader who correctly identifies which of the three Ray was; to enter you need to write a Comment at the bottom of this Post. You must tell us which Ray is (clark, scott or roger) and why that is the case. Free hat to the first 5 correct responses recieved by 4:00 pm Monday March 8th)
OK. Back to work.
… lets get all Readers Digest on this thing.
clarks live inside their own heads because it’s all much better in there
clarks are the only (one of the three) to sincerely entertain the idea that it would be better to be someone else
clarks read a lot and to say that clarks daydream a lot is to totally go redundant
clarks work very hard at whatever they do but since we are bored very easily, do not do well at repetitive tasks
clarks are the creative one(s) of the three
clarksshare, to a fault
clarks believe that if they work hard and help others unselfishly at some point they will no longer be different
‘knowledge is power’ is a keystone concept to clarks
It can be said that clarks can believe anything and therefore believe in nothing. (If you know what that means, you are a clark).
yeah here too, lets get all Readers Digest on this thing.
scotts are leaders (because they are certain, not necessarily right, but certain).
scotts are self-confident/self-assured/certain (which is why, of course, they are the leaders)
scotts are emotional in a way different from rogers, it is for the moment emotion, not much grudge holding
in a band it is always a scott who is the ‘front man’, (see leader above)
at a party scotts will not hesitate to introduce themselves (to everyone)
for the most part, when confronted with a threat or other fear-generating situation, a scott will choose to attack rather than flee
scottian females can be ridiculously sexy or quick witted, hardly ever both.
(female) scotts can be spotted because they have prominent throat tendons (ask us why)
One of the most useful metaphors in the Wakefield Doctrine is: grouping (when you have more than one of each type, what do the characteristics tell us about the individual?)
a group of scotts is a pack
you gotta like the form, its a fucking bullet list, but lets get all Readers Digest on this thing.
rogers are the friendly ones
rogers are the glue to whatever social fabric you might care to consider, civic, religious, scientific
rogers require rules and traditions, they are in fact the only ‘reason’ that history of human civilization has any continuity whatsoever
rogers are behind the creation or and perpetuation of virtually all human institutions, religious, civic, political whatever
rogers do not create, they maintain, they assemble, they are the machine operators
rogers are the engineers, accountants and physicians
rogers are the judges, the firefighters and high school teachers (except for gym teachers)
rogers believe in a quantifiable universe to such a depth that it is not seperable
when you are new to a neighborhood, rogers are the ones who come over to introduce themselves, and they will appear in a group ( herd), the scotts are the neighbors who always offer to help you with projects, scotts will feel comfortable asking to borrow and offering to lend things, but they will show up (at your house) alone.
Herds, rogers be in herds…
Well, that is helpful, no?
Alright, we have covered a lot of ground. No, there will be no questions from the floor, roger. The eyes I see have a distinct glaze.
But in all seriousness, read this shit and look around you today, right now. Pick one person only and decide whether they are a clark, scott or roger. And keep checking their behavior against the Doctrine. I guarentee that once you find one, the others will be much more obvious. You will probably spot a roger first, but any of the three will do. Personally, I think it would be easier and more fun to spend a little extra time and find your nearest clark. (The clarklike females are totally easy to spot). Don’t bother with which of the three you are at this point. Not important. You just want to spot the clarks, and the scotts and the rogers around you. Like one of those old puzzles in the back of kids magazines or Sunday supplements, “Find the tigers in the jungle”; once you discern the first pattern, the rest jump out at you.
Now don’t think we don’t know that which of the three (clarks, scotts or rogers) you happen to be, will have an effect on how you respond to this…but by virtue of the fact that you are still reading, still with us is proof that you have what it takes to apply the Doctrine in your own life.
Good luck, don’t forget the contest and don’t worry so much…
Hey, its a mid-week Post! What say we go easy on the lessons and relax for a spell. (There will be much to cover, but we’ll get to that in the end of the week Post).
We are always looking for different and (hopefully) interesting ways to present the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers), the thinking is the more varied the context that this thing is presented in, the greater the likelihood that our Readers will be able to apply these principles to their own lives.
So, what is more universal than an Advice Column? Better yet, an Advice Column that focuses on relationships. To that end we have asked Ms. AKH to help us out. She has written a number of Posts that have been quite well received, one on couples (from a scottian perspective) click here. and she has also written for our newest member of the faculty at Millard Fillmore High (as student teacher) click here.
(There’s the background of our Contributing Downspring, let’s see what Ms. AKH has for us…)
WD: Ms. AKH Welcome! After your Post on scottian/rogerian couples, we have heard a lot of interest in how the Doctrine can help people work through ‘relationship problems’. We would like to pose some questions to you and maybe you would consent to be our Advice Columnist (for couples).
Before we start, in your Post on columns, you spoke so glowingly about your relationship with a roger, how are you two doing?
Ms.AKH: Well, you’ll never believe it. That rogerian guy I was seeing turned out to be an asshole. Out of the blue he just stopped calling me. Wouldn’t return my phone calls either or respond to my e-mails trying to find out what happened. It actually worked out well because I was starting to “not feel it” anymore anyway. But still, he could’ve had enough balls to respect me and to let me know why. Went from adoring me to ignoring me. What a typical weak roger. Such a fucking coward. Personally I think that we scottian females are too much for a rogerian male to handle.
WD: Oh. I see, but what are we to learn about the scottian half of a couple like this (your case)? I am tempted to think there is a tendency of the scottian female to tire of the routine, hear the call of ‘the hunt’ if you will? Not for nothing, but we have all seen cats bat the little, soon-to-be-dinner mouse around for fun. As a people (scotts) live for the hunt, perhaps a steady diet of pleasant company gets a little boring?
Ms AKH: Love your analogy! I think it depends on the level of confidence of the roger. Certainly the scottian females enjoy batting the little mouse around, the mouse easily being a roger. This can be satisfied in a scottian/rogerian relationship if the roger is strong enough and the scott is not overly predatory. That being said, not all scottian females are as predatory as let’s say scottian males. So my conclusion is that if the rogerian male is strong enough to withstand the antics of the scottian female, the relationship could be successful. Being with a roger would both ground her and give her the upper hand as it were (in her mind) that she needs.
WD: We have a more generalized question about couples. We all agree that the scottian female/rogerian male couple is very easy to identify. What of the scott/clark couples. How would we identify such a couple? And what special characteristics do they have?
Ms. AKH: From the outside, the scott would appear to be the “stronger” of the two. In fact, the clark would be perceived as the subordinate one due to his seemingly lack of interest/interaction and subdued nature. However, don’t be fooled by this. The cogs are constantly turning. And though the scott may think of himself/herself as being the “leader of the pack” and therefore superior, it is important to remember that the clark is extremely cerebral and always “on the hunt” mentally. They are a pair of hunters with the scott being outwardly aggressive while the clark is inwardly insatiable.
WD: Since we are on the topic, do you think that a scott/scott couple is very likely? Would they not eat each other… (not necessarily in the good way)?
Ms AKH: You’re making me blush! There are many scott/scott relationships out there which easily spotted, but inevitably unsuccessful. These are the turbulent ones. Filled with constant battles, this couple would be in constant turmoil fueled by each other’s strong personalities. For example, the couples who call the police for restraining orders against each other. But then you have the other scott/scott relationships which are successful. If both partners have the same life goals, they would be a couple to contend with. Very ambitious and successful in reaching their ideals. Just imagine, two hunters against the world. Kind of a scary proposition. They would no doubt be able to catch their prey quite easily and effectively. It would be child’s play to reach and even surpass the goals that they intend to achieve. So yes, a scott/scott couple is possible.
WD: Thank you for these insights. In keeping with starting a little ‘Advice for the Lovelorn’ column, I would like to pose a specific question and get your input.
(WD): As a young clark I had a relationship with a scottian female, very ‘exciting’ …(that’s all you get from me, I am a clark, lol) Anyway, long story short. She dumps me for a roger! Like no notice, just withdraws and then (him) being a roger, it was all, “hey it’s not our fault it just happened, you need to get on with your life, clark. Please dont hate me…” So what could I have done differently? Is there something in a scottian female/clarklike male that is inherently unstable?
Ms AKH: Unless you wanted to be someone other than yourself, there really isn’t anything you could’ve done without compromising your integrity. Your strong point is outwitting others mentally. I’m not so sure about being inherently unstable. In this case, I would have to say that the scottian female may have felt threatened and that she wasn’t able to feel she was in control of the relationship. This would explain leaving you for the roger. A roger is, afterall, non-confrontational and easy to control. Rogers pretty much go with the flow and are followers. And this would give the scott the role of “leader of the pack” she so desperately needs. Being in control without being questioned from a roger.
WD: Thank you, MS AKH. I am sure our Readers will have their own questions in the near future, perhaps we should plan on making this a more regualr feature here at the Doctrine.
Well, that was informative and fun! There is a place, right below for your Comments or questions. Don’t be shy. And no one will call you at home and ask you follow-up questions, so lets get some Reader participation here.
I mean, I know what I want to talk about, but it’s how to talk about it that has me dialing: 1-800-kitchensink.
You do not want to know how many drafts it has taken to get even this far. But write it I will. (remind me to tell you later about how helpful our Miss Sullivan has been).
Let’s start at the beginning (…”and go on till you come to the end” L Carroll):
‘The Wakefield Doctrine is built upon the idea that everyone experiences the world/reality differently, from one of three overlapping but distinctive perspectives… maintains that this characteristic perception of reality can be grouped into three distinct types, called for reasons stated elsewhere, clarks, scotts and rogers.’
…we also possess the potential to see the world as a clark or a scott or a roger. It is only the predominance of qualities from one (over the other two) that makes us what we are. No one is only clarklike or scottian or rogerian. (source: About: The Wakefield Doctrine (italics added).
Why quote that which we all know?
To assert balance.
In the last few Posts we have received a good amount of input from the scottian perspective. We appreciate this. The Doctrine is being read by more and more (repeat) Readers because of this input.
(and)…it is the nature of scotts to present strong opinion on all matters, the topic of rogers being no exception.
(All Opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the person, character or self-identified entity attaching their names to said Opinion. These Opinions do not necessarily reflect the Opinions of other Progenitors or Downsprings. All Comments are possibly incorrect, with the exception of those from the one with the marked penchant for parenthes(es))1
So, let us go right to the matter at hand.
Rogers are awful…
they are awfully opinionated and parochial, they are awfully judgemental and closed minded and obsessed with the mundane and the measurable and the repeatable and the consistent and the reliable and…it is a good thing we have rogers or we would all be living on the open savannah, sleeping in trees and looking over our shoulders every time we tried to have a drink of water.
Our scottian brethren (in fact our individual scottian aspect) are not incorrect in their assessment of the foibles of the rogerian nature; they are simply limited. Their Comments are direct and without nuance or subtely, you know: scottian. But neither are they (the scotts) at fault, they are merely expressing their perception.
Having said that, I would not want to fly to Vegas in a plane designed by scotts (or for that matter, a plane built by clarks).
In the first case, the plane would have 5 over-sized jet engines stuck on various sections of the fuselage, mostly towards the back of the plane, painted bright colors and the pilot would be expected to be able to stick his head out the window to scream at other passing jets. In the second case, the interior would consist primarily of couches (with pillows and quilts), that while comfortable, would tend to slide around (a lot) and there would be 6 or 7 bathrooms taking up the entire back half of the plane.
(You get my point).
It is a given here at the Doctrine that those who participate are assumed to be able to handle whatever forms of interactions occur. And while we maintain the editorial right to shape expressions of opinions, it is with no small amount of pride that we can say that has not happened yet. What you read is the direct and un-abashed thoughts and opinions of the contributors.
But that is only half of the challenge we faced sitting down at the keyboard here.
The other half (and possibly the half with the greater significance for this thing of ours) is how to speak to them (rogers and scotts and clarks), as brother Malcom said:
“And during the few moments that we have left, we want to talk, right down to
earth, in a language that everybody here can easily understand.” (Malcolm X)
The simple fact of the matter is that if not written in the ‘language’ of the type, no message will get through. Another way to say it: if I do not manage to ’speak scottian‘ to a scott, my message will be misinterpreted at best and totally unheard at worst. If I cannot speak to a roger in the language of the herd then I will be treated as noise.
This is the dilemma we face with this Post.
But, fuck it. We are writing (this) which is not the same as assuming that we are communicating (with the Reader).
Hey scott! Hey!! Don’t eat all of the local herd or you may find yourself having to go outside of your own hunting grounds…getting hungry…getting weak…finding new hunting grounds and finding…a whole new pack of scotts…(and we all know how social and co operative scotts are). (Can you say, ‘the weak and old simply get left behind to die’? I knew you could!)
Hey roger…get over it. The herd is all there is… until you look up. Once you see the herd, I hate to burst your bubble pal, you ain’t in the herd anymore. And try as you might, you can never, never bury yourself in historical novels and documentaries by Saint Ken, never go back to that bovine indifference to the werld. And those scotts that you love supplying food for and the clarks that make you feel so better than…guess what?
They know that you know. And know that you know that they know…
oh clark…don’t think you can type yourself out of this one…no, there will be no literary constructs to divert the Reader. No mf…you of all of the three forms, you are the one to indulge in the ‘people? can’t we all just get along’ bullshit. Which, when you really look at it, is a sin against all that the Doctrine stands for… goddamn dude, you really think that just sitting there and typing this shit week after week was going to change you into the real person you have always been afraid that you are not? Well, you may be on track but you better be prepared to step outside of your perfectly defined-surely-this-includes-all-inferences-and-possibilties little world. As the Lady would say, ‘You been told’.
Welll…that sort of went all toyota on us, didn’t it? (Heh heh) …oh Janie!
what? no…busy now…come back.. oh alright! Now I am called in to lighten things up? Any of you real people/Readers think through the implications of using a ‘literary construct’ to lend a sense of reasonableness to the shenanigans that go on around here? Even a hint of how messed up that is? No, I didn’t, think you had…
Hey, did you know that the old janitor/music video guy (Mr. B, I believe) was once a professional musician? yeah! he was just telling me…no, not too old man tries to recapture… but I am an ‘A’ student in the Doctrine and I did not know that a roger could deliberately give up his rogerian expression…yeah me too. Anyway he had to run and left the following music said that if you don’t try too hard you will get the connection…whatever
…can I go home now? this does get just a bit tedious…
1) In case of disagreement, the protocol will be followed:
we are right and you are wrong…
So today’s Post will give you a perspective on clarks, scotts and rogers in the words of a clark and a scott and a roger.
With each Post we strive to present the Wakefield Doctrine in ways meant to help you, the Reader to grasp the concept of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) in such a way as to be able to apply it to your daily life. Our goal is that there will be a moment in the course of your day at which you will stop and say (to yourself or aloud): ”Oh my god! there are such things as clarks and scotts and rogers!” “And they’re frickin everywhere!”
So for today’s Post, something from (three of) the Downsprings (here at the Doctrine).
Question: What is the most important thing about your scottian personality that you believe most people do not get? Glenn –People sometimes think I’m cruel—or mean-spirited. I am not. I enjoy people immensely. I am capable of more compassion and empathy than most people I know. As a scott I am devoted to being the center of attention. I use humor as one of the ways to get people to pay attention to me. I love put-down humor. I love being the butt of other peoples’ humor—as long as it’s funny, I don’t care. But some (rogers especially) have some kind of “rule” against put-down humor. Oprah must have told them that good people don’t do that to each other. It’s “hurtful”. Fucking babies. I engage in humor only with people whose company I enjoy. If I bust your agates, it means I like you. A guy I play ball with, a classic weak roger, recently took me aside and ASKED me not to put him down anymore. As soon as he asked me, I stopped liking him—so, problem solved. He no longer exists to me. Here’s what people don’t get: Ignoring you means I dislike you—not that I respect you. Busting your balls means that I like you—and I respect your ability to handle it—and give it back. When I told a slightly stronger roger about this weak- assed request from this asshole, he said to me, “You have to earn the respect of your peers—not BEG for it”. Seems so obvious to me. Hard to believe people can be so intentionally sensitive. A lot of rogers LIKE victimhood. It’s the only power they’ll ever have. Poor fucks.
Question: What is the most important thing about your clarklike personality that you believe most people do not get? Downspring#1- Humor. People (some) sometimes do not get my sense of humor. Granted it is on the dry side but I do have a good sense of humor and fun. A kid at heart. But here’s the thing – many people “do not get” a lot of things when it comes to clarks. These are mostly the rogers of the world. To be fair there are a select few that do “get me” however, next to other clarks, scotts“get” me quicker than rogers. Perhaps it is because scotts see a little of themselves in clarks. I actually am a friendly person but as a clark am often seen as “aloof” and “distant”, even “snobbish”. How so very far from the truth. It is just that it takes a certain amount of time for a clark to “reveal” him/her self – to decide how comfortable they are with another. There is an automatic instinct in clarks that allow them to either dismiss or accept a person pretty much in the first few minutes of meeting them. Similar in a sideways fashion to scotts in that respect but without the hunger element present. Let’s not forget the “underestimation” of clarks. Geez, I could probably go on and more in depth but
Question: What is the most important thing about your rogerian personality that you believe most people do not get? Phyllis:I guess, as a roger, I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about if people understand me or not. What’s to understand. If you don’t understand something that is important to me, I am quick to enlighten you. The task at hand is more important than the “personality” behind it. I am not friendly, not kind, not generous; but people tend to see me that way and why change their view.
So, there you have it, direct from the source(s).
These are not paid actors, no one has been scripted, prompted, encouraged, pychoanalyzed or dramatized, they are simply answering a question. One of the three above will resonate (with you) and the other two will make you think of someone you know.
Your assignment today is simply to go about your day and from time to time, ask yourself, ‘is this (person) a clark, or is she a scott, might he be such a roger’?
If you are not certain, jot a note to yourself and when you come back, if you are still not sure then write us a Comment, give us a description and we will be glad to help.
Mr. B? A moment? You know a lot of us like most of your videos. Yes, of course, you’re welcome. What? No, we have gone over that and we agree that all that unpleasantness is behind us. Years and years ago, a different time and place, we both agreed. Yes, I understand. What I wanted to talk to you about is that we need to get even more eclectic in the video music.
Yes, I relate to all of it, but there is a large part of the readership of the Doctrine that did not live through those times. You have the music background, I am sure you will find samples of music that will ‘broaden our appeal’. Yes, even the Slovenians. As a group they are quite sophisticated, I know I feel the same way. So if you would…
What? Which other matter?
Oh, that other matter. Yes I will concede that you were there before the (current) Progenitor. But we have had the name the same for all these years, well I supposed if you wanted to ask him. Yes, it was a trying time for all of us…yeah I’m sure she was worth giving up a friendship for…is there any doubt? We recently had a scottian female/rogerian male perspective in one of our Posts. No, I don’t mind. Yes, being alone does afford you time, by all means, you may approach Miss Sullivan for help with something like that. We are all fond of Janie.
We’ll talk more later, yes I promise. The music? Oh yes, I believe the second floor Ladies Room is next on your schedule…no, no you’re entirely welcome. Yeah anytime.
…always on a steady course, talk to… Oh! Hey did not see you click in.
What? Yeah, am that old, but come on! What is there not to like about the theme song. It is bright, upbeat, optimistic and above all welcoming. In a qualified, “why yes, the answer is here” (with this horse) and you can ask for enlightenment, sort of way. Further, we are entreated to go to the source…but there is a catch.
“..he’ll give you the answer that you endorse’… now just what the hell is that supposed to mean? Is that a threat? You will accept the answer you are given without reservation or questioning? But this was Post Cold War, c 1961, not the most secure time in the culture’s history.
Anyway, Mr Ed is not the theme of today’s Post. Arnold Ziffle is! (For you younger readers, it will all become clear as you read)
As if! sorry, could not stay quiet. No, not upset! Just that rambling old creators make me want to just grab their collars and give them a good shake! SOMS? lol What is that? No! I’m sorry did not mean to be so insensitive…dontshake.com? really is a site? lol I’m soo sorry. See what these old writers make me do?
Those old shows are kind of cute…some even funny..more videos to come? Well at least the teacher is back, won’t have to have Ms. Ack teach…really…all semester? Where is my guidance counselor…SHH he’s coming back…
The theme? Oh, yeah, right, the theme. With a straight face you ask what is the theme of today’s Post? It is the same as that of every other Post since this thing of ours has started. See the title at the top of the web page? What does that say? ‘Wake Field Doc Trin’ keerect. Since this is the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) I guess I had better start talking about the WakefieldDoctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers).
(Good to see the roger back at the keyboard. And he is correct…I do welcome the input and content and contributions of all the Progenitors and Downsprings. And the input from our new friends as well. Hey Pixie! Hope you are having fun at the beach! (btw Pixie will have a blog up and running soon, it’s in the blogroll now. But is still ‘under construction’ as those little website drawings of construction guys so succinctly put it.)
So today’s lesson is also kind of a quiz.
Quiz? wtf! I have a 3.87 GPA no way I am taking a quiz…psst Jimmy! let’s get Britney to do her faint in the aisles thing…the old guys will be so ‘concerned’ and ‘helpful’ that we can slip out the back…
The lesson for today is this (disregard Mr. Ziffle and Arnold): which of the three characters are which?
(I hear contest coming on!)
There are three characters and one is a clark, one is a scott and one is a roger. There are several ways to solve the problem and figure out which is who, but there is only one right answer. The contest? A free hat to the first 5 correct answers. (No, AKH have not forgotten your hat.)
Hi, kids. Just getting back to speed after my foray into the wonderful world of evil primary care physicians, graveyard shifts at the ICU, and Italian funeral homes. In that order, sadly.
Been watching the site on and off, and must say that I think Clark and I should probably get off our High Holy Progenitor’s horses and let you other guys run with it for a while. Damn nice stuff. Fun to read and informative.
Hey Clark- do we need a new Pope-style High Holy Progenitor’s hat? Just a little bit of pageantry? And maybe an official WD anthem….” Pomp and Circumstance” kind of thing?…
Welcome, Pixie. Glad to have a new set of eyes on this thing.
In regard to CSR 101; I’ve nothing to add to the recent activities, just good to see the class going so well. I’ll just hover silently in the back of the room for a bit. But I would like to offer a quick extra-credit assignment; At your leisure, please watch any episode of the sitcom “The Office”, with the WD in mind, of course. Determine who’s what amongst the several prominent characters, and report back with a body count. Who’s a C-S-R etc.,and how many of each. Of course, I’ve already done this and have a very firm idea of how this should go. But you never know… onward and upward.
Speaking of the Spatula… here’s a quick anecdote, and then I’m out of here. A few weeks back, (and this just reminds me that I really, really am a Roger) I was standing at my kitchen stove about to cook some hamburger for something or other. I was musing on one of Mel’s posts ( the Sarah Palin thing). I did a 90-degree turn to the west ( facing the Midwest) , and raising my spatula said ” Those of us who are about to fry…salute you!” Poignant,witty, and until now, completely wasted.
(It is so like this blog to use the more obscure portion of famous quotes. Who’s a clark?)
I do apologise for the delay in getting this Post to press, feeling especially bad about there being only two new Posts in the course of this week. Interesting, (to me that is) that it should bother me but, as we have been alluding to in recent Posts, the Doctrine is not only a tool to understand others, it is also a tool to alter oneself. Much more to say on that topic in coming Posts, but to today’s Post.
Everything we do here is intended to advance the understanding of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) among both our established Readers and the first time visitor. Given that there are only so many ways to say: ‘a clark thinks, a scott acts and a roger feels’, or …’a scott in a room alone isn’t’ or even, ’show me a roger with sufficient and guaranteed food supplies and I will show you the fall of an Empire’…you know, the kinds of things we say here backstage at Doctrine HQ.
As an alternative to simply repeating Doctrine-sanctioned cant, we offer a ’storyline’, A story about a high school somewhere (Millard Fillmore High); a class in the Wakefield Doctrine (CSR 101); several teachers, a principle, a guest lecturer and three students (including the precocious Miss Janie Sullivan). We use this ‘device’ as a vehicle to present the Wakefield Doctrine in a more everyday (and hopefully more entertaining) setting. (If your everyday setting is populated by/of imaginary beings, that is)
And so today’s Post.
(We find a certain, well regarded, tenured Teacher Miss Dowd as she catches up with Glenn Miller (who gave a lecture to the class recently) and Ms. AKH a practicum teacher who may be filling in for the regular teacher who is on sabbatical).
Miss Dowd: Oh, there you two are! I was hoping to catch you before you left. Mr. Miller! I caught your lecture on the CCTV and I must say I was impressed. Although I have to admit at first I thought, “oh great. Another personal coach life trainer with a penchant for the off-color references”. But then I looked at the reaction of the class, and they were captivated! Very well done!
And you Ms. AKH, you have the makings of a very good teacher, I was just in the classroom and they are still talking about your class. You have the gift, your enthusiasm becomes theirs.
Glenn Miller: Thanks, Miss Dowd. They are easy students to teach. One of them seems particularly easy.
(Miss Dowd: Explain yourself Mr. Miller. If you think you are “shocking” me. Think again.)
Ms.AKH: Poor Janie. She just can’t help herself. As this is the first class I’m teaching, it’s a bit more challenging for me. Those ‘Three Musketeers’ can be very distracting to the class. However, in a way, they are beneficial in that they are shining examples of the (theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) for the class to observe first hand.
Miss Dowd: It’s not your place to feel sorry for anyone Ms. AKH, nor make excuses. Do not underestimate them. If you do your job well those ”Musketeers” one day are going to be running our financial institutions, making government policy, discovering cures for diseases and taking us into outer space. You make sure those “shining examples” are understood by everyone. It may be entertaining at times but the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers is no laughing matter. …In any event.. The CSR 101 class is still without a teacher…yes, very sad..soon I hear…but the class is doing independent study and one of the teams asked if I would ask you two the following question:
“Who do you see in the popular culture at large that most exemplifies the clark, and the scott and the roger “
Glenn Miller: clarklikeness is exemplified for me by comedian Steven Wright. His thoughts are off-beat, weird, funny and oddly interesting. He is the dictionary definition of a clark. For a scott, the example that comes to mind is LBJ. I know. Not exactly contemporary, but He was very attuned to power and and it’s effective use. One of his power moves was to invite subordinates in to talk with him and during the conversation he would move them along with him to the bathroom off his office. He would pull down his trousers, and take a dump while continuing the conversation. Primitive, and effective. Classic display of raw primitive power. Any scott would just have to love that move. For a roger, I think of that queen of all that is good, righteous, and proper:Oprah Winfrey. Like the roger she is, she revels in defining for the rest of us what we all SHOULD be doing and thinking. She takes herself very seriously. It is always personal for her. The other rogers buy in and willingly look to her to find out what books they should read, what political candidates they should vote for, and how they should feel about everything. Without Oprah to tell them, how would they know? The whole Oprah phenomenon is a rogerfest.
Ms. AKH: Einstein!! Really! A true thinker. Just look at the size of his head! Einstein’s all-consuming energy to learn and theorize about what makes things tick, to put it simply, is a classic clark characteristic. Always striving for more information, a clark will stop at nothing until he is satisfied that all possibilities have been exhausted. This inward inclination can sometimes make a clark seem distant, unaware of what is going on around him. But the wheels are incessantly turning. Donald Trump stands out when I think about a scott. Right off the bat you’ll notice his eyes. They appear to be squinting. But don’t be fooled by this ploy to hide his predatory intent as he focuses on his next prey. He emits congeniality while sizing up his next victim. And just look at the empire he has built for himself. All of his properties have his name attached: Trump Tower, Trump Casino and Resorts, Trump Taj Mahal, you get the picture. Finally, who but a self-important scott could get away with that hair and nickname ‘The Donald’? Rogers, rogers, rogers. What a herd of do-gooders. The talk show hosts (i.e. Glenn’s choice of Oprah), Tyra Banks, Dr. Phil. Tough to pick just one so I’ll move on. Don’t want to rock the boat, but Jesus Christ (or any prominent religious leader for that matter) was a roger in my book. Calm down, this has nothing to do with one’s religious beliefs or morals, rights or wrongs. It is purely observational – who he was as a man. Who else could be so entirely selfless while spreading what he believed to be word and healing people without being judgmental. Who would die on a cross for his/her people? All was for the greater good of the herd. Look at the disciples and droves of people who followed him.
Miss Dowd: And what makes you think that this are the best examples?
Glenn Miller: Generally when I think something, my brain is what makes me think it. There is another organ with which I have been accused of thinking, but I fear that Principal Clark would not appreciate any reference to that subject within earshot of his innocent and naïve students. Or any of his other students.
Ms. AKH: I concur with Glenn except for the second part (given my anatomy).
Miss Dowd: Ms. AKH! Remember you are a lady!
Miss Dowd: Thank you so much! I know that the children will be excited…I know, they are not really children but I have been doing this for so long I think of them as my kids…even if the other teachers may laugh about old Miss Dowd…laughs
Where the heck is that VC (video custodian)? Hey Mr. B! You want to stay and maybe become a permanent character you can’t be hiding, making time with other guys girlfriends. Come on, lets have something different for today.
…”But we need to begin to understand that the Wakefield Doctrine aka the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers is very much a tool that we can use on ourselve…so stay tuned”
Glad you could make it back, lots to talk about. We will continue presenting the basic concepts of the Doctrine with each Post for the new Reader, but going forward there will be more of the ‘practical side’ of this thing of ours presented and you will see an interes…
…He is going to go on a bit now…Janie here…Sullivan! How many other fictional constructs who write in blue font and block quotes do you know? Anyway, what our Writer is going to say is that the CSR 101 series is going to continue to be used as a teaching device…
Hey, it’s their blog, I guess that’s what gives them the right…not I think its kinda cute…they all are taken with the students at Millard Fillmore High. No, I do not think its confusing or distracting…and there is information in each of their little episodes.
Next one? Glad you asked…the next Post should be another CSR 101 story about those two scottian teachers/lecturers…Glen Milner and a Miss Ack… I think…no! lol thats not nice!… they meant well and were very informed…he was not hitting on me! I mean I heard he went to Fillmore when my uncle was here. (Sigh) I know, but being a fictional construct has its limitations…
Anyway, that’s not why I am sneaking this in…I made a Comment on Mel’s blog…the Spatula…really? you should… a lot of fun…anyway Mel has this Walrus character watching the site stats, so as one construct to another, I wrote something nice. But in his answer he said something about not being comfortable writing Post Comments!
You could have knocked me over with a…then I realised the only Comments we get here are from the ‘Regulars’.
Hey! Readers! all these ‘people’ work real hard on this site, so I want you to listen to me…Write…A…Comment..
If not for them, then for me ;P…you know one imaginary being to another (lol)…really…I would def appreciate it…no, doesn’t have to be about the Doctrine…just a: “I love the blog, keep up the good work…give Janie more dialogue”…(lol) gotta go, there is a certain substitute teacher who seems to have it in for me…jeez lady, get a life huh?
(Don’t forget: Comment).
So in the coming weeks look for more stories using the CSR 101 premise as well as straight-forward ‘This is the Wakefield Doctrine’ kind of Posts. We will try to mix it up and keep it interesting.
On a more serious note, you have noticed there have been no Posts from the Progenitor roger recently. He had a death in the family, our sympathy to the family and we wait for his return. Fortunately for us, his story line (CSR 101) has started to get a life of its own, we hope he reads all the recent Posts so he can stay current! Speaking of CSR 101, the next Post should be an ‘interview’ type Post with Glenn and Ms AKH from recent entries. As I hopefully am not repeating too much, this will be an opportunity to present the Doctrine in a context that should offer entertainment and education.
Speaking of education…did you know the primary identifiers of the clarklike female are: shoes,eyes and head? We have mentioned her recently, but Flo (of the Progressive Insurance TV ads) has taken over the crown, (and yes, a clarklike female would wear a crown to work if she had one), from Diane Keaton as representative of her kind. There is a video clip of Ms. Keaton accepting an award somewhere in the clark Page. Such a clark…not only the clothes but also how she takes being self-effacing to a totally new level. You should go and look at the…hell here is the link… go on, I’ll wait here. Alright, tell me you do not know someone like her. Granted clarks have a way of blending into the scenery, sort of…I mean really, wearing three different hats, combat boots, 5 scarves and a shawl and still coming across as sexy, not really blending in, is she?
You clarks out there, you know what I mean. You are shy and you are introverts but you will still insist on doing the things that make you noticeable. Remind me to lecture on the ‘blue monkey effect’ when we have the time.
So, look for the (continuing) adventures of our two intrepid scottian Commentators, Glenn and AKH. (That they are scotts and are playing lead in these ‘episodes’, what a surprise.)
Speaking of scottian females, big shoutout to future Friend of the Doctrine, Ms. P. Wood. Thanks for your help. As a trade off on making a written Comment here, if you could add the web address( www.wakefielddoctrine.com) to the new sign you made for the Learning Center, we will call it ‘even’? Either way, no pressure here.
As we say at the Wakefield Doctrine: read, learn, buy a hat…now to find that video custodian…where did that scamp get off to…”Mr. B! Mr.B? you’re not off somewhere practicing that hyperthyroid fiddle again, are you?”
remember…write something…I don’t know! you are the real people…how about “Keep bringing that young Janie Sullivan person back, she is such a delight“…sure write that…that’ll keep you up at night (lol) as what’s his name says, ‘don’t worry about nothin”..
‘ta
There you are! Mr. B, I hope you have something clever for us or at very least germane to this Post. You haven’t read it? If you were not an un-resolved emotional component from the distant past you would be on the employment line faster than you can say, ‘Where is Mr. Chips’.
??! Hey, Don’t look at me! (lmao) I just hit the keys on the keyboard. Think about how (surprised”) I am when these Posts are finished.
No, nothing bad. Just thought we could kinda step back, try to see what progress we are making out with this little blog thing of ours.
And we are making progress on the development of other ’sources of content’; both (the) Progenitors and Downsprings are starting to become confident and good content is the result. Good content is defined as Posts that are entertaining and present the Doctrine in ways that help the Reader understand and apply the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers to their everyday lives. The Progenitor roger, is really starting to come into his own with his (Post) series CSR 101, which is not only good content but is now a ‘premise/storyline’ that others can use to launch their own Posts. The CSR 101 (storyline) is where Glenn and AKH have begun in earnest to bring value to the blog, both of them writing Posts that are ’classroom presentations’ to (everyone’s favorite AP class at Millard Fillmore High) on the subject of the Wakefield Doctrine.
AKH had already done a nice little piece on relationships and Glenn was pfg on his Interview Post, as was Denise (Downspring#1) who did a snappy little Post the other day. In terms of presenting the Wakefield Doctrine and being entertaining, these guys are really starting to produce. They deserve a big round of applause or a click on the link to their Posts and leave a Comment.
While still not sure what is going on, the Doctrine now (seems) to have Janie Sullivan and her friends. (Simply a name mentioned in one of the first CSR 101 Posts, Janie has somehow become a ‘voice’ in these pages. She is the one in ‘block quotes’ and blue font).
There also seems to be a ‘Mr. B’ who apparently is the one who picks the music videos.
Anyway. We are getting there, here at the Wakefield Doctrine blog, both in presentation and in content. With the content now coming from other sources, we are now beginning to have the time to look at the blog from the view of, ‘If I were a Reader here for the first time, how likely is it that I am going to ‘get’ the Wakefield Doctrine on the first visit?’
As to visitors and Readers, we are not doing badly. We have Readers (about 20 or 25) who come here on a regular basis and we have a decent ‘visit rate’ every day. (Nothing like SewingintheNudewithYoungMissElliot.com or PoundingHammersHoldingNailsandManTalk.com blogs, but we do alright).
Blah, blah, blah. (Man, you should see me here at the computer looking for a hook. It’s been interesting (well maybe only to me) the kind of stuff I have been going to in the desperate hope of finding some music to inspire me, or failing that to hang this Post on. I mean everything from ZZ Top to Leslie West to Joe Cocker…a line of youtube video search came to a total screeching halt when I read one of those Comments (under the video) that simply said: “my grandfather went to see these guys” dit…dit…dit.. as Roger would say. Oh kay, lets quietly turn off the museum videos.
Damn, but I do like the videos and since I still got nothing, let me put this totally fun clip of our favorite gospel guys.
So anyway, last night we were driving around Wakefield (yes, theWakefield) and talking about how it is sometimes difficult to distinguish rogers from scotts, especially ’strong’ rogers and (regular) scotts. Glenn, he say “what is Howard Stern?” and my immediate (and correct, of course) answer was: roger. Now Glenn, he gets like, forgets he is supposed to be the scott in the car and says, “really”? I mean a ‘genuinely-interested-in-the-answer’ question from a scott! (You tell me this Doctrine thing is not a productive way to change the way you live life.) Anyway, I said, “yes Glenn, listen to Howard on the radio, he seems all aggressive and pushy and what not but it’s personal with him”. That is the quality you hear, no matter how ‘all in your face’ Mr. Stern may seem, its personal. With a scott it is never personal, they do what they do, sincerely and genuinely, but it ain’t personal. Even in a conflict situation, a fight, scotts will be all action, nothing held back but then when it is over, everything is back to normal, no grudges, no major resentment, just a re-establishment of pack ranking. Nothing personal.
Not with rogers. So Howard Stern is a roger. While we are on the subject, Lennie Bruce? roger…George Carlin? scott.
Damn this shit makes sense.
And there it is. The point I was looking for. We are getting to where we can present content on reliable basis (nothing like Mel at the Spatula, that guy is a machine! the rate he comes up with good content, damn!), but regularly enough that we need to set the bar higher.
This Wakefield Doctrine is a ‘fun, unique and effective way to understand the behavior of those around us, at home at work at school and at play’ (as it says on the short discription on the blog directories) and this will always be true.
But we need to begin to understand that the Wakefield Doctrine aka the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers is very much a tool that we can use on ourselves…
(ed. note the following installment of the CSR 101 series was written by Downspring AKH with the guidance and encouragement of Downspring#1. Go! Downsprings!)
(the Wakefield Doctrine (welcome back to CSR101 class…)
I want to introduce this Post. …Because…I’m the construct that has stepped out on her own, that’s why! That’s not true! they all know who I am, I am in block quotes and blue font, after all. As if! In my sleep, lol, sure I get it…’substitute’ Teacher… really? that’s too bad I hope he gets back soon. lol of course I can handle a scottian author…’Janie Sullivan to un-inspired blog creator’ unlimited character here!
The previous scottian writer?… offensant pour moi? lol! of course not, he was funny…what? oh all the time…Let’s let the editor guy get this done so we can all get back to the Planet Earth…nah I like her…well she is a scottian female…I would expect nothing less…no, not as old as those other people…oh yeah! I’m with Jimmy on that…smokin! shh shh here comes Principle Clark. Yeah…I don’t know! maybe the Readers (who ever they are) liked the last fake class room premise…well they are blog readers…you know what they say about blog readers…lol hadn’t heard that one. Hey- who is that with Principle Clark? Oh man another substitute Teacher premise…’Janie to creative writing department’…Code Blue guys Code Blue…lol
Principle Clark: Your regular Teacher is on a short sabbatical, (no, Britney that has nothing to do with his religion), so for today we have a substitute Teacher.
Class, this is Ms. AKH and she will be teaching your CSR 101 class for the remainder of the month or until we find a permanent substitute. I know you will all like her and give her all the respect and attention that you give your regular Teacher. (Miss Sullivan? Did you have something to say? I didn’t think so.) OK then… Ms. AKH?
Ms. AKH: Good morning! Everyone! How are you doing today? Am really excited to be here. You know, as I was walking into class, who is the first person I see but that weirdo Janie that Glenn Miller and Roger were telling me about in my class. That’s just fucking great. Hey! Just messin with ya! Really! We are all going to have fun and if we’re not careful you might even learn something. Hey relax! Lighten up, what are you all?… a bunch of old people? Here we go.
Good morning class and welcome to CSR 101. My name is Ms AKH.
Excuse me…What’s your name? Britney? Yes, you have pretty name. Thank you. I like my shoes too. Ok class, let’s get focused. This semester we’ll be covering the Wakefield Doctrine. Anyone familiar with the WD? Anyone? Janie? I wasn’t sure if you heard me. Please put your headphones away.
You, in the back. What’s your name? Well Jimmy, let’s get this straight. First of all my personal life is none of your business and secondly it is very inappropriate to tell your teacher that she’s hot. What?? One more comment like that Jimmy and you’re out of here to see Principal Clark. Oh really. And what is your coach going to say to me? That you suck? That you can’t even get on the starters bench? So sit down and shut up. (shit this is going to be a long semester.)
Alright then, can we please get back to why we’re here? Our class will be based on the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine also referred to as the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers which is premised on the idea that we all have a different experience of the world and those around us. This perspective or perception is based on one of three personalities. These are the clarks, scotts and rogers which I will be going into further detail about.
Learning to identify the three will unfold over the next few weeks. To understand the Wakefield Doctrine is to understand these 3 distinct individual types. It is important to be aware that we all have the traits of all three, the potential to be a clark, scott or roger. However, one is predominant and this is the one that makes you a clark, scott or roger.
OK class! How do we spot a clark. Very funny, Miss Sullivan. They are by far the most difficult to understand/relate to. Often quiet loners, they tend to keep to themselves. However, don’t mistake their seemingly disinterested veneer as implying that they are unaware or even aloof. In actuality, the clarks command attention without saying a word.
Yes Jimmy? You want to be a clark because you think that clarks sound cool? Well, I can tell you right off the bat that you’re not cool and you’re not a clark. By standing up and proclaiming this you are telling the class which of the three you are…ok class anyone want to tell us what Jimmy here is? No Britney! While I may agree with you, that is not one of the three types we are talking about. (And if there were such a thing, I doubt it could fly, lol) Ok Jimmy sit down, you are a scott. Always seeking attention. But we’ll go into that later. So sit down and be quiet. Maybe you’ll learn something today (like that’s gonna happen).
OK back to the clarks. They are the creators. The intellectuals. Constantly striving for more knowledge. Now do you understand why you’re not a clark Jimmy?
In contrast, there are the rogers. They have a group mentality. Herds if you will. They are not attracted to “outsiders.” This goes against their grain. Rogers are content with themselves. It is the status quo that keeps them passive and therefore willing to accept being part of a “sameness.” Any who stray outside of the herd are viewed as being dangerous to the tranquility of the mundane. Keep in mind that these are not necessarily bad traits. They are the glue that holds society together. Without them, the world would become a very unstable place. Unlike clarks, rogers are not confrontational Whereas clarks welcome a seemingly “innocent” spar at any given time. Britney, would you please wake up Janie? Her snoring is distracting the class. Thank you.
On to the scotts. These guys and gals are the epitome of ego. Unlike any of their counterparts, they seek and crave attention. They make themselves the center of attention, whether it be at a party or an office meeting. Their main purpose/objective is to make sure that they establish themselves as being superior in any given group. And they prey on rogers, viewing them as easy targets by which to inflate their insatiable ego.
Oh for Christ’s sake Jimmy, what is it now? You read that scottian women are extremely hot and sexy and that’s why you think I’m a scott? Give that man a prize! You finally got something right. Didn’t think you had it in you. OK class. I think that’s enough for one day. See you next week.
…oh Jimmy…
..done now? man I thought this would never end…no, I think she knows her Doctrine, but those scottian Teachers…inappropriate much? her not as bad as that old guy last week…what was his name…something to do with trumpet…no, Britney flutes are not made of…lmao…anyway where is Mr. B? he is the only one to get us out of this …Hey! aren’t those the Slovenian exchange students?..let’s go say hi…come on Britney…no I think Jimmy stayed after class to help Ms. AKH with something…lol I bet she would lol.
You know this is not just about music videos and clever Posts and cultural references…you do know this, don’t you?
This is about the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) which lest we forget is described in all the blog lists I can sign us up for as:
‘the Wakefield Doctrine is a unique, effective and fun way to understand those around us, at home and at work and at play. Finally you will understand why people behave the way they do…’
Sometimes the effort to make these Posts clever and amusing takes us away from this ‘mission’. But we are back on track now, aren’t we…
WTF Miss Bonnie and the magic mirror!! (To younger readers…early days of TV lots of programing directed at the 3 to 7 year old demographic, scheduled either early morning (Romper Room School came right after Captain Kangeroo) and late afternoons with cartoon based programs like Popeye the Sailor (if that is not a future Post, lol). Anyway, all very primitive programming, as opposed to say American Idol or the Biggest Loser.)
So what can we learn about the Doctrine by watching this clip? (You know, by now I really should not have to tell anyone what the lessons are.)
Alright…how does the clarklike child react? how about the scottian 5 year old or the rogerian pre-schooler? The answer provides a way to understand the Doctrine….
Not all at once….
OK. You people can just sit there and stare at the screen…and when you have the answer write it in the Reply section…you know the place where it says “Leave a Reply’?
Or is that too vague for you scott? yeah, yeah roger I know how too terribly busy you are right now…clark? no! god forbid you should write something and have people think that you don’t know what you are writing about….
well…fine I can sit here all damn day….
(To any new Readers, not to worry there is plenty of content in the previous Posts and of course in the Pages of the blog itself). Please, make yourself at home, browse through the content, lots of videos…love the Lady Gaga one…)
(Oh! hey Pixieblonde! Glad to see you could make it…remember you promised to leave a Comment)
(…no Janie, nothing you can do, these people need to step up and make an effort to contribute to this thing of ours.)
Whats that Mr. B.? You are too good hearted, I don’t think they deserve more free entertainment…but if you are willing to…go ahead
(Hi. A little ’set-up’ for today’s Post. The Progenitor roger has established an on-going series of Posts subtitled1‘CSR 101′, which has somehow ‘given existence’ to: a high school by the name of Millard Fillmore High; b) an AP (advanced placement) class on the Wakefield Doctrine; c) and students, Janie Sullivan, Britney (Janie’s bff) and Jimmy (a scottian underachiever).
I know, I know! This was not in the plan. That being said any and all means and manner of presentation of the Wakefield Doctrine to the Readers will be utilized. Lighten up, this is kind of fun!
Anyway….what follows is a ‘Lecture’ on ‘Leadership and the Wakefield Doctrine’ written by an actual scott. Downspring Glenn).
[So, let's stand here in the back of the class...I see Principle Clark, (hey, did you really think I was going to sit this one out? with a scott center stage? nfw...lol), he is about to address the class]..
Principle Clark: Class? Today we have a special treat, we have Glenn Miller, a leading Trainer in the field of employee benefits and management who will give us a talk on the Wakefield Doctrine and Leadership! (No, Jimmy he is not replacing your regular Teacher. Britney? no I don’t believe he will be giving a test at the end of the class. Would someone get Miss Sullivan’s attention? Janie! Please turn off the laptop, iphone and all the rest of your technology. Thank you.)
Principle Clark:Mr.. Miller?They’re all yours.
Glenn Miller:…Hi everyone. My name is Glenn Miller and I’m here to talk about leadership and the Wakefield Doctrine. Principle Clark, if I may ask…
Principle Clark: (Excuse me, Glenn) “Yes? Miss Sullivan? Yes, there will be time for questions at the end… Mr.. Miller says that you are free to interrupt with questions at any point…no, Jimmy that does not mean you are free to walk around…” (Sorry for the interruption.)
Glenn: Anyway…Leadership. Let’s talk about how what you are learning in this class on the Wakefield Doctrine will help you become effective leaders.
Management is notleadership—and leadership is notmanagement. Not all good managers are good leaders. Not all good leaders are good managers.
Management is for the rogers. It involves “hitting all the marks”—crossing the tees, posting the schedule, taking attendance, quantifying performance measures—you know boring rogerian shit like that.
(Pardon me Principal Clark..Oh the language? My bad. Of course!)
Glenn: Rogers are great at paying attention to details and knowing and following policies and procedures, in other words being managers. Leadership, however is scottian. Management makes people accountable. Leadership inspires people—energizes them. With effective leadership, the people under you won’t just do what they are supposed to do—they will WANT to do it—and more. A group with strong leadership is more productive and unified. It is more comfortable. Good leaders actually have an easier time than managers.
(Yes? Janie? Which one are you? I’d say you’re a scott. See? That’s leadership. You’ve got my attention. Principle Clark?…I’m sorry, of course it’s just that it’s so distracting…of course. You’re right. Highly inappropriate.)
Glenn: So class: How do leaders effectively communicate with subordinates?
yes?…Jimmy isn’t it? No, Jimmy it does not depend on how hot they are… Britney?…no, it does not depend on how hot you are…
Miss Sullivan…care to take a stab at the question?…what? of course I will call you Janie…
Of the class, Miss…er Janie here was the closest to knowing the correct answer….anyone know why?
Leaders:
provide frequent and meaningful performance feedback.
MBWA—Management By Walking around—They gotta see you if you want them to follow you.
Ask them for their opinions—doesn’t mean you gotta implement their suggestions, but ask them. Makes the little creatures feel so valued.
Emphasize the positive—all the time. Give them a “reputation”. Make them believe that you believe in them and that they are an elite team.
A good leader will always: Praise in public. Do not worry about patronizing or embarrassing them. If the employee is a clark, he will need the praise because clarks often doubt themselves. If the employee is a roger, he will feel that “Finally! Someone sees the sacrifices and suffering I endure to get this work done..” If it is a scott, he will resent the praise as in “who the hell are you to tell me how I’m doing? I’ll praise YOU”. But if you persist and keep praising, the dominance messages will be sent—and the scott will grow comfortable and even eager to follow you. Negative feedback in private. Leaders do not bully or humiliate people. (Unless it’s just for fun). But if you want people to follow you, they must see you as someone who will protect their dignity.
Finally –(This one is hard)—Find something to like and admire about every one of your subordinates—Hard for a scott. But totally necessary.
(Janie? Already know what I like and admire about you. Yes. I will be available after class for..questions.)
Let’s wrap this up and do a couple of other points for you before we end today’s class.
Leadership can be lonely. Scotts are lone hunters, but also pack animals. So, when you assume a leadership position in an organization you will LOSE your former relationships with your colleagues. For a roger, this can be devastating. Membership in the herd is everything to a roger. But if you hold a position in which YOU decide who gets promoted, who gets a raise, Etc…you can no longer be a friend. It just doesn’t work. You may find yourself left out of conversations. The room goes silent when you walk in.
For a roger, this is the most difficult adjustment following a promotion.
For a clark—the room already goes silent when you walk in. No adjustment needed.
For a scott—the silence means they respect (and maybe just a little fear) me. That’s a good thing.
Principle Clark: OK class. Mr. Miller has a busy schedule time for only a couple of questions…
Glenn: oh..alright Jimmy? … how to deal with your coach…why you are not on the starters bench? You are not a starter because …you suck, frankly. Sports is a very scottian world. If you could help the team win, you would start. If you are a scott, you would accept this and enjoy knowing your place in the pack. If you are a roger, you will feel hurt and victimized. If you are a clark—you only play sports that are played by one person. (Teams do not interest clarks.)
Yes, Britney? How kind of you to say, Britney… You’re right, Britney. Principal Clark is a dedicated protector of decency and good taste…He’s not much fun, but he does “police” this environment and stamp out indecency every chance he gets—the prick. Did I say that out loud or just think it? No, age is not really a significant factor in the application in the Wakefield Doctrine? oh sure, ask him the question directly…
What’s that Britney? Yes, I have noticed Janie back there. Yes.. Uh –uh. Well I’ll tell you this…The second thing that comes to mind is that she probably ought not to wear such a short skirt in school. The first thing? I don’t think Principal Clark would like me to answer that question.
Principle Clark: Okay! Class, let’s all thank Mr. Miller for his time and expert opinions.
So there we have it. Another attempt to communicate the Wakefield Doctrine…
Let’s have a show of hands now…who wants to see this ‘device’ used again? (We have AKH in the wings ready to present the Doctrine to our favorite little class, in the guise of a Student Teacher no less!)
At the bottom of this page is a place for Reply/Comment. If you write: “Stop it! For the love of all that is decent and good in the world, please stop this class room thing”, we will take it under advisement.
PS: I was speaking to a Reader (of the Doctrine) whose opinion I value and I asked about making a Comment, she said that she would, but had a little concern about appearing un-informed about the Wakefield Doctrine. To which I replied, ‘Pshaw, you are most qualified and should not have this concern’. That she is most likely a clark may be a factor which is not to say that you rogers out there shouldn’t take a chance on totally humiliating yourselves before the population of the world (or at least the 25 regular Readers of the Doctrine.)
So, come on down! Write stuff. Otherwise you risk making Janie unhappy and none of us want that.
Do we?
Mr. B? This has been a challenging Post to produce, can you give us some simple, fun music to go out on?
1. All Posts follow the same naming convention: ‘the Wakefield Doctrine’ followed by a subtitle in parenthesis; the fun is in the subtitle.
Hey! OUT there can you hear me! Still stuck in ‘development’. Is there a Writer in the house! A grammatician? Honors English student? more than 650 on the Verbal part of SATs
JEEZ…I know! let me call…
We were talking Saturday about the Doctrine, Glenn is always coming up with ideas for Posts, most crazy, some not crazy, a handful occasionally interesting. (Hey Spike! I got a idea for a Post!! I got one you’ll like to write!!!) Anyway, the idea was suppose a clark tried to impersonate a scott (actually his words were ‘hey what would it sound like if a scott tried to do a roger? or a clark?). You get the idea.
Not a bad one at that.
I was driving to work last night and I thought about this blog and how far everyone has come in the last half-mester that we have all been together. The clark, to his credit has kept a steady stream of content appearing on these Posts, but it is good to see more from the Readers. My feeling reading the first few Posts tends towards the sleep…sleepier…sleepiest WHAT! no! everyone is awake and alert here, SIR! Even in retrospectation, the early work of this band of brothers and (little packlet of sisters) is bit a on the dense side…earth to brainiacs…please check the reflectivity levels of the eyes of your Readers! I can comb my hair in the reflection.
Anyway this is a short Post, family matters are coming to a concentration point and will require my full attention for the next few days or weeks. It is all a natural part of this life thing that you read about and see on TV and sometimes the TV gets more and more real and the volume goes to ‘11’ and you can’t spend time in places like this. I would like to hand out assignments for the class, to tide us over the next few Posts)
(A Guest Lecturer? in my class CSR 101? I did not see that memo, and just who authorized or gave us the courtesy of some advanced notice? No, I don’t think the class is ready, they have mid-Terms coming up in a few weeks, there are case studies to be examined. No.
Already been scheduled? Principle Clark said what? See what happens when you try to bring a little order and consistency to this Doctrine thing? This, this…chaos …Glenn?! lecturing my class? Not without closed circuit TV. I know I thought he wrote a good Comment…yes a whole Post on it. But that was because he was reinforcing my earlier point. And was not left alone in a room with children. Yeah I know they are high school honor students. But he is a scott, and you do not need to be an Honors student to know what that means.
The Principle will stay in the classroom? Alright, I suppose. Say what you will about clarks being low key and passive, they have a sense of loyalty that would shame Lassie…
What Jimmy? Oh, it was a show about a dog from before your parents were born…yes that long ago…speaking of Lassie, has anyone seen Miss Sullivan?
Here! You idiots I’s stuck here in between Posts. If I ever get out of here and get an established premise, you little scamps are going to pay, lol. Really, just get on with the ‘Lecture Post’, get out of this lame placeholder. Do I have to do everything? Hey Mr. B find us a video. Authority? Janie Sullivan says so that’s who…that’s better
Hello and hooray from yours truly, Downspring #1. If you don’t get the gist of my intro, not to worry. At least you know you are not a clark. Think of reading the Wakefield Doctrine like being in second year Spanish class with Mr. M. You don’t need to speak English, you are here to speak Spanish. Here we speaks the Doctrine……
With that in mind, I’ve decided to suit up today. That’s right – 3 piece. (Yes Glenn, you love the tie. Now assume the position.) Where was I?…. Oh yeah….I have noted some frustration at the Wakefield Doctrine in the absence of comments from readers outside the sphere of those who contribute on a fairly regular basis. Why the silence?
I do not think it is so much that readers don’t understand the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers but rather that readers just may not have confidence (yet) to make a statement on a worldwide platform and then find out – oops! I got it wrong! No one wants to embarrass themselves in cyberspace, especially clarks (that’s correct – clarks do not possess high confidence levels. You can read all about clarkson the clarks page can’t you.) Perhaps before making any misstatements, readers are simply boning up on the Doctrine. (No Glenn, I did not give you permission to laugh.)
I find the more I read, the more I remember that which I have known – there are 3 distinct ways to view the world. Reading the Wakefield Doctrine not only reminds me of that but actually validates the whole damn thing – anyone can recognize, react to and even anticipate another’s behavior based on how that person interacts with the world.
Since the majority of Posts are written by the Creator clark, it takes no giant leap for me to understand all that is being said (you picked up that I am a clark by now, right?!). Sure he can ramble, sure there are the obscure references to….just about anything but there is method to the madness (or is it madness to the method.) All roads lead to the clark. Whatever. The point is (the) clark speaks most loudly to clarks just as (the )Roger undoubtedly speaks most loudly (and soothingly) to all the many, many rogers out there. The Progenitor Roger’s Posts are amusing, easy to read and most importantly they are comfortable and relaxed – like getting co-ozy on a cold winter day. No worries. If we all do what we are supposed to do then it’s all good. That leaves us with the scotts in the house. (Stand up Glenn)
There is no doubt in my mind that the comments contributed by the aforementioned scott would do anything but confirm that scotts rule! But seriously, Glenn has had a couple of decades of this clark, scott, roger thing under his belt to know of which he speaks. Or swears.
So what do we know. A clark thinks (and thinks), they stand alone, scotts act and act out (and swear while doing it) and generally tell others what to do; rogers feel (deeply and with commitment), they unite and promote harmony (2 part, 3 part all the better).
Can’t believe it took me all these words to say: we just want to keep reading Posts and Comments that validate this shit is for real. Look a little closer. You’ll see that it is.
Indulge me in a clarklike moment – take the movie Casablanca . (Who has not heard of that movie?) Who wouldn’t say that Rick Blaine is a clark, or that Victor Laszlo is a roger of the highest order. And Captain Renault (Louie)? A scott? What do you think?
WARNING! WARNUNG! AWERTIMENTO! AVERTISSEMENT! OPOZORILO! WARNING! (bad Post writing ahead*)
(*I mean bad writing of a Post not necessarily a Post that is without merit**)
(**thought I should clarifiy that***)
(***…about the writing I mean)
Hello.
This is the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) blog.
The Wakefield Doctrine is a unique, fun and effective way for you to understand those around you, at home, at work, at school and at play. This Doctrine contains principles that sound like any one of a hundred quirky little personality ‘thumb nail sketches’ that turn up in the back of TV magazines and at the bottom of the last page of a tabloid, right below the astrology column and the diet to the Stars features. And at first glance the Wakefield Doctrine seems as catchy and vacuous as any thing you will find in your local free newspaper. You know what I am going to say next. So, there is no need to.
If you have decided to read a little bit more, this Post will cover two points: why you should read the rest of the content of this blog and what are the upcoming Posts going to be in the next week. (Coming attractions, if you will.)
Lets do this thing.
Doctrine (dok trin) n. A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma. Wakefield(wayk feeled) n. A name for the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers picked simply because it sounded more credible than: the theory of…
The Wakefield Doctrine maintains we all experience the world/reality differently and that our personalities arise from the particular way we experience the world. Further, the Wakefield Doctrine proposes that there three characteristic perception of reality we all have can be grouped into three distinct types, called for reasons stated elsewhere, clarks, scotts and rogers. By understanding the reality, the world that an individual is reacting to, we can understand the choices they make (their behavior). What follows on these pages are various efforts to convey the application of the Doct
Hello? Helloo! Is this thing on? Hey you! This is Janie Sullivan, and I need your help. I am in the process of being written/created/developed/fleshed-out or whatever the hell they call it in Creative Writing 101 when a new character is created and added to the narrative. Yes, that Jane in Rogers CSR 101 class. Why thank you! Being referenced all of 3 times and being used as a totally lame narrative device does mean I must be totally special.
You think? Nah, they’re both pretty harmless, but that clark guy is edging towards ’spooky-ville’ what with his totally constant fixation on ‘need to write more, need to write different, need to get more Readers’!
“Clozaril spill on Aisle 4!” Jeez, reality is a bitch, huh? The other one seems much nicer, the Teacher. Seems so friendly, no harm there. Except that Civil War thing…”21st Century paging Mr Roger, your hobby is being recalled by the gov’t, Department of Over-specialized Interests, due to the fact that the other guy wants to play with it.”
Anyway, as a newly created character, I am getting a lot of interest from both writers and them both being such WMOGs (well meaning old guys) I am worried about what the plan is for a back story for me… so real quick here is the basic:
Janie Sullivan, AP student at Millard Fillmore High am very popular :p, my gpa puts me in the top 1 percentile. My BFF is Britney and I have not yet decided whether to go straight (to college ;}) or to spend time travelling. You know me from my ‘function’ as a character in the CSR 101 series of Post created by roger as a device to explain the Wakefield Doctrine. Thats it. A little 2 dimensional? ….Ya think?
(So here is what I am asking, sure this is all about the Wakefield Doctrine and how it will change how you see the world. But if you are reading this and want to indulge these people then give me a better back story. You know…total athletic talent, parents with interesting jobs and/divorce, something anything.) Gotta go….AFK
(Wellll. Lets just quietly and quickly close this Post before we get reported to Amateur Writers Guild for crimes against creative constructs.)
Oh! oh! the second thing!
In the next week we should have a couple of Posts using Roger’s CSR 101 storyline as the backdrop for both Glenn and AKH writing a Post! Separately, that is, (Two scotts writing one Post? That’d be metaphysically absurd, (to steal a phrase from Firesign Theater).) It’s not that 2 scotts could not write one Post, its not even that they would fight. It is about the collateral damage…the effect on those around them as the requirement of dominance ranking exerted itself.
You know how when you are with one friend who is a scott? You have fun, the scott is always doing things, moving talking never, sitting still. Action for action sake. And you either go along for the (thrill) ride or you try to focus all that energy into some sort of deliberate effort that you can enjoy. (If you are a roger or a clark, respectively). Well, ever notice that when a secondscott enters the scene, everything changes? At first there is conflict between the two scotts (establishing dominance/submission rank), but after they have that worked out, all of a sudden there is this very aggressive scott running around getting into everyone’s face. That is the submissive scott. (Remember the Warner Brothers cartoon that had two dogs as characters? One was a large Bull dog (Spike), the other a small terrier-looking thing(never quite got the name). The plot always had the dominant scott (Spike) slapping the small dog for his efforts to impress Spike. “Hey Spike! I know what to do!!. (sort of an aggressive, barely more intellectually-capable, but way more aggressive Lennie from ‘Of Mice and Men’).
Thats the change to the local social environment when you have 2 scotts working one area at the same time. Not that much fun for the non-scottian people.
Anyway, look for a couple of Posts from these two. The ’set-up’ will be essentially the same, guest lecturers/teachers in rogers class in the Wakefield Doctrine (CSR 101). Should be fun.
REASSURANCE! BERUHIGUNG! RASSICURAZIONE! RECONFORT! POZAVAROVANJA! REASSURANCE!
(Remembered good idea Glenn had*)
(*I agree, most ideas from a scott would not go in the comforting bin first off**)
(**I will tell you, let me get out of this ‘are-there-any-gimmacks-that-you-won’t-try?’ gimmack)
We were talking Saturday about the Doctrine, Glenn is always coming up with ideas for Posts, most crazy, some not crazy, a handful occasionally interesting. (Hey Spike! I got a idea for a Post!! I got one you’ll like to write!!!) Anyway, the idea was suppose a clark tried to impersonate a scott (actually his words were ‘hey what would it sound like if a scott tried to do a roger? or a clark?). You get the idea.
Not a bad one at that.
Yes, clark, we know that we are already all three, predominance of one…yeah I read front page real good. But the value in the suggestion is the level of development in the person doing the ‘imitations’. As with so many things around the Doctrine, you will tell more about the person doing the experiment than the supposed point of the experiment.
Anyway I bring that up not to pat Glenn on the head (Good scott! Take a penny, please!). But to tie it to the coming Pos
HEY! HEEY! You are stuck with this corney ‘character-talking-to-imaginary-Readers-interupting-equally-imaginary-Narrators’ so listen up! ?People? (Janie here again), I think I told you about the future for me, but as far as your precious little Wakefield Doctrine, no one has determined my ‘type’. Normally that would have been one the first things the writer would have set up. OH! Did I just use the word normal? Pardon me while I lmfao. Normal! Sheeit Look at your goddamn crooked feet. You got no ears on your cheeks at all. Just a hole like.
Well, if I am stuck acting out for the benefit of that bunch of wackos, then I reserve the right to decide which one of your precious 3 types…
…Nah, maybe later.
Ta!
This might be a good time for some music….Mr. B if you please….
I suspect most blog writers/Post authors have the topic in mind when they sit down at the keyboard, or at very least have the ‘overarching theme’ of the blog itself in mind when producing content. And, for the most part, that is the case for my efforts here at the Wakefield Doctrine. (Will not speak for roger, but as the other writer of Posts he seems to have a clear idea in his mind when he starts to tickling those plastic teeth. (For young Readers…that is an oblique/archaic reference to playing the piano)
But as I said, this Post is not one of those. This Post started with a song fragment in my head this morning. (Very strange phenom, not even a word of a lyric…just “ahh UUmmm…think I…” and of course about 5 seconds of melody). But I knew the name of the group doing the song,,, all I needed. Internet. Google. I suspect that few of us (including myself) fully appreciate the effect/impact/ramifications of this existence of this much information made this accessible. But that is for another Post. A Post that is coherent and planned. Not this Post
So. There it is. Youtube. And not just the song, but a damn video.
(BTW noticing there are commercials showing on these things. Yes, a little annoying, just click the little ‘x’ knucklehead.)
So I am confronted with the quintessential 80s semi pop group. And the funny thing was my initial reaction was, ‘damn, this is kind of gay’, afterall ‘this is the Wakefield Doctrine which not only is very cool (to the 27 regular Readers) but it is a serious and not totally unsuccessful effort at explaining human behavior and reality.’ You know, …the secret of the universe.
Huey Lewis and the News. But there he was on my computer. Being cute and clever and doing his own “if we were genuinely cool this would be a ZZ Top video”. But like most of my experience with this Wakefield Doctrine thing, what I write in these Posts are not always a matter of conscious choice. The cat says do something with Huey Lewis, then I do something with Huey Lewis (Ask roger).
I was hoping that by now I would have something to hang this Post, an idea or a theme to make it more than a music video. But nooo. Nothing. I suppose I could use up some white space making self-referential statements about (my) life in the 80’s. But I got nothing.
…So there you have it. Todays contribution to the effort at the promulgation of the Wakefield Doctrine (love that word)(promulgation). If you like Huey then I suspect this will be a good Post, if not then it will be one of those that gets scrolled by, real quick. (‘Oh yeah, that’s the one where he tried to convince us that there was something Post-worthy about having a song fragment as the basis of an individual Post’) (‘eww’)
Well, you try writing three or four of these fuckers every week. My respect for Mel and Jason and others who do write good, readable Posts on a steady basis increases every time I do one of these. And to Roger who is beginning to get on a reg schedule of maybe two Posts every week, keep it up.
(Roger’s Posts are the ones in colored font. Am grateful for his efforts, as a roger he has that ‘readability’ that seems to be a characteristic ability of his people. The elements of his style may be a bit idiosyncratic for my tastes, but as he and I have discussed, it is about getting people to read these things. Whatever writing style ‘gets them in the door’.)
So that’s all I gots (an expression of the Progenitor scott). Read the Doctrine. Understand that everyone around you today is a clark or a scott or a roger. And that because they are, explains why they do what they do. It is nothing personal. (Hey! there’s my ‘big close’!) (Damn, I knew if I sat typing shit long enough I would stumble on something that I would enjoying sticking in the monitors of computers all over the werld today!).
This clarks, scotts and rogers stuff?, you know “if you understand what type your loved one is you will understand why they do what they do…Blah, Blah blah?” well I still mean it, but behind all of it is the inescapable fact that you are one of the three (yes, I know you know that), but it actually means that everything that is happening to you in your relationships with people is coming from yourclarklike, scottian or rogerian nature. Not theirs.
You know, this Wakefield Doctrine has been a constantly changing effort to describe a way of understanding the behaviors of those around us. The people we love, like, hate and ignore. And the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers is now and has always been intended to be a help, a tool, a guide and even, (to some clarks), a vehicle to radically alter reality.
The idea is that the Wakefield Doctrine appears to have enough ‘value’ and ‘validity’ to the people that come to be familiar with it to stand on it’s own. Meaning that when a new person learns about the Doctrine they do not need the constant reinforcement (of mechanisms such as this blog). There are, no doubt, people in other countries who are at this moment coming to realise that their boss is such a roger or that the new girl is so clarklike or even that they find themselves wishing that their spouse not be so scottian.
And that is the goal and the purpose of the effort behind this blog and all of the Posts. The good ones, the funny ones, the interesting ones and the stupid ones, all share the common goal: let people understand the Wakefield Doctrine and improve their lives. Sometimes an idea is there for a Post but it lacks something, just does not have enough… whatever it is that makes you glad to hit PUBLISH. But the interesting thing, (probably totally familiar to real writers), is how hard it is to throw away a particular effort. All of this is a long way around to getting in a premise I worked on this morning that simply does not have the legs to be a standalone Post. But, as I said, you really hate to waste a perfectly(well maybe not perfectly) good set of words. So the following is the Post that did not make it into the big time.*
For an example of what does not get into “Print” consider the following draft Post: which would have been titled
the Wakefield Doctrine (‘Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command. And your old road is rapidly agin’…’)
…janie…janie… …janie!…(‘is she sleeping again?..’)…janie… …JANIE!…
…(strange people…everyone… only 3 names….) “1717 by the leadership of Charlemagne!”
Sit down, Miss Sullivan. That is not the correct topic, much less the right answer. You would do well to focus more on your school studies and less on that rock n roll music and those secret teachings…
Remember class, term papers are due in a week and the finals are not that far away.
(Hey! Britney wait up!)
Since the point is to promulgate the Wakefield Doctrine (or ‘wkaefeillen doctryne’, as they say in Slovenia), here is an excerpt I found in a very early Post. Hey it has ‘Bullet Posts”, so you know it has to be clear and concise. (That little joke goes out to Denise at work (who never reads the Doctrine because it does not have enough categories and she is such a scott but don’t you think the criticism about the number of categories is just a littlerogerian?)
So for the impatient readers (yes, I mean you, scott); following is a quick, ‘down and dirty’ guide to identifying the clarks, scotts and rogers around you:
rogers use the pronoun “I” more than the other three
scotts use nicknames (particularly diminutives ‘clarkie’, ‘phillie’)
clarks maintain the least eye contact when talking to you
scotts are the ones who can tell a joke properly and will insist you listen and (usually picks a joke slightly over the edge of appropriate)
rogers will always have the news on what so-and-so said to such-and-such
clarks have a posture that is hunched at the shoulder and when seated will appear too relaxed, to the point of slumping in the chair
rogers are very usually the ‘middle management’ types who will convince the upper management that cubicles are the best way to arrange an office space
This is the body of Glenn’s response to the last CSR 101 post, with the original question following;
“The question is a good one Progenitor of All Things Roger. My answer—No scott WOULD engage in “self-improvement” as to do so would be to subscribe to some roger’s ideas of how we should live. Self-improvement, it seems to me, is a quintessentially rogerian goal. Scotts usually do not feel a need to improve. I’m pretty fucking good the way I am. ( I might swear too fucking much, but I LIKE that.)If a clark engaged in self-improvement, he would call it something else–and make up his own way to do it. That leaves rogers as the sole consumers of “self-improvement” programs. They feel everyone SHOULD engage in self-improvement. (SHOULD–a favorite rogerian word). But they are the only ones who would get involved in it in any serious way. Ever see those self-improvement gurus on PBS? Talking shit to a bunch of doe-eyed, overly needy rogers. Whole auditorium full of herds of rogers hanging on the guy’s every word. Fucking hilarious. Rogers can be such well-intentioned saps. And to further answer your question, rogers would become more rogerian from engaging in self-improvement. They would do it in herds. They would reinforce each others’ rogerness–and sanction anything that was not rogerian. A scott enrolled in self-improvement is incongruous–like a Jewish rodeo cowboy. Something you never see. I don’t mean this in a bad way.”
If you, as a textbook Clark, Scott, or Roger, were to engage freely and wholeheartedly in the vast self- improvement arena, would the experience simply re-inforce your primary characteristics as outlined in the Doctrine; or might it cause you to venture forth into the pristine wilderness of …those Other Two? ( there’s a signpost up ahead… you’ve just crossed into… The Doctrine Zone…)
All right, that did it…Janie’s eyes have rolled back in her head, indicating lights out. Responses in comment form are quite acceptable, but a full-blown Post on the subject garnishes an automatic ” A” for the course ,in my book. And, maybe even a hat.
So, I cleared it with the Man, and the hat is certainly in order. And the “A” to go with it. Nice, nice work. This was as well put forth as I might have hoped for; clearly thought out and stated from a classic Scottian point of view. Thanks, Dude….
Now… are you folks getting this OK? Glenn just gave us the perfect take on a Scott’s view ( given the presumption that self-improvement-type material would trigger a ‘ closing in” primary re-inforcement kind of response). And although we might safely presume Glenn’s work to represent the overall consensus of that group, is there anyone out there who could play devil’s advocate and explore an ” opening up willing to explore “ type of Scottian response? And it would be great to hear from both the Clark and Roger camps, too. ( Other than Clark or I, that is. )
What I found to be very intriguing was Glenn’s assumption ( or presumption, possibly) that I ( being a Roger) would be in full support of the notion of commercially available self- improvement stuff; and I am actually not. I always feel the Rogerian ” tug” that is meant to be delivered to the consumer public ( Rogers, pretty much) but find myself actually agreeing with Glenn overall. The really, really interesting thing was that that was not readily apparent. And in writing that post, I thought my point of view was right up front. So what does that indicate? A simple nuance in my style of delivery, or….do we all tend to interpret things according to our own standpoint? And that indicates to me where the next signpost will lead us towards… Mr. Serling, if you would be so kind….
Oh…hi! No, not at the moment, just trying to come up with a new Post…
Post, for the Wakefield Doctrine…I thought you knew! Yeah, we actually went ahead with the idea, yeah online and everything!
No, not nearly… not yet, (hehe) but we do get about 25 readers every day… no I don’t know that many people…these are actual strangers who show up on our location indicator.
Yep, most every day…. not really sure why specifically… just the most current Post for the regulars maybe the whole Doctrine idea for anyone stumbling across this thing.
…about the end of July. Yeah, what we used to talk about….the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers…well I agree, the new name does make it sound more credible.
What? No, no I don’t think ‘the secret of the universe…now give me money’ would look quite as legitmate as the Wakefield Doctrine…I suppose we will eventually but the blog site is free….
No. I really think you would enjoy reading it….yeah roger is in this…in fact he is starting to write some Posts himself… no! I think he just likes using the colored font….yes, he is that secure…
As a matter of fact you’re right….roger does have a way with telling a story…no, he has learned that ‘less is more’ ha ha.
Scott? Actually been kind of busy… no, thats Glenn…yes he is a scott…it is a favorite word.
No no more than that. We have a group of maybe 5, call them Downsprings….no Downsprings… they contribute on occaision…a couple of each…
So how is Hazel? Oh, sorry to hear that…oh well what can you do? Long time ago, a lifetime ago….
The picture? Yeah that was taken in ‘05 or was it ‘06 somethings do not ever change…
Hey, if you ever have anything to add to the Doctrine write a Reply…. copyright? We don’t need no steenkin copyright… Yeah, we would be shut down in a New York minute.
Denise? ..down in Florida… seems to like it very active in the blog….brought on board that AKH some major scottian potential there…yeah! I do think in Doctrine…ha ha at least it is something some else can keep track of…very funny.
Hey Barry, good talking to you…was totally stuck for a topic for the Post and as cute as this premise is…the equine is clearly “morally, ethic’ly/ spirtually, physically/ positively, absolutely/Undeniably and reliably, Dead “….
”As Coroner, I must aver
I thoroughly examined her.
And she’s not only merely dead,
She’s really, most sincerely dead”
The direct quote from movie scripts? …all the time buddy, all the fuckin time….thats right language too.
You should call more often will catch you up on this strange and brave and totally weird world…
oh…oh…oh before you hang up….tell the gang back in that truncated timeline that you’re calling from…(that) we have met the Slovinians…and …they are a fairly cool bunch….
With a basic understanding of the characteristics of each group (clarks, scotts and rogers), anyone can understand everyone else! You will know how those around you will act in virtually any situation. Finally you can understand what has never made sense to you about the people you work with, live with and/or are friends with. The answer to the question, ‘Why on earth would you do that/say that/feel that way?’
The idea here is to engage others in a discussion (of the Wakefield Doctrine); to read of personal experience(s) as a method of validation (of the efficacy of the Doctrine).
To this end we have these Posts, which are, in effect an ongoing conversation. In addition, the pages (listed in the right hand column), constitute a more formal presentation of the idea of clarks, scotts and rogers.
The goal remains the same: understand the Wakefield Doctrine and you will understand those around you; at home, at work, in the werld.
Alright, you have the basic concept. Lets talk about these others, the contributors to this blog. Referred to as Progenitors and Downsprings, they are a group of seven who have direct access to this blog so they can add content as well as comment.
Scott and Roger are (the other two) Progenitors and (in alphabetical order) Denise, Glenn, Joanne and Phyllis, (clark, scott, roger(prob), roger, respectively) Downsprings.
Come on, folks! Take a metaphorical bow.
While this is the initial group, the goal is to find others to contribute. In the best spirit of Darwin, if you read, understand the Wakefield Doctrine and want to add to it, step right up. Claim your place.
With a basic understanding of the characteristics of each group (clarks, scotts and rogers), anyone can understand everyone else! You will know how those around you will act in virtually any situation. Finally you can understand what has never made sense to you about the people you work with, live with and/or are friends with. The answer to the question, ‘Why on earth would you do that/say that/feel that way?’
Here we are at the end of the month, rapidly approaching the our 30th (dayth) anniversary! This blog remains the sole authority and repository of all knowledge of ‘the Wakefield Doctrine’, (aka the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers).
If you are a first-time reader/visitor; these Posts should provide an informative overview and the ‘Pages’ you see in the column to the right is the place to find (more detailed) information. As written at the top of this and all preceding Posts, ‘understand if a person is a clark or a scott or a roger and you will understand them as a person’. This is still true. Know this, you will not only be able to understand the people around you, you will be able to know, in advance, how they will act/re-act to any situation. In short, life will make (a certain) sense to you.
NEW PAGE ALERT!!! I have changed the ‘Progenitors and Downsprings’ Page to the ‘Hey! a little help over here’ Page. (It is not password protected, so step right up.)
This (new) Page is created in response to the need to make it easier for us to write Comments and make them easy to find. Even the most patience-challenged reader (yes, I’m looking at you, glenn) will find this Page more useful. (This Page) is also meant to function as a forum; a place that (in this blog) that hopefully will have something of an immediate value to visitors, readers and contributors.
With a basic understanding of the characteristics of each group (clarks, scotts and rogers), anyone can understand everyone else! You will know how those around you will act in virtually any situation. Finally you can understand what has never made sense to you about the people you work with, live with and/or are friends with. The answer to the question, ‘Why on earth would you do that/say that/feel that way?’
The Wakefield Doctrine is based on the premise that behavior is a response to perception. Within individuals, these behaviors tend to repeat themselves over time, resulting in a characteristic type of behavior, personality.
The Wakefield Doctrine proposes to describe personality on the basis of perception rather than the behavior that results (from perception).
The three characteristic ways to perceive the world are identified as: clarks, scotts and rogers. It is a given that we all start our lives with the potential/’tendancy to perceive’ the world as any of and all of these three. At some point we become predominantly one (over the other two).
We become clarks, scotts or rogers.
The goal of this Blog is to present the Wakefield Doctrine (aka the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) to the world in the hope that view of people and behavior represented by this idea will provide someone/somewhere entertainment, education, enlightenment and the eventual modification of the world.
As will be immediately apparent, this blog is a collaborative effort and because of that (at least in part) the organization of the information is a bit, shall we say, casual? The posts are meant to be an introduction to the blog and the Wakefield Doctrine. The pages (listed above) are more specific to a topic, each of the three types of personality, an Overview and a couple of pages that are more of a blank canvas, intended to encourage contribution and participation of any and all readers.
So take a look. You might see a reflection in one of these pages. We welcome and invite comment, it will be appreciated as we continue to gather information and example, illustration and explanations, all with the intent of helping you, the reader, to see the clarks and the scotts and the rogers that are all around you.
And try to remember,as you read this blog, this is about tendencies, about being mostly one or another of the three types.
With a basic understanding of the characteristics of each group (clarks, scotts and rogers), anyone can understand everyone else! You will know how those around you will act in virtually any situation. Finally you can understand what has never made sense to you about the people you work with, live with and/or are friends with. The answer to the question, ‘Why on earth would you do that/say that/feel that way?’
The Wakefield Doctrine is based on the premise that behavior is a response to perception (of the world). Allowing that we choose how to perceive the world means that we acquire characteristic (choices in perception) which is evidenced in characteristic behavior.
The Wakefield Doctrine proposes to describe personality on the basis of perception rather than the behavior that results (from perception).
Three distinct ways of perceiving the world are labeled: clarks, scotts and rogers. We all begin life with the potential/‘tendancy to perceive’ the world as any of these three types. At some point we become predominantly one.
We become clarks, scotts or rogers.
This blog contains descriptions of the three personality types. Still very early in the process, the organization (of the information) is still pre-acceptable. But the core concepts are here. The way that we all see, experience and interpret the world can be put into three groups.
Much remains to be done, of course. But if you have anything to contribute in criticism or comment, suggestion or compliment please do so.
GUARANTEE! Give us information about your life and we will tell you more about your life experiences than we have any reason or right to know. (Offer not valid in states of mind that preclude entertaining such a notion, including but not limited to rogers and some scotts.)
With a basic understanding of the characteristics of each group (clarks, scotts and rogers), anyone can understand everyone else! You will know how those around you will act in virtually any situation. Finally you can understand what has never made sense to you about the people you work with, live with and/or are friends with. The answer to the question, ‘Why on earth would you do that/say that/feel that way?’
The Wakefield Doctrine is based on the premise that behavior is a response to perception (of the world). Allowing that we choose how to perceive the world means that we acquire characteristic (choices in perception) which is evidenced in characteristic behavior.
The Wakefield Doctrine proposes to describe personality on the basis of perception rather than the behavior that results (from perception).
Three distinct ways of perceiving the world are labeled: clarks, scotts and rogers. We all begin life with the potential/‘tendancy to perceive’ the world as any of these three types. At some point we become predominantly one.
There is a way of looking at people and their behavior that is based on understanding of how (that) person perceives the world at large. All of us choose to see the world a certain, characteristic way. If you know (the way) a person sees the world, you can understand and even predict their behavior.
We call this, the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers (the Wakefield Doctrine.)
Not rocket science, not even brilliant and insightful psychology. It is simply a matter of knowing that if a person sees the world a collection of similar people with similar interests, acting with a non-specific and non-directive goal, then you are dealing with a roger. If you are dealing with a roger then you immediately know certain things. And the things you know about this personality type will allow you to know how they will act.
With a basic understanding of the characteristics of each group (clarks, scotts and rogers), anyone can understand everyone else! You will know how those around you will act in virtually any situation. Finally you can understand what has never made sense to you about the people you work with, live with and/or are friends with. The answer to the question, ‘Why on earth would you do that/say that/feel that way?’
The three ways of perceiving the world are referred to as: clarks, scotts and rogers. We all begin life with the potential of all three types. At some point we become predominantly one.
The Wakefield Doctrine is based on the premise that behavior is a response to perception (of the world). That we choose how to perceive the world means that we acquire characteristic way of seeing the world that leads to characteristic behavior.
The Wakefield Doctrine describes personality on the basis of perception rather than a persons behavior that results.
So take a look around this blog. Think of it like a puzzle*.
The content of the blog is beginning to accrue and accumulate. The most recent addition is a film clip that shows a roger and a scott in conflict. (All examples are exaggerated for illustration purposes, your experience of being a clark, scott or roger may vary.)
There is also a new FAQ page. Still in early stages, but don’t hestitate to leave a comment/reply.
One of the most frequent comment/questions we get is: ‘I can see all the characteristics of all three types in myself (or another person), how do I decide which group I belong to?’ The easy, but less satisfying answer is, ‘everyone has the qualities of the three types, just one (type) tends to dominate’. (Ed. note: at the start it is easier to determine who are clarks, scott or rogers among those around you, rather than yourself.)
So for the impatient readers (yes, I mean you, scott); following is a quick, ‘down and dirty’ guide to identifying the clarks, scotts and rogers around you:
rogers use the pronoun “I” more than the other three
scotts use nicknames (particularly diminutives ‘clarkie’, ‘phillie’)
clarks maintain the least eye contact when talking to you
scotts are the ones who can tell a joke properly and will insist you listen and (usually picks a joke slightly over the edge of appropriate)
rogers will always have the news on what so-and-so said to such-and-such
clarks have a posture that is hunched at the shoulder and when seated will appear too relaxed, to the point of slumping in the chair
rogers are very usually the ‘middle management’ types who will convince the upper management that cubicles are the best way to arrange an office space
With a basic understanding of the characteristics of each group (clarks, scottsand rogers), anyone can understand everyone else! You will know how those around you will act in virtually any situation. Finally you can understand what has never made sense to you about the people you work with, live with and/or are friends with. The answer to the question, ‘Why on earth would you do that/say that/feel that way?’
The three ways of perceiving the world are referred to as: clarks, scotts and rogers. We all begin life with the potential of all three types. At some point we become predominantly one.
The Wakefield Doctrine is based on the premise that behavior is a response to perception (of the world). That we choose how to perceive the world means that we acquire a characteristic way of seeing the world and that leads to characteristic behavior.
If you are a first time visitor, above is an outline of the ‘purpose’ of this site. (Despite the title, please avoid the ‘FAQ’ page and the ‘So, Which Am I?’ page, until you get a sense of what this Wakefield Doctrine nonsense is all about.)
(quick intro…)
A clark is the person you have to make an effort to notice. In high school the clark is not clearly of one group or another. Not popular, not a jock, not a geek, not a hippie not one of those who seem to always be standing next to their cars in the student parking lot. In a workplace environment same thing happens, the clark is seen in any setting but is not a part of any of the normally identifiable groups. The thing about clarks is that they will be seen at one time or another in all of these groups! Not as a member, but apparently a part of whatever the particular situation is; clarks will be found in association with the ‘leader/alpha’ of whatever clique or social group. But only in a ‘situational’ sense, definitely not a member of that group.
A scott is the person you can’t not notice. In high school the scott is the class clown or leading hoodlum or the captain of the sports team or the head cheerleader. The scott is popular, the entertainer, the joke teller. In a workplace environment they are also the leaders, but limited by the extent of organizational complexity, white collar or blue collar the scott will lead as a pack leader. Scotts are not good managers, they require a great deal of freedom and latitude. A scott might be a ceo or an owner, but only if it is ‘all his’. Truly an example of a ‘cult of personality’.
A roger is/are the masses. The people who make up the circle around a high school fight, the people who know what you did last weekend and tell the other people at the office. In a workplace environment rogers are the middle managers or that person in charge of supplies that has always been there and insists that they follow the rules (always refers to it as ‘I call this the bible’ lowercase). Rogers are the members of the cheer leader’s squad, the football team. Rogers are the crowd, the mob, the congregation, anywhere there are people with a common interest, most of the members will be rogers. They form the social fabric in every society.
So, hopefully your curiosity is piqued. Look around the site, look around where ever you are and you will them.
P.S. Given that this is a new site, there is a better than even chance that you are a clark. (and, yes, I know you have a system like this with different words etc).
Once upon a time, in a land not very far from Clark’s house… there were three atypical college friends who engaged in many of the atypical activities of their day. They went to school; they played guitars at ear-splitting volumes in dorm rooms, and sneered derisively at those who objected; one drank too, too much; one not at all, but subsisted on Oreos and Coke. One became a Baptist with a capital ” B”. They played in rock bands, worked all sorts of jobs, one got married way too soon. They all wrestled with the Issues Of Their Day, with varying degrees of resolve and/or success. And in spite of all the atypical ups and downs, they managed to form a very unique bond. And , to their surprise, the bond has lasted much longer than any one of them might have thought. Longer than some marriages, jobs, bands, or Baptist dogma. And after many hours of conversation about just about everything turned into years and decades of same, there came to be what was, and is now, referred to as … the Wakefield Doctrine.
Psychology and psychiatry texts make constant reference to type A/B/C personalities and their interactions. We are somewhat along those same lines. For us, those references have evolved into our Wakefield Doctrine, which we have found to be much more palatable. To err may be human, but to create a categorization system that explains all of human behavior in a somewhat cryptic nutshell is absolutely divine. And, we have noticed along the way, a heck of a lot of fun. In an “improvisational academia” sort of way, we gleefully invent terms as we go along to describe conditions and situations that may not have existed previously. And yet, our system also works perfectly well when taken perfectly and totally seriously.
The basic premise is that there are three fundamental personality types; and much can be known and discovered about oneself ( and any other aspect of life ) by learning to identify your own basic type; how to identify the types of others; and then consider all the ramifications of the interactions. In short…this explains everything, but only from a point of view that holds human dynamics as the prime component.
Once upon a time, in a land not very far from Clark’s house… there were three atypical college friends who engaged in many of the atypical activities of their day. They went to school; they played guitars at ear-splitting volumes in dorm rooms, and sneered derisively at those who objected; one drank too, too much; one not at all, but subsisted on Oreos and Coke. One became a Baptist with a capital ” B”. They played in rock bands, worked all sorts of jobs, one got married way too soon. They all wrestled with the Issues Of Their Day, with varying degrees of resolve and/or success. And in spite of all the atypical ups and downs, they managed to form a very unique bond. And , to their surprise, the bond has lasted much longer than any one of them might have thought. Longer than some marriages, jobs, bands, or Baptist dogma. And after many hours of conversation about just about everything turned into years and decades of same, there came to be what was, and is now, referred to as … the Wakefield Doctrine. (from the Wakefield Doctrine the pre-history)
(…the challenge here is to write the story of a history into the future, backwards…)
‘So the three went into life and their paths diverged, then crossed and diverged and crossed..’ The three friends went and found the life that they had hope for and feared of, dreamed of and dreaded. As is the nature of life, decisions were made and each made their decisions according to their nature.
(as the bible seems to say, ‘as it was in the beginning, so shall it be’, or words to the effect that the future replicates the past. experience conditions expectation, expectation creates the world.)
(the answer to the question you are asking yourself at this point is: ‘the one who wrote the previous post has the day off.’ )
Despite the divergence of the life paths of our three heroes, they maintained contact. The Wakefield Doctrine became more and more un-ignorable. In the beginning it was a curious and fun, eventually with their lives becoming ‘proof’ of the theory, it became a thing to share with the world.
A bid for immortality (or a simple need to leave a mark), a bit of spray paint on section of their lives, the Wakefield Doctrine, through the wonders of the internet, is being tossed on the world roadside. An empty can of beer, thrown from the car at 2 in the morning. A muttered regret to the stranger found asleep in bed in a pre-dawn greyness. A longing for a life that seems to exist in the lives of people that pass by, memories of childhood expectations, played out in a steadily increasing tempo.
(You know, shit like that.)
You have got to be a candidate for membership if you got through this post. So sign up, make a damn comment. If you are real responsive I might get the other writer to come back for a spell.
Once upon a time, in a land not very far from Clark’s house… there were three atypical college friends who engaged in many of the atypical activities of their day. They went to school; they played guitars at ear-splitting volumes in dorm rooms, and sneered derisively at those who objected; one drank too, too much; one not at all, but subsisted on Oreos and Coke. One became a Baptist with a capital ” B”. They played in rock bands, worked all sorts of jobs, one got married way too soon. They all wrestled with the Issues Of Their Day, with varying degrees of resolve and/or success. And in spite of all the atypical ups and downs, they managed to form a very unique bond. And , to their surprise, the bond has lasted much longer than any one of them might have thought. Longer than some marriages, jobs, bands, or Baptist dogma. And after many hours of conversation about just about everything turned into years and decades of same, there came to be what was, and is now, referred to as … the Wakefield Doctrine. (from the post: the Wakefield Doctrine (a pre-history)
The Wakefield Doctrine is, of course, about people. You, me and those people over there. The strength of the Doctrine lies in it’s basic tenet: people perceive the world in one of three characteristic ways, as a clark or a scott or a roger. Further, the way people act, their style of responding to life’s situations is equally characteristic.
This is true for male and for female. It is not a matter of there are female clarks or female scotts or female rogers.
There are rogerian women, scottian females and clarklike girls.
Much of the writing (on these pages) has tended to the male perspective; attribute that to the male bias of the current culture. But the fact remains that a scottian female will perceive the world as a predator on the look-out for prey and for (stronger) predators. The rogerian female will seek to organise and enforce the rules (that they themselves establish), be it in the PTA or the neighborhood watch gatherings. And the clarklike girl will be creative and wear very strange shoes.
There is no escaping the effect of the culturally established views of men and women. Rather than being a hindrance, it offers us an opportunity to take something everyone knows and see how the Wakefield Doctrine demonstrates its central premise, that the way we all behave is based on our (characteristic) assumptions and perceptions.
(Now if you are real patient, I will try and get that other writer to do something pleasant and re-assuring in this space.)
“roger, oh roger, if you would come and help our readers relax a bit. They seem to be experiencing a little pedantic overload.”
Alright, we have now officially had contributions from the clark, the roger and the scott (Progenitors).
(I will leave you to decide which author wrote which Post.)
The purpose of this blog is to tell the world about the Wakefield Doctrine, (aka the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers). This is about a way of looking at people and how they (seem) to see the world and most especially about how they behave in any situation.
If you know the type of personality you are dealing with you can understand, even predict their behavior. Lets say you are standing in a long line at the supermarket, the other people in line will act according to whether they are (a) clark, scott or roger.
OK! I know you’re saying at this point, “Get to it. Tell us how to tell one from the other! Tell us how we know whether we are a clark, a scott or (god forbid) a roger“.
“Hurry up, Mr. Clarkscottroger, tell us!!
No.
See the ‘Page Tabs’ at the top of this thing? Go and read it. Pick one, pick any one.
Does not matter. If you want to learn about the Wakefield Doctrine or clarks or scotts or rogers; if you want to learn how to recognize one or the other or public figures (which are they).
Its all here (and with the board of education), so read and learn and comment.
Better yet, ask a reasonably intelligent question and then go ahead and subscribe to this blog.
If you do all that, and can convince us you have learned the Wakefield Doctrine, you can buy a hat.
Here we are, the beginning of the third month of our effort to tell the world about the Wakefield Doctrine, (aka the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers).
Given that the attrition rate of new blogs is probably 99% disappearance in the first 30 days, we are surely entering ‘middle-age’ in the realm of blogation.
The two challenges facing us: a) creating an enticing and engaging introduction to the Wakefield Doctrine (in the form of these Posts), b) explaining the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers in an effective way. Given a window of opportunity with new visitors measured in seconds, it is critical to say the words that will convince you, the reader, that it is worth your time to explore the Pages of this blog.
A part of this development process is the search for a voice. That is, a style of writing, that is most accessible and engaging to the widest range of readers. The voice that developes here will be the ‘proof’ of the Wakefield Doctrine. The way it is described by each of the three Progenitors (clark,scott, roger), if the theory is correct, means that it should appeal to at least one segment of the audience depending on author.
Fine, if you don’t believe me* let’s have a damn contest! The first person who can correctly designate the Post to the author (clark, scott or roger) will qualify** to win a hat. Thats 3 Posts 3 different writers.
Sorry. Anyway if you are reading this (as opposed to acting it out (which actually you are in terms of your reactions)), then look through the Pages. We are trying to provide objective examples of the principle that does not require an active ‘guide’ in order to convey the way and the use of the Wakefield Doctrine.
Whatever.
The purpose of this blog is…(to use the start of many a grade school book report) to make the Wakefield Doctrine available to as many people as possible. Granted there is no shortage of theories and approaches to personality and understanding human behavior, this Wakefield Doctrine is simply fun. Fun to learn and especially fun to use out in the world.
see that girl with the rather strange choice of footwear? she has a tendency towards goth, will talk with her hands, probably laugh a little too much and will not complete a sentence;
hey, here comes that guy that is always telling jokes that push the limits of taste, what do you want to bet that he will insist on using the diminutive of your name and probably make fun of you for the entertainment of his friends
see that office administrator? she always leaves at the end of the day with something that she announces is work that she will do at home, well if you want to know how is on trouble at work or who is most likely to get laid-off, she is the go-to person.
(This just in from scott: ‘hey, jus tell them to read the damn thing and then tell us how much they like it!!’)
The primary and persistent topic of conversation here at the Wakefield Doctrine is:
…what do we say and how do we write it so that a total stranger, coming upon this blog, will Read, Understand and Follow (the directions) of the Wakefield Doctrine?
We know that once a person has grasped the basic concept, they will see the clarks,scotts and rogers who are all around them, which will then lead to a deeper understanding of both the Doctrine and it’s application in their lives. Unfortunately, this medium (blog/written/by example), is difficult for those of us who, while we have an idea that is valuable beyond measure, when it comes to expressing the idea, we really can’t write so good.
Well, if the answer cannot be found in the Wakefield Doctrine, then what good is that? And the answer is…*
So, what do we think? (By ‘we’, I mean the represented constituency of the Wakefield Doctrine, i.e. clark,scott and roger.)
(Lets just go ahead and ask them).
Shut up, shut up, I already said that I was the best of all you sorry excuses for persoinality types!!!! Just let me at those readers, I ‘ll make ‘em understand, you’ll see. Just watch me.
Please, people, can’t we all just get along. I feel that you have upset scott, it reminds me of a story…
Shut up with your f*cking stories, you BLT with a side-of-fries walking throw pillow. Do you know I am your master??!!…
I do know that and it makes me happy to see how that makes you feel when I hear you say the things that I remember hearing once in a….
Make him stop!!! Make him stop!!! His soothing voice is ketchup, his peaceful eyes are like those little round potatoes that have gravy just on the bottom half of them and….
Please?! Gentleman! We are in a public forum. We must conduct ourselves in a more congenial, and therefore more productive (in terms of the conveying of knowledge to our hypothetical…)…
Make him Stop!!!
Shut up please
‘Public forum this’, you pendantic, overly talkative motherf*cker!!! I know your kind! And if I ever get a free second from my demanding schedule of intimidating and offending everyone that I meet who is not stronger than me, I’ll murderlize ya’
Really? I’m must say that surprises and disappoints me. I actually thought that we were making progress and combining our strengths so that….
Make him stop please, for the love of humanity make him stop. I get so sleepy when he goes on like that, so that all I can think of are the woods; find and run to the woods. With the correct clothing I can sleep under a bush somewhere…
Yeah go ahead, I’ll still find you, you NY Sytems, up- the-arm-with-relish-and-ketchup-and-that-grey-sprinkly stuff-they-put-on-the-top-that-makes-you-drink-a-full-bottle-of-Coke…
Lets stop here and think about…
think about this
I feel you are both being totally non-Doctrinistical in your pre-insemmination of the idea. All people with the proper eradication will know that what we have is the pineapple of human understanding…
*A contest!!**
**For the person who writes the best single Post explanation of the Wakefield Doctrine***
…for those of you just tuning-in1here is the backstory: new to the blogosphere and hampered by limited writing skills and website design ability, the authors of the Wakefield Doctrine are struggling to shape a message that will entice visitors and readers into delving further into the content and becoming fans of the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers (aka the Wakefield Doctrine). Lets see what those scamps have come up with now…
(…So maybe the best approach to presenting the Wakefield Doctrine is to write what would be said in person.)
The Wakefield Doctrine says that all people can be divided into three types or groups. These groups are named clarks,scotts and rogers.
Is there a reason for these particular names?
Only in the sense that the Wakefield Doctrine originated from observations of three real people. But the names are not important.
The three types have clearly different ways of seeing the world and clearly different ways of reacting to situations and the characteristics of each stays consistent, from individual to individual within that type.
Could you repeat that using the English language?
Sure. Each of the 3 types act a certain way. Watch how they act or look at them or whatever and then match what you see to one of the 3 and you will know all about that person. Spot a clark by their posture or lack of eye contact and you will know a whole lot more about them, (same for scotts and rogers).
OK. This is like one of those TYPE A or you are an introvert/extrovert personality things?
Kind of.
Alright, what am I? And what can you tell me about me that you should not be able to guess?
Depends. If you are a roger, then we know that you like geneology, you think that those re-enacters (Civil War) are not overly weird. You like to believe that you behave in a way that would make your family proud. If you are a scott, you crave activity, action, competition. You love a party and are good at telling jokes and making people laugh. A clark will read this and already know where this is all going.
These are mere parlor tricks2 the Wakefield Doctrine is about understanding those around us. Why they act the way that they do.
What? Why would I need to understand those around me. I know how I act so why would I care?
Because, you have read this far; if you did not care or were not curious, this blog would be 2 clicks behind celebritymoviearchives.com (or some other equally incisive site).
Alright, make your point. Tell me what I need to know to understand (other people).
No.
(My feelings are hurt. I know you are just humoring me. I can see you snicker and wink at your friends, when you think I am not watching…)
If you want to learn about this thing, then you, the overactive one, drumming your fingers because the computer is limited by the speed of light3 go to THIS PAGE and read everything there, after you finish go to THIS PAGE.
You, the one with the ‘I can’t wait to tell my friends about this silly site’ smile on your face. You go to THIS PAGE and then go to THIS PAGE.
(1) tuning-in an old persons reference to the days of radio when there was only analog and a rotary dial used to move from one station to the other.
(2) parlor from the days when some homes (the larger ones) had a room used just for entertaining guests, pre-cursor to our modern living room (which, in turn, is being replaced by the ‘family room’).
(3) speed of light equals 186,000 mps (at least thats what everyone but the rogers think it is.)
Welcome once again to the Wakefield Doctrine which is really to say welcome to the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers. You/we have been introduced to the Progenitors: Clark, Scott and Roger. Estimable personages they are. Partiality aside, the theory put forth in this blog is both valid and verifiable. In order to reach this conclusion, you the reader, must first read each page (including comments). And then read again.
The Progenitors, as well as all contributing authors, have provided insurmountable proof that people behave according to their predominant world view (ie. that of a clark, scott or roger). Here at the Wakefield Doctrine one can find true stories, film clips, fun facts and humorous anecdotes to support the idea that anyone can understand anyone else simply by knowing if a person is a clark, scott or roger.
No one would argue that there are certain advantages to this. Wouldn’t you want to: Know ahead of time how your new boss operates? How to anticipate his actions/reactions? (don’t get on his bad side unless you are immune to screaming and/or tirades) or Know exactly how the volunteer coordinator at your child’s school plans to keep everyone helping everyone else?( insert wide grin, saucer eyes, too pleasant voice) or What’s the best approach to the new employee – the one that seems shy, maybe a little distant, aloof even. (compliment her on her footwear or for him, throw out a quote from Samuel L. Jackson’s character in Pulp Fiction).
Good so far? No. Not for me. It’s not enough. It’s not enough just to know/learn who is a clark or who is a scott or who is a roger. That’s the fun part. What I want to know is how can I make this thing (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) work for me?
So the larger question remains: how can I better myself and by extension my life by knowing who is the clark, the scott and the roger?I/you have identified characteristic behavior, observed interpersonal dynamics of family, friends and co-workers (this can be both challenging and entertaining especially during the holidays and/or special occasions where there are large groups in attendance) and most importantly of course, identified my/your own self.
The challenge now is how to utilize the other two world views. How do I, an admitted (but not yet committed) clark, wander the earth using my latent scottian and rogerian qualities to my advantage. How do I think like a clark, act like a scott, and feel as a roger?
The good news is that we are starting to get feedback from people heretofore totally unfamiliar with the Wakefield Doctrine (aka the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers);
The bad news, they say that they are having trouble understanding the Doctrine after their visit to this blog.
Which reminds me of a joke…
Actually, it makes as much sense as anything else to turn our attention to humor and what the Wakefield Doctrine can tell us about those we find funny and maybe even those we do not (find funny.)
You are probably saying at this point, ‘What the hell does this have to do with comprehending the Wakefield Doctrine’? (Or words to that effect. scott: hurry the f*ck up, get back to the comedians, roger:go ahead tell me more so that I can relate my own experiences or clark: alright, you have my attention.)
(Give me a minute, I had the rationale here when I started this Post…)
The basis for the Doctrine is that the manner in which a person relates to the world determines their personality. Further, this ‘manner or style’ is a function of how the person chooses perceive the world. (You have all heard the expression, ‘reality is perception’.)
Every one of us interpret our relationship to the world at large in a characteristic way; the terms used in the Wakefield Doctrine are, of course: as a clark (would), as a scott(would) as a roger (would). These links will take you to a page devoted to one of the three forms.
Or if you just want an Overview of what we are talking about, then go to the ‘By these names you will know them’page. If you are a scott or a roger and are feeling particularly brave try the ‘So, which am I?‘ (Warning! not for the insecure scott or roger).
Got to go look at some more clips, what a time in history we live!
The Wakefield Doctrine is fun way of looking at personality types. We say there are three personality types: clarks, scotts and rogers. If you know that your spouse is a roger, for instance, then you will understand why they act the way that they do. If they are scottian personality types then they will behave thusly or will like to do this or do that.
Everyone loves a good ‘personality type’ system. Be it astrology, body types, or birth order we all have a desire to understand why the people in our lives act the way that they do. Personality (type) systems be it EPPS or ENTMP, axis of civility(AOC) or the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers, are entertaining because they are mirrors. They offer us a different way to look at the familiar.
There is an old story/fable/lesson that tells about how a traveller to a new country asks the first person he encounters what are the people in the Village like ? He is told ‘everyone is very suspicious and hostile’. Then, a day later, a second traveller does the same thing and this time he is told, ‘everyone who lives in the Village is warm and friendly’. A year later these two explorers meet and talk about their adventures. One says to the other, there was one place where everyone was really mean and distrustful’ and the other explorer, recognising the landmarks says, ‘I went to the same Village but everyone was friendly…’!
We have all heard a version of this story at some point in our lives and the lesson is, of course, that ”expectation will determine our experiences with people”.
The Wakefield Doctrine takes this morality tale a step further. We say that each of us begins life with a predisposition or bias to what can be expected from life and that becomes the life we live. If you believe that the world is inimical, hostile, a place of predator and prey, then the world is like that. The Wakefield Doctrine approaches personality types from the position that if you know the bias a person has towards the world at large, then you will know how they will act and react, without ever meeting that individual.
Here we talk about a person being a clark or a scott or a roger. Three ways to view the nature of the world. This is not about gender nor it is about age or culture or even race. It is simply ‘did you start your life believing the world was like…? ‘
Then you are a roger or a clark or a scott.
Everything else you would want to know follows from that.
This blog is new, not so well organised, but the information you will find here comes from people who know about the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) and if you read through all the pages you will come to understand and you will see the world (and the people in it) in a slightly different, but very interesting way.
Ed Note: The best place to start reading this blog all depends on which of the three personality types you are. But, you ask, how can I know which I am before I read this? Congratulations, you are a roger. If you read this previous sentence and said, ‘no kidding’ to yourself, you are a clark and everyone else is a scott. So, clarks and scotts head on over to the ‘By these names…’ Page and you rogers had best start with the ‘You might be a …’ Page, if you find the Ken Burns bit funny, your type is confirmed.
Good Luck!
Do me a favor and write some Comments. I have been told that my writing style is a bit stiff and formal, and it is taking every ounce of willpower not to use a parenthesis, but if you Comment and say, ‘Hey! Let go and use them parentheses(es)(s).‘ I really will appreciate it. And as a reward, I recommend that you go to the Post titled ‘the Wakefield Doctrine (a Prehistory)’1 it is fun and uninformative to read.
(1) Doesn’t count as using a parenthesis, it is the Title of the Post, dammit
(for fans of 1970’s rock and roll albums, I paraphrase: “people keep asking, wheres the roger?”)
Being the being that be what I am, I indulge in the following screwing with the system, a re-positioning of a comment by the (Progenitor) roger. (Hint: he is one of the three in the picture to the left.)
(From the Roger; Beware the UltraRoger)
Being a Roger, I am eerily cognizant of how important it is to other Rogers to have a supply of regularly updated examples of our kind in action in the world. Helps us to look up from the particular patch of grass that we are currently obsessing on, and take notice of other elements in our world that we can be equally obsessed with.( Ah, bitter sarcasm…) And maybe someday, through simple repetition, to rise above obsession altogether. To actually achieve complete spiritual freedom. Nirvana. Salvation. I find it quite ironic that the ultimate lesson of the Wakefield Doctrine is to be able to abandon the Wakefield Doctrine. If you meet the Clark on the road, kill him…
So… today’s illustration begins with me going, as I often do, to the local library. Chance would have it that today they were hosting a book sale, which is normally a somewhat less than stellar event. Typically attended by a sporadic assortment of damaged and battle-weary Rogers and Clarks, with an occasional flanking raid by a half-starved and fervently desperate Scott. But this one was way different. It might have been the driving rain that did it, or an aftereffect of a tanked economy, but the place was packed. Overrun with the flat-out strangest damned array of human flotsam I’ve seen in a while, and between years of rock and roll bands and re-enacting, believe me, I have seen some truly jaw- dropping weirdness. I am not aspiring to separate myself from my brethren, but these people worried me. There is, in the world, a very particular and really disturbing faction of casualties who seem to lurk in the corners of public places, and especially favor libraries. ( Of course I am NOT included here; I always have a very good reason for being there. I peruse; they just wander aimlessly) From the teenager with the hopefully functional cassette walkman who sat in a corner doggedly going through an entire mountain of books on tape, to the three old ladies running what I think was meant to be a row of antique tables but was actually an assortment of broken lamps and crockery, truly filthy small kitchen appliances ( a blender with several multi-colored rings inside of it, really very Van Gogh if you looked at it from a safe distance) and possibly the strangest of all; several boxes of old dolls, all of whom seemed to be missing limbs. Now , all this has been seen before, at flea markets and such…but at the library?
The massive display of books was very well organized, each section with a dutiful attendant bagging books and answering the geuinely strange questions that can be posited only by a tragically twisted Roger or Clark. ” There is a particular James Patterson title that I need. Why don’t you have it? Why can’t you get it for me? Do the other libraries have it? Can I get it from the regular library shelf? Why not?” And so on. Not a single one of them seemed to understand the subtle nuance between a Borders retail store and…a library fundraiser.
As implied, Rogers were in great supply here. All shapes and sizes. All social groupings. Families, with children posing weird questions to their parents, who in turn demanded them to the hapless and exasperated librarians. Couples…” no, honey, get the other one.” This, overheard while a pair of Land’s End professorial sorts pored through a few dozen of the same Dean Koontz title, looking for the most recent printing. Why? Why is this important? Am I less of a Roger for wanting to reprimand them? For realizing that if they were at the outer edge of the herd, even a badly wounded Scott could get them both with one stroke? One should remain vigilant while the other indulges. This is a cardinal rule for fledgling Rogers.
And then I saw them. The Rogerian couple of all time and space. Consisting of a typically attractive but totally subserviant Rogerian female, and…him. Pretty impressive for suburban Rhode Island. She all but swept the floor before him as he passed through the crowded aisles without allowing any inferior creature to come into direct contact. Brown suede boots, straight jeans, Australian-style duster coat ( I hate those) and a meticulously polished and perfectly placed leather outback hat. With a chinstrap.( Hate all that, too.)Thank God that they don’t allow horses in libraries, he would have been sidesaddle, with a parasol. The look of utter distaste and contempt as he waited for the female to search for acceptable material for his perusal.He also had a carry-basket gleaned from the nearby supermarket. She would bring him a book; he would inspect it thoroughly ( for what, exactly, I could not determine), check the cover ( for tears, I suppose)and finally… smell it. Yes. Smell it. As if he were verifying Satan’s babies’ diapers. And then, if acceptable, it went in the bin. I observed, and resisted the urge to grab the chinstrap and try to fling him across the room. A small opportunity did present itself, however. The female brought him a book which he had just started inspecting when she brought yet another. He put the first one down while he was distracted by the second, and on impulse, I quickly moved in and grabbed the first one. Moving away, I immediately went to the checkout line,( I had had quite enough by then)and bought the damned thing just to screw up his day. Turns out, I now have a copy of an old Andrew Greeley detective novel. Completely useless. But it was worth the dollar. And it smells ok to me. But… the weirdest bit is that the main character in it has my same last name. It’s a pretty unusual name. Remember my other rant about Rogers and sychronicity? I know that it means something, but I haven’t the slightest idea what…
Oh, and I also got a copy of the Eric Clapton biography that came out last year. It was in a section marked ” Rogerian Apologists.” ( That is not true.)
So, kindly leave a donation on your way out, mind the stairs and be sure to come back.
OK. I have it together now. No need to get excited. Just sit here, clear the mind, the content is in there. Just relax.
My compliments to any of you out there who have maintained an active blog for more than 3 months. Jesus, this coming up with Posts all the time is not as easy as it looks. And this from the perspective of ’as long as there is a new Post once a week’ blogholder. But no one is holding a gun to my head… (‘hey theres an idea for a Post!)
SOMEONE IS HOLDING A GUN TO MY….
Sorry, forget it. Sure one of the 103,000,000 blog authors in the world today has already done the definitive, ‘Someone is holding a gun to my head’ treatment. Maybe there are some studies that I can cut and paste and fill up some of this white space and then I can call it a day and get back to my real life!
Alright, seriously now. I do mean my compliment to those of you who have the ability and talent (acquired or learned) to write something new and different and sometimes even interesting, Post after Post after Post/blog after blog after blog. Not bad. But since I am not ready to give up on this little blog of mine, I had better t t try to get it together and come up with a Post that will keep the crowdlette coming back for more.
Being that this is the Wakefield Doctrine (aka the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) I would do well to keep to the subject that I know best. (See? Right there! I don’t know much about grammar and good writing and all, but that last sentence had at least two tenses, and easily three pulperfects in it. Man, this is worse than the first time I recorded myself playing guitar along with Jimi Hendrix. Suffice it to say, if you were there you would not have had too much trouble telling us apart.)
This writing and grammar thing is really starting to annoy me. It is bad enough that I regret now that I did not take a typing class when I was in high school. (At my current age, in my high school years Typing Class was for people taking a Business curriculum, which meant you were going to be a secretary which meant you were a girl. That simple, end of cultural subtext). But with this damn blogging thing, I am being forced to confront the fact that I do not have mad writing skills. I should have paid attention in my English classes. (Look, it was the 60s when I was in high school, how cool is that?) But the inescapable fact remains that the skill set I would value the most this October morning is not how to play the opening riff of ‘Sunshine of Your Love’. Its funny about how people, at least in the current (american) culture, we seem to have an expectation to be able to do certain things well, just because we think we can do them at all. By this I mean singing and writing. Most of us know that we can sing our favorite song in the car, on the way to work, therefore I think we all equate that with being a singer. Writing, the same. I can, with the help of spellcheck and a lot of proof reading, write a report at work, so how hard can it be to be a writer?
(I have resisted the impulse to hit Preview to see if I’m down far enough on this page to call it a day.) But anyway, you are here because you want to know all about the Wakefield Doctrine. Right?
The Wakefield Doctrine will cause you to see the world in a slightly different manner. Nothing earth-shaking, no flashes of light; ‘oh my god I understand now’ will not be on your lips. What will happen if you read most of this blog and the associated pages will be that you might find yourself saying, ‘that person is such a roger‘, or you might find yourself thinking, ‘here comes so-an-so what a scott he is’ or you could think, ’shit, I’ll bet I’m one of those clarks the Doctrine is talking about.’
If this happens to you, I have succeeded. If it does not then I have failed. If you have a question about the Doctrine, leave a Comment or email or whatever the hell people do around here. I will get back to you as soon as I finish my Adult Education class, “You too Can Write Like The Prose’, that I am taking at my little local high school.
I was speaking to (one of the other) Progenitors last night, discussing the Wakefield Doctrine in general and this blog in particular. We got on to the topic of writing styles and attracting a following or at least a continuing readership. At one point he said, ‘look, what we have here is not a hobby blog or a poetry blog, it is not even a blog about what we think about religion or philosophy or anything else! It is an original idea, unfamiliar to people who might come upon it, so don’t expect most people to get it on the first try!’
That was a good point. The actual writing part of having (a blog) is new to probably everyone who gets it into their head to start one. Of course I am not counting the professional/trained writers, those people you can spot the second you get to their site. (These ‘writer blogs’ look good, read good, right out of the gate.) No mistaking them. But their subject matter is often secondary to the execution, they appear to be writing for the sake of writing. Not the worse thing in the world to do, but a little skillfully executed prose goes a long way when there is no original content. As for the rest of us, we start with a writing style that is clearly untrained. After a certain period of time, after the majority have given up the ‘blog project’, those of us who remain comprise the garage bands of the blogosphere.
Well…, that certainly was the long way back around to my theme of the difficulties encountered when trying to convey an original idea with no formal training in the medium. (I once wrote in a Reply to another blog to the effect that, ’in olden days if I had the money, I would get pamphlets printed and stand on a street corner and try to get the ten or twenty passersby to stop and take one and read it. Now I have the internet. I can try and get ten or twenty million passersby to stop and read my little electronic pamphlet’.)
The creating and performing of music is a major element in the background of the (original) clark, scott and roger. We all grew up in a time when, if you were not planning a real career (doctor/lawyer/accountant) then you played in a band. In fact, 2 of the 3 Progenitors still do to some extent or another. The metaphor of learning an instrument without formal instruction and performing in public are recurring themes in the lives of the people from which the Wakefield Doctrine has sprung.
The ’garage band’ metaphor is actually quite apt. Back in the day, we spent time among friends playing in living rooms. That sounded good but it was not enough, we had to see if we could get the same reaction from strangers. So we practised in garages and (in one case in a 14′ by 14′ room in an abandoned factory building), but we practised and eventually went out and played for high school dances, then wedding receptions and (finally) bars and night clubs. The underlying motive remained the same throughout, ‘could I get the reaction that I got from friends when I performed in front of total strangers?’
This blog is the attempt to get the same reaction that I get from friends and family when I talk about the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers only from total strangers, people who have never heard of the Wakefield Doctrine.
This thing has legs. I bet that with time and a stack of Marshalls the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers will have a following. I make that statement because I have had people that know of the Wakefield Doctrine tell of hearing people who have heard it third hand, make statements like ‘man, what a roger he is’, or ‘not too much a scott, is she?’ So if the Doctrine is sustainable enough to propagate on a purely anecdotal level, with a little effort and a lot of promotion and an increasingly efficacious style of teaching and illustrating the concept, everyone will know about clarks,scotts and rogers.
So, in keeping with the theme of this Post, if you are new here and are reading this, write a Comment/Reply. (Metaphorically applaud or throw a beer can at the stage). This thing will continue…
So you want to know how to tell which of the three types of personality you actually are? …well, telling you sort of depends on what type of personality you are…
(To borrow from a 12 Step saying, ‘only you can decide whether you are a clark, scott or roger’. Now that I hear that, let me just add: ‘ This statement is true only if you are a clark.’)
The basis of the Wakefield Doctrine is that the characteristics that comprise all the three personality types are inherent in each and everyone of us; male/female, black/white , chinese/jewish, old/young. Everyone one of us. So, if you think you are a clarkand a scottand a roger, then you are absolutely correct. (Thanks to Jason, over at Project: Enlightenment, for the feedback/critique pointing this out).
All of the characteristics of clarks,scotts and rogers will seem appropriate for you at one time or another. More telling, they will seem familiar. If you read this blog you will understand this, but you want to know immediately, for certain, right now, ‘Which am I’?
There is only one way that is not only effective but quick enough for you impatient readers, and that is by the process of elimination. (yeah, scott, he said elimination. huh. huh) Lets just get you to look around and understand which of the three you are not. (Then maybe you can continue to read this blog and come to an actual understanding of the whole thing. At least those of you who are clarks will, all of the attention-deficient scotts and most of the tell-me-more-about-myself rogers will be long gone.)
Fine, you want to know which you are? A clark, or a scott or a roger? Do ya?
Look around you. Who do you love? (Apologies to Elias McDaniel) Of the people you work with, who do you feel is your friend? One of them (the exciting one, the one you enjoy getting to laugh) that is your scott, the other ones are all rogers. (There will only be one scott). The person you now remember that you forgot is a clark.
Like you.
All right, you parents out there. Your spouse is reliable to a fault. At the same time they can be difficult and they seem to take a lot of the day to day ‘trials and tribulations’ very personally. He/She is a roger. You are a clark. Your first born is a scott.
Pretty simple, isn’t it?
Now for those of you who want to believe there must be so much more to this Wakefield Doctrine, you rogers, well what the f*ck are you wasting your time on the Post for? There are pages and pages of information here. Read it! Most of it is about you!
Scott? Movies inside!
(Bonus hints! If you can’t imagine wanting to, let alone actually watching the same movie more than once, you are a scott. If you think that civil war re-enacting would be an interesting and fun hobby, you are so rogerian. If you can seriously entertain the notion that you might be better off being someone/anyone else, hello clark.)
Alright. Back to your lives. You want more, leave a reply. Try not to notice when your boss seems to be talking behind your back, even though being your boss should mean that is not necessary. No roger there, just keep moving along. This Wakefield Doctrine stuff is kind of interesting, but it got nothin on your system of INHR/colour/zodiacial interpretation, clark.
One of the blogs I read on a regular basis is Mel Thompson’s ‘Spatular in the Wilderness’ . I mention this because of what he does, (that) I want to be able to do, which is write in a style that is just comfortable and fun to read. As a relative newbie (or as I like refer to myself ’a garage band blogger’), I read everything I can in the way of other blogs. One of the things that strikes me about the good blogs is not that they have incredible graphics and layout, or have a 7 digit hit counter score. Rather it is that they are engaging. (To continue the music metaphor, these blogs are a lot like James Taylor. In comparison to say, Miles Davis or some opera singer with animal parts as costume elements).
Anyway. Mel does topical shit on a frequency that keeps me coming back to the question, ‘where do these people find the time?’ I have about 90 minutes in the morning available to write. The other times during the day that I hit the blog world is limited to checking how many site-visits for the day and seeing if any of my ‘drive-by Replys’ have produced a response, (the good ones, the reactions that is, often sound like an accident victim repeatedly saying, ‘I was only going to go to the store, just a quick trip’.) But the idea of coming up with interesting and/or entertaining words at the rate of these other bloggers, just blows my mind.
I am discovering, in the course of the Wakefield Doctrine (aka the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) project, that my underlying ambition seems to be stuck on ‘11′. What started as a ‘lets just see if you have the nerve to hit Publish’ has morphed into ‘hey, you write blogs? I write blogs, hold on a minute, read/listen to this shit I just came up with…’
Since this is a new Post and this is the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) allow me to say a few words…(jeez, does this guy ever let up?)
(No. No I don’t.)
Anyway. I know the question on the minds of the gathering crowdlettes of readers. ‘Am I a clark or a scott or a roger?’ I will go out on a limb here. The people who write really well…rogers. The ones that write really creative, puzzling, will he ever get to the point…clarks. (The scotts are there but in lesser numbers at this point, by their capital letters, you will know them.)
So, go out into the blog werld, write of this place where everyone has a name. Take comfort in knowing your form (I mean you roger, you comprise the majority of the population. And to show our appreciation, here is a little gift1) Speak of the Doctrine and when they show up we will hit them with some really baffling shit.
(Quick Homework Assignment, then you can go back to your jobs/schools/spouses/therapists/neurotic obsession/life. Some time during the day today, you will see/hear a loud person talking loudly (relative to the environment) to another person or persons. Now the easy part is that that is probably a scott doing all the talking. Your task, however, is to determine who the target of this interaction is, a clark or a roger or even another scott. (Hint: it is not about how long they put up with this person, it is about how they regard themselves, relative to the world around them at the time)).
1)You think that the 107 episode, Directors cut, 15 DVD un-abashed edition of the compilation (with Writers notes (including what he had for breakfast) and voice-over reading of the credits by someone who knew someone who was a re-enactor who actually got hurt at an event) of all Ken Burns films, PBS episodes and commercials that last longer than most readings of the Iliad is the greatest film of all time…you might be a roger (A big shout out to my girl Phyllie, she a fan of this shit).
(As previously noted, the Progenitor roger is more comfortable using Comments as (his) preferred form of communicating. While respecting that, I claim the right to edit, to the extent of copy/pasting (his) Comments into this Post.) (Other than ‘cut and paste’ and formatting as a block quote, there has been no change, alteration or modification to the Comment. It is, as the rogerian expression would have it, ‘complete and unabashed’).
From the Roger:
On my way home from work, I generally listen to a radio program called ” Fresh Air” on NPR. Interviews and articles on a wide array of stuff, hosted by Teri Gross. Today, she was interviewing Tracy Morgan, who was an SNL guy and is now on “30 Rock”. She has great skills as an interviewer, and always seems to get something good out of that scenario.
Sadly, even she was at a bit of a loss with Tracy Morgan. I can now honestly say that I have never heard a more hopelessly Rogerian Roger than this guy. OMG. Completely mesmerized with himself, absolutely awash in self-indulgence. Lots of dead air in this interview, because Tracy had to keep fighting back tears as he ranted about the only truly important thing on this Earth.
This sort of thing can send a Progenitor screaming in search of the nearest cliff. It is acutely painful to have to witness. I felt simultaneously angered and embarrassed. Angry, because these people are out there, and likely doing massive damage to anyone who has to interact with them. Embarrassed, because I see elements of myself clearly. This bad of a Roger should be simply cut from the herd and made to learn to survive on his own, or not. Whatever.
I’d like to offer a point of clarification, also, to people who may be new to this blog and it’s main idea. Yes, Clark-Scott-Roger are all somewhat static personality types that may seem almost stereotypical. But- and this really is the Point, if you would indulge me- as Progenitors, we all three have grown astronomically above and away from those one-dimensional caricatures. The ” original” Clark could never have dreamed of piloting a blog. I could never have gotten out of my own way enough to ever consider contributing to it. And even though the “original” Scott hasn’t said much in this forum, that in itself is quite telling. We have all…evolved. I myself could only quote a few significant particulars that may have caused such a dramatic and yet gradual change. Maybe just basic human nature; if it doesn’t kill you, it will make you stronger. I am still fundamentally a Roger, but now have the bittersweet capacity to see the horrific learning curve that a fledgling Roger has to get through to survive. The poor bastards. If they could see all of that at one glance, that in itself would crush them.( Either that, or they’d get a gig on a network sitcom…)This would hold true for all three types, of course. But we all seem to have found our particular ways to change and still remain the same.
So, now we have Progenitors ( Clark, Scott, and I) and Downsprings ( second-generation cadre). Some of the Downsprings are actually better examples of us than we are. I sense that we might need one more descriptive term just to fit the newbies, though. Anyone have an idea? Or does “downspring” serve that purpose as well?
And just a last bit of field advice for those Rogers who are just awakening to these odd and awkward Clarkscottrogerian gems of truth; aim low, conserve your ammunition, and for God’s sake, stay off the radio.
When this blog first came into existence, most of the discussion centered on, ‘no way! You actually did it! Hey, let me try!’ You know, that kind of far-reaching, insightful thought. This should come as zero surprise to anyone reading this, because if you are reading this you are one of the 100 plus million blog writers that are out there. (And the beauty part, the fatal attraction of this world of blogs is the tendency to think, ‘jeez, I know I am not (fill in your favorite writer), but if I get only one tenth of one percent of those other guys to read my Posts, I’ll be famous!’)
The fact is, the internet is clogged with good ideas. The blogsphere has a tendency to look like a bus station from the sixties; busy, lots of interesting people, ‘hey is that guy throwing up over there?’ But hey so what? Afterall, the Beatles spent years playing in basement night clubs in Germany and went through 18 drummers before they were an overnight success.
Rogers’ contribution today brings home the idea that no matter how good, how original an idea might be, without a clear presentation, it is worthless. Roger speaks of the fact that we, (the clark, the scott and the roger), have all evolved. Have changed. Does that mean the title of this blog should be ’the WakefieldDoctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers and the people that they have turned into and the other people that seem to act like them at times and not like them at other times’)?
This is a serious question.
The thing of it is, the Doctrine, while it has become a public exposition of the personal experiences of three friends, seems to have legs in the real world. Allowing for the possibility of self-delusion/illusion/allusion, (NO! say it ain’t so!), We will persist in this effort to carry the message of the Wakefield Doctrine to the world at large, one Post at a time.
To the discussion at hand. Should the Doctrine include a new term or description to account for the change and development that we all go through in life?
No.
(Now that was simple enough!)
(What do you mean, more explanation than that?) Alright. As to why it is not necessary to add categories or further elements to the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers. Two reasons:
a) the foundation of the Doctrine. clarks, scotts and rogers represent ways of interacting with the world, and we are all born with the complete range of qualities. There is no purely scottian people or rogerian or clarklike. We have the potential (at a very young age at least) to become any of the three. It just seems that people develop into one or the other or other;
b)by definition, the Wakefield Doctrine contains the elements of what (roger) is asking, i.e. what happens, what do we become if we, (as clarks, or scotts or rogers) develop? That answer is contained in the Wakefield Doctrine.
You know, in a stomach turning way, Roger’s question is a sign, a signal that we are reaching a point in this thing of ours where we must change. Grow. Do something useful. But, you say, shouldn’t we wait until we have readers, followers,viewers, hits, page visits, inclusion on many other blog writers blog rolls?
Again, no.
If the metaphor of being a garage band blog holds, then it is time to get a bit more organised. (You all remember that there came a time for the endless jams, pointless solos to end. Time to get a set list. Stop the silly antics between songs.) So lets start to discuss practical application of the Doctrine.
uh, how about next Post? (meanwhile let me play this blues riff, its really something…)
As established by the roger (Progenitor) in the last Post, all (living) things must evolve. And while not technically a ‘living thing’, this blog is hereby granted ‘honorary-for-the-purpose-of-holding-a-thought-together’ status. (Whew!) Further, the term ‘garage band blogger’ has been coined and is the keystone metaphor for this process of promulgating the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers, all while creating an entertaining (read: lots of readers) blog.
So what does this mean? It means that the format of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) will change. And since we have not formatted the specific changes yet, now is the time to vamp.
(In sitcoms, when the writers needed time off, there was always the ‘flashback’ episode. So without further adieu…)
Let us consider the world that we all experience in common.
You know, none of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) is meant to be used to explain the day to day world ‘out there’. The Doctrine is not about politics or economics, it is not about how to earn a fortune through the internet or how to find god and a peace within and it is certainly not about the path to enlightenment. It is about how we can learn to see the world differently. Only by setting aside our most basic assumptions, we can arrive at an appreciation and understanding of the people we live and work with every day. And after all, it is the people we live with and the people we work and play with that make up the world. They are the world. Not the people described in the newspapers or on television or the internet, they are the background noise. Nothing overly real there.
(So, how are you today? That video at the start of this Post? Jeez, I don’t know.)
(It just seems to set the tone of this Post better than anything I could think up myself.)
While at times, with authors changing, this Post seems to run the gamut of style and ease of reading. The goal of each Post is always the same, and that is to present the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers to widest range of readers. This process is not always so smooth, sometimes it gets a little clunky,but it does not give up just because of poor writing.
So as we continue to stagger from ill-conceived idea to badly executed allusion, for your consideration: Woody Allen on evil.
(The point of this Post? Hold on, I’m getting to it.)
‘Hey, hey Mr clarkscottroger! Is this going to be one of those Posts where there is no point only a series of clips from movies that you string together in the hopes of meeting your self-imposed goal of writing at least one Post a week?’
I know! Lets do a Poll!! (they take up space and the crowdlette loves ‘em).
Now that was fun, wasn’t it?
(Still a little too much white space showing. Got to get to work, no time for youtube, I know! Another Poll!!)
So there you have it! Proof of the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers; incontrovertible evidence of the efficacy of the Wakefield Doctrine for the self-development of marginal personality disorders.
Alright, lots to of ground to cover, early morning and not a lot of time to write. Real good news though, I just learned to single space! As in: ‘damn I should be putting this sentence on its…
own Line!! May not seem like a big deal, but you try writing when all you can do is paragraphs.
The current ‘tempest in a teapot’ or ‘Excitabat enim fluctus in simpulo’1 (for you clarks out there) here at the Doctrine is all about Presentation or how do we come up with an approach that will reliably hook-in you, the New Visitor/Reader? Not an unimportant question. In fact, the (correct) answer to this question is the difference between all this effort being either ‘oh yeah, those guys had this blog thing for a while last year’ and ’she was one of thoseWakefield Doctrine writers, man what a roger‘!
The ’visitor count’ is running only about 15 a day on average, but until we complete Remedial Writing 101, I suspect we should be grateful that it is low. I would hate like hell to waste a perfectly good ’reader visit’ because this damn thing is written like we were on drugs or were scottian. The Wakefield Doctrine (aka theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) is, in all seriousness an original and interesting ’thing.
Not on par with ‘Das Kapital’ or ‘The Golden Bough’ or even Sheldon’s ‘Constitutional Psychology’, the Wakefield Doctrine is a way to change how you look at the behavior of the people around you. The Wakefield Doctrine supplies a perspective on the reasons that people act the way that they do and more to the point, the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers offers an explanation for the behavior of the people we (all) have to deal with at home, at work, at school.
Most importantly, the Wakefield Doctrine provides insight into the minds of those around us. We have all heard the expression ‘you should walk a mile in his moccasins before you judge him (or words to that effect). The idea is that if we can see the world as another person sees it, then their behavior and actions and attitudes becomes understandable. (and predictable2)
Since this is the Doctrine and the Doctrine sez there are only 3 personality types I will address each of the three, the clarks, the scotts and the rogers. (In no particular order, you will know which statement is for you.)
The following statements are true:
This is the Wakefield Doctrine. It has something of value that no other blog can offer. The Wakefield Doctrine is fun, it is educational and it is a way to get the upper hand on your enemies.
This is the Wakefield Doctrine. It is not for everyone. It may sound familiar, in parts, to what you already know but it is now a product of more than one viewpoint so it has an advantage that your system does not have, and that is acceptance by others.
This is the Wakefield Doctrine. Read it. Laugh. Pretend you made it up yourself.
The pages that follow should ‘fill in the blanks’. Have fun, leave Comments/Replies, buy a hat.
(The sub-title? Oh yeah. mid-life crises guys here (and) here, younger folks here, political junkies here, and crises groupies here.)
1)”He was stirring up billows in a ladle” (Wikipedia, of course)
2) What the hell good is any knowledge if it does not let you predict the future?
The incarnation is a basic doctrine of classical Christianity.
The four noble truths summarise the main doctrines of Buddhism.
“ALright! Alright! the clark is in the house! Give it up for tha gangsta of syllogisms, the Grandmaster of Meta-Funk, our own and only Claaaarrrrrrkkkkkk!!
Yo, yoo, yo I see my boy roger on the wheels over there, gimme some bass there rog-er, dats the shit.
SkaOttt, yeah my boy SkaOtt, where you at? YEah, homind, get your scerbic-ass self down here!!
We gonna rock your frame-o-reference here in the house tonight. SHit, you not one of you gonna reference the world the same.
SkaOtt tell ‘em homind, tell ‘em bout what a meal out them (you made) and dat you come back for more!
RoGER, kick that beat, make this sorry bunch walk to the rythmn you want ‘em to walk.
Its all our party, y’all be the food and ya be the drink… what you say is what we think.
[The following Post is another in the continuing effort to present the Wakefield Doctrine (aka the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) in a manner that is accessible, enjoyable and will cause a First Time Reader to go into the Pages of this blog to get more information. The hope and the goal is to write 'in 25 words or less' a description of the use and the benefits (of the Doctrine.)]
Thinking, reflecting, considering, having an internal dialogue, call it what you will but the inside of our heads is an always interesting, often busy place. We are, to one degree or another, self-aware. It is this internal environment that we are concerned with today in this Post. To start, a question:
What is the good, the use, the benefit of what goes on inside our heads?
Most of everything that goes on inside our heads, is our efforts at trying to make sense of the world that we find ourselves in each day. We try, and in doing so, hopefully are able to live out the day as comfortably/profitably/virtuously as possible.
Set aside the ‘yeah, but you don’t understand how or why my life is the way it is’, for now.
You’re right, no one understands your life. (Damn! you exist as a pre-supposed Reader! Tell me about understanding another! To mis-quote Firesign Theatre, ‘how can I know what you feel, thats metaphysically absurd, man!’)
It is notnecessary to understand the particulars of a person’s life in order to talk about how we live and act in life.
For the purposes of this Post, lt is agreed that no one can know what is going on in another person’s mind, at least in terms of the personal-reality-specific details. What we can agree on is that whatever the process, it is probably very similar among all people, young/old, female/male, this culture/that culture, (not counting some fundamentalists and most people who think that ‘America’s Got Talent’ is great entertainment). But most people share a similar interior/mental environment.
The thing is we all seem to feel a need for, be attracted to, or require ourselves to create a Doctrine. A doctrine or a religion or a belief system, the Golden Rule, logical empiricism, call it what you like, all self-aware humans seem to share this need. And what people seem to need is a map. A map to use to try and make sense of the world. Everyone, everywhere, has a map in their heads.
These maps are made up of assumptions and values that serve as a guide to ‘getting through the day’. Examples of assumptions that make up the map: ‘you can’t get something for nothing’, ‘nice guys finish last’, ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’, ‘damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead’, etc, etc. You get the idea.
All people acquire and use a ‘map’ (doctrine) in order to make sense of what they experience in the course of living each day. Which is to say inter-acting with other people. And ‘interacting’ means behavior. Lets say that the common elements in how we choose to interact with other people is a product of following our individual maps. And over time, these common elements become routine and stylized. This will be referred to as behavior. But first a question that must be resolved before we can continue, the question of…why?
The ‘why’, does not matter in this Post. It does not matter ‘why’ we all have maps or doctrines or any other term. Further the ‘how’ of all this doesn’t matter much either.
We can spend the rest of the day or an entire lifetime describing how this doctrine thing manifests itself. Again, not mattering so much.
The ‘what’ is where it is at. The ‘what’ is the list of elements, landmarks, on your map.
This is topic of this here Post here. We are going to look at the Wakefield Doctrine in the context of it being a map, no different from religion or philosophy, morality or practicality. The question that we need to answer is, does it (the Doctrine) offer us something as a map, that the the other maps do not? How well does the Wakefield Doctrine serve this purpose and how easy is it to use?
The Wakefield Doctrine (aka the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) is a simple, fun and useful way to look at the world. Just like any of the other ‘doctrines’ mentioned above, the Wakefield Doctrine serves as a guide/interpreter of the world we experience, but without out the excess baggage of mainstream doctrines such as religion, morality, good citizenship.
What advantage does the Doctrine offer?
Well, for starters it is fun. Now fun is pointless without value, (stop right there! which of the three thinks that)?
OK, lets set that aside for now. The Wakefield Doctrine will provide a map that allows you to see the world as other people sees it. Even a people you do not know.
The theory of clarks, scotts and rogers is predicated on the notion that we all have a predilection as to how we view the world at large and these predilections tend to gather themselves into three distinct groups: what we call the clarks, scotts and rogers.
The rest of this blog addresses the characteristics of each of these three ways of seeing the world. Three distinct maps.
Consider the topic of love. Love figures into probably 80% of the Posts written and love is at the foundation 50% of the blogs themselves.
Brotherly love, sisterly love, love for family and love of country. Love stinks, love is everywhere, yet all you neeed is love and let me tell you ’bout a girl I love.
Love walks in and love walks out the door. I mean, let us seriously and lovingly consider a love that endures and a love that dares not speak it’s name, all for the love of god and love22,
love, its the sphere in blogosphere.
Lets take a look, a long loving look, and if you will open your eyes and close your mind, then you will see what the Wakefield Doctrine has to offer you, and me and the person you love… but will never meet.
Love is… because it is clearly such an individual experience, so much so that nearly all of art and a whole bunch of science makes the subject of love a thing to be shared and cherished, feared and resented, a thing to live for and die for the lack of and the surfeit of… (you know…)
Damn! this thing called love has to be everything to everyone and still never be allowed to be understood.
The WakefieldDoctrine claims ‘gnosis by right of assumption’ and seein that that love is a wonderful thing, whatever we say here is as right as anything else that anyone else in the world might say.
(How the fuck can this be?) More the question, how can this love ‘thing’ be as non-rational, irrational, pan-rational, it can drive men to die and women to weep, yet there is no definition to contain it all. But you know and I know that if I never get another comment except for one, it will be here on this topic in this Post.
(…its ‘that old black magic has me in it’s spell’ and ‘let tell you about a thing called love, a crazy little thing called love.’
If there is any such a thing as ‘the supernatural’, we don’t have to look any further than the space that lies between ourselves and the world. Between these two there is nothing else and despite that, this is where love exists. You want to see love, feel it’s power then look no further than the outside of your face. This is as if god and the devil got bored one day and realised if those new things, Man was going to get to pick between them, it might not be fair. So they agreed, lets make love and hate, fear and courage all the same. That’ll hold the little bastards. By doing this they decided that our thinking, our reflecting, our map, our doctrine, what we think we know about the world we live in, everything there is, is in the final darkness, something that know.
So it leaves us in the position where the sanest thing we can think is: ‘there is no distance between that which I think about and the object itself. That is non-rational. That is love.’
Thursday and it’s ‘find the clark‘ day already. Where does the time go?
(Being the First ‘find the clark‘ day a little bit of guidance and ground rules….HEY! look out! hes going to try and teach shit again. ‘what a clark‘)
Hey! rather than tell you what you are looking for…(clarks, I need you to leave the room, stop reading this thing. We want you to act ‘naturally’ (ha, ha) today.)… First lets look at some quick film clips:
(You might get ‘lucky’ and have a clark in your environment who has not yet figured out how not to be a ‘blue monkey1)
The rules are simple: find the clark in your world today. Don’t do anything (…scott, I’m talking to you). Just learn spot a clark. Male or female does not matter.
The obvious point (obvious point? no! tell me it ain’t so!), is that the clarks comprise the least visible of the three types. They wear protective coloration the way that lesbians wear leather. But this blending in is very different from the homogenous look of a herd of rogers, or the loud and flashy colors of the lone scott.
Anyway, here are some quick tips for spotting the elusive clarks: the clarklike females love their shoes, the bigger, the clunkier, the better. Also something strange with their heads. (The video clip of Flo is perfect. She seems normal enough from a distance, but then you see the shoes, and when she starts talking, her eyes go all, ’hello out there! how is planet earth today?’)
As to the male clarks? Damn, just walk up and talk to them. (Eye contact? We don’t need no steenkin eye contact). And also look for the ‘hunched shoulders’. Acquired as a result of years as a ‘young person’, anticipating the spitball from the back of the room. (yeah, scott, nobody spotted who the adhd kid was, did they?).
So, go get ‘em.
1)’Blue Monkey’ was a famous experiment where some scottian psychologist (yeah, like that would happen) convinced some rogers that it would be fun to take one monkey from the group, paint him blue and send him home. You can guess the outcome. (Love the schadenfreude streak, scott. Wait till ‘tag a scott day!”)
Congratulations to all of you who participated in our first ’find the clark‘ Day! From what I am hearing, everyone had a very good time, (except the clarks, ;0)
Interesting feedback most of it positive; although some of you rogers have commented that when you thought your herd had a clark ‘encircled’, the little scamp managed to slip between you somehow and made it into the underbrush. (“Can’t go there boss! nosir! theys scotts in dem woods!”)
Not to worry, roger, they’ll be back. It’s in the nature of clarks to be trusting, especially to those that seem so friendly. It’s been said that if you gain the trust of one of these mysterious beings, they will always be around…somewhere nearby. Always.
Anyway, ‘find the clark‘ Day was just practice, a little warmup if you will for the main event: ’tag a scott’Week!
Yes, you read that correctly, it is a whole week of fun.
‘Tag a scott’Week is 7 days because this little ‘walk on the wild side’ is meant to help us better understand not only the wily scott but also rogers. (Wait, did he just say’…also rogers?’)
(No way! OMG! we don’t have to go out there and look for scotts by ourselves do we?) (Yes roger, yes you do)
(A group of scotts is a pack, the ways of a pack speaks volumes to the nature of it’s members.
The pack will function as a group only for relatively narrowly defined goals/purposes. Securing food and defending territory.)
The scottian individual will, (upon entering any social environment), push everyone on the shoulder (figuratively or literally). This is done to elicit a reaction/response and thereby allowing (the scott) to establish ranking. Does the other person push back or not? If they do not, they are prey, if they do push back, then a quick struggle and the ranking in the pack determined. Scotts will ‘work the room’, never staying in one group for too long.
This behavior is perceived as being very social, Scotts are always the life of the party; but their actual purpose is to locate the other scotts, establish ranking and territory and then to the primary purpose of coming out: find the food.
The reason for this is that in the wild there are more rogers than scotts (or clarks, for that matter), so if we are looking for a scott, the easiest thing to do is identify their food source and go there. In the social wild, scotts will be found always on the move. You will rarely see more than two scotts in the same social setting, at least for any extended period of time. As has been said, scotts are the hunters, the predators.
So you say, “What are we to learn about rogers during tag a scott Week?”
Real simple. scotts like rogers, they like them anytime. Lunch time, Dinner time, Snack time. For the more in-depth explanation of the relationship between scotts and rogers, you are going to have to ask (read all the pages first). So for the purposes of this little event, if you are tracking the wily scott, do what any hunter will do, go to where the food is, learn the routines, and wait patiently.
Just so no one out there thinks we at the Doctrine are denigrating rogers, let me remind you that we all have the qualities of all three forms, (clarks, scotts and rogers) and it is simply a predominance of one over the other that makes us what we are. There are not good or better types, each has its strengths and its weaknesses. In fact, the secret goal of the Wakefield Doctrine is, in fact, to find ways to develope full all three aspects. So let’s hear it for the girls…
Rogers are not hunters, they are group/herd/social beings. Rogers exist in the context of the group, the herd. Rogers are the reason we have stable civilizations throughout history. They are the bookkeepers and the doctors, rogers are the engineers and the judges, without them we would not have rules of behavior, etiquette or polite behavior. Without rogers, scotts would be baying at the moon in a pre-historic environment.
So, go out there this week (starting Monday the 9th at 11:00 am (scotts hate the mornings) and ending at midnight Monday the 16th.
The rules are simple: identify the scott and come back with something they own.
The hunt is on! Scotts beware! There are encouragedclarks and excitedrogers out today and they (think) they know what they are getting themselves into!
With the first ‘tag a scott’ Weekofficially under weigh this might be a good time to sit back and talk a little. Comfortable?
Apropos of nothing, one of my favorite sayings is ‘you can’t step in the same river twice’. If this internet, and by extension the blogosphere is not the perfect proof of the truth of this statement, then I am going to sit here and wait for roger to get it into his head to write some more Comments. Because even though the Wakefield Doctrine itself has not changed, if anything the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers has become even more ‘real’, the writing and therefore the writers have been changing.
So what? I’ll tell you so what!
I am writing this prima facie that there is a reader. You, in fact, are that person. (You read therefore I have written). Without this assumption there would be no reason to write. Independent of the practical value of the Wakefield Doctrine in terms of understanding those around us, the drive here is to be heard [read:read ha, ha]
So if we are writing this on the assumption there is a reader, then whats the river shit all about? Huh?
(I said ‘apropos of nothing’ didn’t I?) But since you asked, the point I guess is to get a sense of the fundamental impermanence of reality. The fact that there is nothing of the past that immutably connects to the present. Only our willingness to assume that we all keep to our scripts.
I think that noise you hear is the baleful mewling of a herd of rogers. Rogers, as we should all know by now are the guardians of continuity. By maintaining the past through rules and science, laws and traditions rogers let us learn! More so rogers are the reason we are self aware. Scotts are pure energy, here and now, no past no future, no much to build a civilization on. By keeping the belief that the world is by nature a quantifiable place, rogers allow us to stop and reflect on what was. Myths and legends are as important a contribution from the rogerian faction as is the science and engineering that they also have given us.
(Quick break.) (Hey clark, easy up on the metaphysics there, pal! The rogers are getting glassy eyed and the scotts are starting to gnaw on the furniture)
(OK, I get. Anyone for Bullet Points? (Everyone loves Bullet Points!)
rogers are your engineers, accountants, doctors (but not surgeons)
rogers are your carpenters and craftsmen, (but not your General Contractors)
rogers are your teachers (at least the ones that end school adminstrators)
scotts are your performers, your front men/women
there are three occupations in the world: salesmen, scientist and machine operator
scotts are your salesmen, not necessarily literally, just the person who is driven to make others conform to their Will
clarks are your scientists, the creative one of the three, looking for what isn’t, not at all concerned with practical application
rogers are your machine operators, not just engineers, but musicians, any one who needs to follow the rules
OK.
Time to get back to the show!
When we last left her, roger was sidling up to the scottian executive. Thinking that the wind was to her back she would be safe. But in walks a clark, making a fearsome racket of ‘why is this?’ and ‘what is that?’. Drat! the scott has caught a scent.
Run away! Run away!
I have said in previous Posts that I can’t write (a Post) until I come up with a subtitle that ‘feels right’. It is a funny thing, but then again, everything that is happening here at the Doctrine these days are ‘funny things’. Of course, I don’t mean ‘ha ha’ funny things, no I mean the increasingly common feeling I get that makes me think: ‘jeez why would it occur to me to write that?’ (you need go no further than this Post, to get what I am talking about). But its happening more and more.
But there have been no blogs that I don’t get something out of, even if it is nothing more than making me think, ‘nice lick! ‘yeah, I want to be able to do that’!
Perhaps that is what is driving this Post today, a sense of ‘hey this blogging thing is not what I thought it would be. Don’t ask me what I thought it would be, because that would require me to put myself in a mental place before I did this and how can that be a valid…‘ (ok, kids step away from the clarklike answer, leave it be. We’ll leave, so it can pull itself into the metaphysical forest and die (or maybe be alright.) That’s how Jethro intended things to be kids! Natural reality is beautiful and perfect.)
Never mind the Ed Sullivan-ing1 that we get when we see/read a perfectly well-intentioned effort to reach out to a cold universe that is met with a rolled-up newspaper swatting by a misanthropic, mass-culture-based diety…(it’s back! I told you to let it go and be by itself, kids. Now I have to put it out of it’s misery myself.)
(No matter how much we want to believe to the contrary, the statement: ‘this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you’ is actually true.)
Stop, clark, stop right now. Teach us something new. Leave the emotional sharing to the rogers who know how to do it.
(Whew! Thank you ma’am, I reckin I needed that).
So, todays ‘Lesson From the Doctrine’ is: we can see ourselves in everyone and everything we encounter during the day. The core of the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers is predicated upon the truth of this: that we all have the potential strengths of all three forms.
For various reasons (which will be explored when somebody f*ckin asks), we become one of the three. But until the day we die we can see through the eyes of the others because that capacity is and always has been within us.
(Hey Hey A big shoutout to Slovena!! Yeah! They be joinin our european contingency! Rock that international shit, yo. Watchin the West Coast too! We don’t be havin no tupac/biggie shit round here. Glad to have you, far out man/manette)
(Got that little map widget lower left, show where readers have come from. Way cool.)
1) Ed Sullivaned for those too young to get the reference, Ed Sullivan was an ex-newspaper guy who got a variety show in the early days of TV. All he would do is introduce acts and sometimes do a really strained interact with a guest. Ed looked a lot like Richard Nixon doing entertainment. Anyway, the term Ed Sullivaning refers to the vicarious embarrassment that is sometimes the result of watching live acts screw up. The show was on live and it had juggling acts, (a lot of juggling acts). And when the guy up on stage with the plates spinning on a stick (?!) would have them drop, some of us watching would feel embarrassed sitting safely in our homes.)
Yeah, that’s right. Blue. Who says Rogers don’t live dangerously??Woohoo!!!
I am posting this front-page style on the presumption that it would end up here anyway; although I never see my stuff as being post-worthy. Mine always reads like a big, long…really long…self-indulgent pile of the metaphysical November leaves of my brain. Now there’s a country song title for you. But what rhymes with “metaphysical”? Hmm…reciprocal…despicable…inimicable…how about silly pop song style? “Let’s Get Metaphysical”? “Let’s Get Despicable”?
Having taken note of several synchronicital oddities that have recently appeared in my sub/semi-conscious, I feel drawn to share them with my virtual brethren.
The blog seems to be going very nicely, save for the abhorrent hip-hop references. I am sadly left with an image of a smiling Fred MacMurray, complete with pipe and buttoned sweater…in long shorts and Timberlands. How much metaphor-mixing can one indulge in without permanent scarring? And I suspect that Fred may not have the street cred that he’d like me to believe.
I’ve also enjoyed the interactions between the Clark and the linked sites. There seems to be a shared similarity, a kind of determined individuality seasoned with a mildly begrudged respect. Bloggers of a feather…
My particular offering today addresses the notion of comfort. Comfort zones, comfort food, etc, and how we all ( CSR’s of course) use comfort to our respective advantage. We all have a pretty clearly defined comfort zone; but Clarks are the only ones who will purposely drive themselves well beyond its boundaries purely in the interests of science. As a motivational tool. It’s a convoluted Clarkian science, yes, but it is quite similar to Carlos Castanada in spirit. And not Carlos, actually. He’s more of a Roger who gets pummeled by forces beyond his understanding. It’s really Don Juan, the teacher, who is more to the point. ( And none of those books actually have anything to do with drug use. Don Juan initially let Carlos take a lot of hallucinogens because Carlos thought he was supposed to. It took the fool over ten years to realize that it wasn’t necessary. At any rate, Clark/Scott/Roger is quite similar in this sense; it’s initially about who’s who and which of us you seem to be the most alike with. That’s just the start. When you become somewhat comfortable in your CSR skin, then the challenge becomes to find ways to pry yourself out of your comfortable frame of reference. Which leads to a bit of metaphysical angst. Which in turn leads to even more of the same, but scarier. Which ultimately leads to change. You might just retreat headlong into old habits that you’ve always used as defense mechanisms. But every now and then… you just may take a few steps in the new direction. And that would be a good thing. We are all taught one way or another in life to always race towards a goal with all haste, that time is of the absolute essence; only to find out that the real teaching was in the journey. So, yes, of course, we are all meant to ” find ourselves.” But, once found, try to have the courage to dismantle yourself with the same enthusiasm. And then you’ll find yourself…. wait..what??
Damn… getting pretty Baptist preacher there. Well it’s true. Most people are not at all comfortable with that concept, but it’s still true at the end of the day. Just check John 10:17. And before I go totally Charles Stanley on you guys , I will bid you all adieu. ( Hmm…I didn’t know that my internal Baptist preacher was French…)
(With apologies to: David Bowie, Jim McKay,Vinko Bogataj, agonosis and the thrill of Victory.)
Alright folks, here we go! The closing hours of the first annual Tag a scottWeek! This is clark and I being your host, your histiss, your true and Humble Narrator. And for a special treat, I have the roger with me, yeah! Up in the booth, the Progenitor himself will be joining us as we take a look at a week that truly flown by.
Let’s have a reserved but warm and enthusiastic round of applause for the man…roger!
Welcome, my roger, welcome! …the clark, yeah ‘thanks?’ for having me here? Where do you want me to sit? Is this the headset I get to use? Is this it for a set up? I don’t know..seems a little un-organised if you ask me. And why am I writing in blue?
I did? No I didn’t…. yeah alright I guess I did do that but it was a whole different context.
OK! …Before we start, a little backstory for those just joining us here at the Doctrine. (I’m talking to you, European Union! Shout outs to our new friends from Bosnia, Herzegovina and Israel. Sloveniaaa! is in da house.) Let’s take the time for a little ’setpiece’ first, it will make the most of this as a learning opportunity.
Last week we announced the first annual tag a scott Week. There was a lot a buzz about the announcement, not surprisingly most of it was along the lines of, “uh do you really think this is such a good idea?” and “er clark? perhaps a more graduated approach would be better, like say call it take a scott to lunch or maybe flowers for your predator week? You know something a little less, whats the word? ‘scottian‘”
But, for better or for worse, tag a scottWeek it was.
And what a week it has been. We have been getting reports in from the field from all three groups. At first, the Week got off to a slow start, but by Friday, going into the weekend, we started to hear from alot of the taggers and taggees.
The rogers were slow to catch on but once they saw other people participate, you couldn’t hold them back. Don’t want to use the term ’stampede’ but how would you describe it roger? We rogers prefer the term ‘(making) a demonstrative change of direction’, thank you. But my people, while slow to accept and embrace new ideas are warming to this Doctrine thing. And even though scotts give us the ‘love-escape’ syndrome’, you do what you can with what you got. It’s a start…
The clarks caught on right away, (no shit), but you know with those little misanthropes you can never be sure that they are doing what they are told or doing what they think they are being told. As a matter of fact, we had more than one roger call in and insist that a clark was helping a scott get out of a trap, and was that against the rules!
Boy did we get an earful! Hey roger, your people, do like they rules, neh? Here’s the thing about rules, they are good, natural, necessary and, most of all they are pleasing. It’s not what you clarks think; we build and form rules because that is what is natural. We build a place for our children and descendents to be able to enjoy and they will remember us with respect and be inspired to continue the forming of a more perfect place.
Hey roger we got a caller on the line! She wants to know what you did with her branding iron?
okay…! I think I will let roger take that one. (for you in the audience just joining us… take a read of the Aug 7 entry on this Page or better yet this Page (think in terms as this caller is kinda Hillary calling Bill…) I’ll take that call. (“yes, I know, I know I was supposed to drop it off at your office, I’m sure its in the car. I’m kind of in the middle of something….no! I didn’t mean it that way. OK see you at dinner..”) Sorry. Where were we?
So, back to the Week. No major upsets, no massive body counts, no complaints from the MADD (Mothers Against Deliberate Dementia), (who, btw you do not want to screw with!). Just a week of good clean, wholesome fun. Unless…
…you were the scott, caught off guard by a herd of well-dressed, middle-management credentialed rogers who, with a co-ordination and timing possible only to their type managed to trap the scott in the middle of the herd. Unable to spring back in time and in too close quarters to get the teeth to do any good, this scott was reported to have been ground down into a compliant, toothless Wiley Coyote-looking lifeform, reduced to muttering, (and we quote here), about how he was ‘gonna murdalize ya all’
…you were the clark, caught ’showing emotion’ and immediately set upon by a small pack of young female scotts. Made hungry by a chance encounter with a herd of high school English teaching rogers, the pack thought they had stumbled on a Hungry Man Dinner sent down by jethro for their refreshment. Boy, when clarks get genuinely pissed-off and indulge in anger, it is not a pretty sight. (Party of 5 for the next Carnivoreville Cruise to the Island of Lesbos, please.)
Well, roger that about wraps it up for us. The final hours have ticked down and peace will reign once again in Shellyville. So I want to thank the Progenitor for stopping in, (hey, great Post ‘Various and Sundry Arcanities’, good read, as usual.) Anything you want to say to our readers before we pull the plug on this thing, roger? Well, it was interesting. I’m maybe if you organised it a little clearer and maybe gave me a little more advanced notice. But I am learning that here in the blog world as it was back in the day of nightclub rock bands, all you could do was write the set list, do the set up, wait around and play Pac Man and go on stage when the house lights came down, ‘dit…dit…dit’
Well, its been interesting…
This is clark sayin goodnight!! Solveniaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!
This promises to be a brief Post, as there is much activity ‘behind the scenes’ at the Doctrine.
Had a Comment from an actual Reader! (Yeah, I know I should not sound so surprised), but there it was the other morning a readable if not slightly scottian Comment submitted by a ‘AlmostKatherine Hepburn’. While I never get tired of writing in the self-referential perspective of the Doctrine, I did get a kick out of reading something that was not written by any of us here (Progenitors and Downsprings).
Anyway, will be looking forward to contributions from Ms Hepburn going forward.
Speaking of contributions from Downsprings, had an interesting and challenging discussion with Phyllis the other morning regarding rogers. For some distantly related reason Phyllis said that ‘rogers are mean’. Out of the context in which this sentence was made, this statement, ‘rogers are mean’ demanded consideration. For if a statement is true about one form, what does it tell us about the other two forms? So from that Phyllis’ single statement we jumped to the following:
rogers are mean, scotts are cruel and clarks are heartless
So, lets consider these statements.
We start with the premise, i.e. when one (of us) chooses to be unkind to another, what is the characteristic of the behavior relative to our type. (Or may I could just say, why are clarks heartless and scotts cruel and rogers mean, instead of say, clarks are cruel and rogers are heartless etc)
‘Rogers are cruel’ because when they want to negatively affect someone, they do it within the context of the herd. They will gossip and talk among each other about the target (of this negativity). They will never go up to the target(person) and say ‘you are a slut’. Instead they will say to each other, ’isn’t she such a slut’? It will be the group opinion that will constitute the negative effect. In other words, if an outsider comes on the scene and and needs information reagrding this person, the herd will make a point of offering an opinion.
(Now class, why is that sorogerian?)
(God, I so love to lecture)
The answer is, of course, because the effort to affect a non-herd member is always done among and within the herd. No single member (of the herd) could or would approach the ’target person’ directly and certainly would not say anything to their face.
All right, then how about scotts? Why cruel instead of heartless or mean?
Because it is the nature of predators, to act alone. Granted scotts will gather in packs when the occasion rises, but for the most part they hunt alone. And when a scott is being ‘negative’ it is expressed in a manner that can only be called cruelty. Part of this is the result of the fact that scotts will act directly but impersonally. They enjoy the efforts of the prey to resist, hey that squirming and trying to get away is the damn relish. But its nothing personal, the scott is hungry and the prey is food. So in the case of scotts, this cruelty is the ‘way of nature’ cruelty.
Clarks? Heartless? No! Say it ain’t so!! If any Reader needs it explained, then you need to read the content in these Pages a bit more.
Well, lets end it at that.
Big news, though. Working on a Post with two, count ‘em two guests. The last Post with roger helping out (panic in Detroit…) got rave reviews and feedback. So, if it is worth doing, it is worth over-doing.
Look for it end of this weekend/beginning of week coming.
(shhh…quiet until we get to the control room. Right this way,through these doors…)
There! Welcome to the control room at the Washoe Memorial Human Test and Assessment Facility. This is the where we will conduct our experiments on clarks, scotts and rogers.
Tonight we have a rogerian (female) and a scottian (male). Check here for information on any significant differences in gender and type expression.
STOP! STOP! STOP this Post. This thing is just not gonna work.
Sorry (Folks/Readers/SL’ers/Slovenniannns) I must apologise, I seem to have succumbed to hubris or (hopefully) just a slight case of ‘over-reachingitis’.
As you might surmise from the block quote above, the original idea was for a Post in which there were three writers, three voices, if you will; myself, a roger and a scott. I was planning on doing a ’set up’ in which I would act as interlocutor and the other two people would be free to contribute as they might. And I had two of our Downsprings lined up to add their comments and thoughts to the Post. Essentially it would emulate what was done on a previous Post, the Wakefield Doctrine (…break time!). (That one seemed to work fairly well, if the feedback was any indication).
One too many trips to the well…
Seems that I was forgetting that as creative processes go, my writing blog Posts (for me in any event) is totally dependent on the ’surprise’ appearance of ideas and the words that go along with them. This is probably not so unique or unusual in the blogosphere. Afterall, how many times has it happened that an idea comes (at work or play, home or school) and while we, the authors, of the idea are stunned with wonder at the power and brilliance of our creation, we make the mistake of letting the concept stay in our heads for much too long a time. Inevitably, when we do get around to presenting our idea to the world at large, we are met with a truly stunning indifference on the part of our readers.
As it dawns on us that we have lost our grip on the original idea all we hear is the collective intake of breath from our audience as they respond with a yawn of such depth that every living thing within a twenty mile radius that possesses a central nervous system is catapulted into a REM state faster than you can say ‘but wait I haven’t finished explaining my ide….’
Damn that sucks.
Well, I supposed this was bound to happen eventually. I felt that my inner muse of inspirational ideation….(IS THERE A WRITER IN THE HOUSE? THE NARRATOR IS GOING INTO LITERARY ARREST!) QUICK SOMEONE GET SOME BULLET POINTS, CURRENT EVENTS, SOMETHING…
…What happened? Where am I? (What are all these parenthesis doing (here?))
Alright, feeling a bit better. I know, I’ll plug in a gratuitous photo image! (I was planning on using in the Post anyway).
Alright, getting a bit better.
Having said that, the idea of Posts in which there is more than one voice will be seen again on these pages. This format lends itself to presenting much more information about the Wakefield Doctrine than is possible in a traditional Post. But for now, it needs a nap. Soon on to current events.
Activity and visits are up. Welcome to a new Reader (thats ContributessAlmost Katherine Hepburn) , hey baby nice Comments!
Australia is in da house!! A big shoutout to Australiainenes (not sure, but this may be from someone I met in SL, in which case a big imaginary Welcome Jen!!)
Slovennianss…get your bad slavic selfs up here.
(Nothing like indulging in some poorly executed cultural patois to make a authorperson feel better.)
…(That was a refreshing little naplet, blogorically speaking. But now, back to the work at hand…)
Welcome! Especially to our new friends in Australia, and Israel and of course, our friends in Slovenia!
Today we have kind of a special treat. Two of our Downsprings1 are helping us out by participating in a little… T&A? err, PTA?, I got it! Q&A!
We have had people tell us, after a recent Post(…breaktime…), that they felt they got a better understanding of the Wakefield Doctrine when it was discussed in a context that was ‘applicable’ to everyday life. (Yeah, like in everyday life people decide to sneak up on a certain class of person and do something indefinable to them and then report back a score). Sure thats an everyday application in, maybe say, Zanaxville.
Anyway, we have a set of questions about the Doctrine that was presented to Joanne and Glenn (our Downsprings) and their answers are recorded in the following interview.
A little background first.
Glenn is probably the leading scott in terms of possessing both knowledge and (a practical) understanding of the Wakefield Doctrine. As a matter of fact, he helped instigate the process whereby the Doctrine was taken out of the realm of oral tradition and brought into the ‘real world’ of this blog. You will have to make allowances for him, after all he is a scott.
Joanne comes to us from the interested observer category, she has been witness to over 25 years of discussion and development of the Doctrine. Enhancing her position as a Downspring, Joanne offers as much a normal persons interpretation and application of the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers as we have in the group. She is a roger, but with a skepticism of the whole thing that helps us stay in touch with the thinking of the everyday person-on-the-street, in terms of applying the Wakefield Doctrine.
(They are both behaving quite well and are deserving of our respect and admiration.)
(To the interview):
Which of the three are you?
[Glenn] Scott [Joanne] I am predominantly, a Roger.
What is the ‘best’ single positive trait or quality do you have as such?
[Glenn] I’m wicked funny
[Joanne] I am sensitive to other’s feelings.
The most negative single characteristic or quality?
[Glenn] I can be reckless—verbally and behaviorally
[Joanne] I pay too much attention to detail, although, sometimes that is a positive trait.
Which trait or personality quality do you have that you feel is most mis-understood by people of the other two forms. (For example: clarks don’t get this about me; or rogers don’t get this about me.)
[Glenn] Clarks don’t understand that I act mostly out of a desire to have fun—not out of a desire to hurt anyone. Rogers don’t understand anything. They eat the grass and wait to be killed. They LOVE to feel like victims, so they perceive everything a scott does as “cruel”—and then they have a feelings festival—hurt, angry, sad, –the equivalent of a roger orgasm. Fuck them.
[Joanne] The attention to detail is always misunderstood by the Scott that I am around often. Just try observing me and the Scott trying to put something together. We were putting a shed together one time, and I was standing in the corner frantically reading the directions while the Scott was banging nails. I kept telling her to stop..and finally convinced her to read the directions first. I seem to be less sure about discerning clarks from the other two. I’m not sure which people I know are clarks, so I can’t comment on how they misunderstand me.
If someone were to ask, ‘what is the surest way to spot one of your kind in a crowded shopping mall?’ what would you tell them?
[Glenn] Anyone talking to more than one person—and holding their attention. [Joanne] I’m not sure about that one.
You are at the funeral of a friend and are asked to say a very few words, complete the following:
My friend was a clark and I felt…
[Glenn] that he mostly enjoyed my company—and was more loyal than your best dog ever.
[Joanne] ummm…let me think about that for a while.
My friend was a scott and I felt…
[Glenn] an attachment to him based on competition—which evolved into respect as the years went by. [Joanne] I will miss my friend for her ability to just wing it in life
My friend was a roger and I felt…
[Glenn] guilty that I didn’t indulge his incessant need for emotional validation and support. I feel bad. He thinks I found him to be a pain in the ass. He’s right.
[Joanne] I will miss my friend for … so many, many, reasons. There were so many wonderful things about her..thoughtfulness, empathy, sensitivity….etc.
Finally, tell us what you think the practical value, if any, of the Wakefield Doctrine is.
[Glenn] When rogers piss me off, I remember that they are rogers and cannot help it. They are doing the only thing they can do. [Joanne] It’s entertaining and I think if we know which type someone is, it may help us to understand their behavior and possibly not take some of their behavior personally.
(Now say good night to the Sloveniaannnns)
[Glenn] How do you say “fuck you” in Slovenian?
[Joanne] Good Night, Slov
Wellie, wellie, well. Was that not nice? There is much here that can be discussed and elaborated upon. But the primary goal was to help the Reader ‘hear’ the Doctrine actually applied to a situation that all of us might experience. I am sure there will be questions.
There is a space below (this Post) for your Comments. Do not, I repeat, do not be shy or bashful. We would love to hear your thoughts or questions. If you have any ideas for an extension of the (above) series of questions to our Downsprings, by all means ask.
1) Downspring is a term to designate a member of the group of people made aware of the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers by one of the Progenitors. In the context of this blog, there are three Progenitors and four Downsprings (Glenn, Joanne, Denise and Phyllis) all seven people have full access to the blog and creation of the contents.
“dit..dit…dit…” (a rogerian expression meant to connote the momentum of history and the irresistability of the future)
So, why start with this little chatski found in a back bedroom (or maybe a musty old library) in the Wakefield Doctrine? Truth be told, I don’t actually know.
More and more frequently, these Posts are being created in an ‘automatic writing’ 1 state of mind. A ’state of mind’ that is both exhilarating and anxiety-laden. (Not such north pole/south pole qualities are they?) At any rate, there must be new Posts collecting here at a rate of at least twice a week and very often, lacking any coherent plan or topic, I will simply sit and start typing. And hope for the ‘best’.
This Post is being driven by an increasing awareness among the Progenitors and Downsprings of the forward momentum that appears to be developing here at the Wakefield Doctrine. To be more specific, lately there has been an increasingly diverse visitor/reader demographic coming to the blog, reading the blog, and (leaving little red dots on the map).
Ah yes, ‘the map’! Our ‘older’ readers will notice the addition of some features and the elimination of others in the blog; a global map showing points of origin of visitors and, (more recently a ‘widget’ that gives a fairly precise location of our Visitors.) One of the most common requests we hear from readers and other is the need for an ‘overview’ or guide (to the Doctrine). Anything that will help new visitors grasp the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers as quickly as possible. To this end, we have a little section at the top of the right-hand column (‘Tips for First time visitors’) that should help. (Any suggestions for tips to be included, do please Comment at the bottom of the Post.
(Had enough self-referential, angst-laden ‘reflection of the soul of a writer’ bullshit?) (Huh? Well have you?) (“Hello Sloveniaaannnssssss!”)
(Thats much better! Let us do this thing…)
This Post begins with a rogerian expression and if the Progenitor will not get his stone-washed, all-natural, tastes like tree bark, pants wearin ass up here and write some shit, then I will simply be forced to write in his stead.
So, to the topic at hand.
What is the deal with : ‘dit..dit…dit…’ and why make such a fuss? Because, like so many rogerian expressions2 this little phrase is symbolic of the power that we have, each according to their individual form, when properly applying the Wakefield Doctrine. An example:
’so even though I studied all night for the final exam, including the extra material that you gave me, the exam itself was still a surprise, ‘dit..dit…dit…”
Now what is being expressed here? The fact of preparing for an exam? or (perhaps) how much extra preparation that went into the study? Is this about disappointment or elation? Yes and no. To properly understand what the use of dit..dit…dit… that is being illustrated here is, we must don our rogerian hats. (Though the term rogerian hats is redundant on an order of magnitude greater than ‘cute as a puppy’, still we must try. So get out those berets 3 , mon Frere(s)
(The) roger, living in a quantifiable, tradition based reality (as they do), looks upon school as a desirable (and necessary) part of growing up. School, for the roger, may not always be a pleasant experience but it is always a familiar one. And familiar will trump pleasant every single totally solitary time. After all, school is where one roger tells other (younger) rogers that there is history. All instruction and education is a presentation of history with a goal of creating the future. (WTF? stay with me here…) Rogers make up the majority of the teacher demographic because it is so natural to them. So regarding test preparation, test taking and test scoring, the heart and soul of the rogerian world can be found here, where the past, the present and the future come together, ‘dit…dit…dit…’ It simply is, and for a roger that is all that is necessary, a present supported by the past.
You know, this whole damn blog is nothing if it is not an effort to find a way to see beyond our own self-establishing limitations. But then you knew that already, didn’t you….clark
Damn! the scottian reader has got to have chewed off their own tails, most of the nearby furniture and every dog bone within a 50 metre radius. Scott! (whistle noise), scott come on in, its over now, the strange dusty man has gone back to the place he came from. Come on, I think I saw some rogers wandering by in search of a sale. (Lets walk down and get them all…)
So watch this space, there is no way that we will not see a Post from our Progenitor (roger). Stay tuned, binyons.
1) automatic writing : writing allegedly directed by a spirit or the unconscious mind. Sometimes called ‘trance writing’ because it is done quickly and without judgement.
2) rogerian expression: that ability of rogers to take words change them slightly and force upon the listener an entirely new meaning (of the word or phrase) seerogers
3) berets: is there any article of decorative clothing that is more rogerian than a beret? tell me, come on someone tell that it ain’t so.
(“…it really is a simple decision, how clarklike are you going to be about this?”)
You might be thinking out loud, or mis-overhearing a passing conversation, but it is hard to deny that the world we find ourselves in today (and then again, maybe tomorrow) is so very easy to alter. And when I say alter, I don’t mean it in the ‘to try and make other people do things differently’ way, and I am not suggesting that we would instruct the people we work with and play with to behave in an unfamiliar manner and I most assuredly do not mean that we should take our friends aside and tell them that there are certain things we want them to do differently from now on…
(Secret-Sharing time now), everyone is trying to change the world. All the time and everywhere, people are inviting us to join them in decorating (and re-decorating) the world according to their tastes. What is funny is that even though a statement like the one just made, if manifested in a different circumstance, say, for instance, a shopper waiting in a checkout line, grabs the microphone and announces to everyone in the local supermarket, that the world was changing, and they were the agency, now that that would be strange. What really should be considered odd is how you can read this Post and be thinking. ‘OK, interesting idea, I wonder where they are going with this alter the world thing.’
(“the herd is restless, the gossip is rampant, how rogerian can an office break room be?”)
We are born and (most of us) raised by others, others who help us through the world until we are able to survive alone. No one would reject the notion that, as we are taught to live and act in the world, we are also taught what the world is like. (Nothing aluminum foil hat-wearing crazy), just: ”listen to your mother… when I was your age, I had to go without all the things you take for granted”;
”no hold my hand when we cross the street, look both ways…if anyone stops the car and offers you a ride…”; “if you are too sick to go to school, you are too sick to go out and play in the afternoon…study because to get into college you will need good grades…how can you expect to get a good job if you don’t have good education”
And it is not just telling us what the world is like, no, they are telling us what people are like: “never talk to strangers… the early immigrants worked really hard to establish themselves… what kind of accent is that?”
“a nice girl simply does not act like that… first impressions are the most important thing…respect your elders…honor you father”
“do unto others as you would have them do unto you…early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise…when a man loves a woman…”
Most importantly, those who teach us about the world tell us about ourselves: “don’t put that in your mouth, you don’t know where it has been…you are so much like your father…don’t feel bad when people say you look like me”;
“you will never amount to anything…how can you do that, after all we have done for you…if you don’t respect yourself how do you expect others to respect you…a good wife’s first duty is to the family”
”don’t be afraid…god loves you…you can’t believe everything you see and hear”
And so we practise living in the world and the more we practice, the more our beliefs are reinforced and the more ‘unchangeable’ everything becomes.
Here at the Wakefield Doctrine we say: “hey you know how rogerian the spirit of organised religion is?… be careful young lady, you know how scotts can be, he is after only one thing…hey, if you have insomnia, you can always hang out with that clarklike friend of yours…that roger is such a girl”
Altering the world is not really such a radical concept. Simply a matter of adding to your description of the world. A language, a way of seeing what is already there in a new and better way… that is what the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers really is, a view of the world that we can benefit from. (Sure thing, clark).
(Well, oh kay… interesting note to start a Post on… but stranger things have happened in and about the Wakefield Doctrine)
(Robin Trower)
(…”this just in”…’clark…the seventies…were…thirty…plus…years ago’…stop…’please, stop’…)
Hey Reader! Yeah you!
Do you believe that your (personal) history defines and (pre)determines your future or what? Is there such a thing as the momentum of habit. (The ‘momentum of habit’ is the notion that what we are is simply a more elaborate form of what we have always been.) (Cheery thought, no?)
Well? Do you think it does? (Don’t you dare touch that “Back” button.)
(in a fairly creepy, sudden shift to a calm tone…)Do me a favor, (After all, you know something about us here at the Doctrine because of the information we are throwing out into the world by way of this blog.)…
…Look back on your life. Try and recollect the things you have done, the places you have lived, the people you have known, since as far back as you can.
Now, erase the names of the people, delete the addresses of the locations and take off the labels of the things you have done (job title, education, religious designations). You can still remember your life, can’t you?
Even with names and labels removed/deleted/eliminated, you know that you have been alive, with a life that is yours and yours alone. You know, even without the names, you lived in one place (or many different places), you knew some people (or a lot of people) and you spent your waking time doing this (or doing that).
Your ‘life story’ runs from the first (and often sketchy) times you remember as a child through and right up to now.
Pretty goddamn ’straight’ line isn’t it?
(Come on roger, stop protesting. You what I mean. You are capable of this.)
Look at your life in terms of how many different interests and activities and ways of investing your time is evidenced. How different was your life when you were 7 years old compared to when you were 17 years old?(…or 27 or 77…)
(Yeah, yeah scott, I get the ‘I gots the girlfriends/boyfriends thing’ Does not matter. Lose the names, and they (still) are people you shared yourself and your time with, no different than a best friend in second grade or a spouse in middle age or the person in the bed next to yours in the nursing home.)
What I am trying to get across here is that the important thing is not the names of the people, places and activities that comprise(s) your life.
Rather, I am asking you to consider the question, what did they (seem) to add to your life, why did you give them your time!?
I want the Reader to consider their lives without the qualification/rationalization/justification that we all impose when we reflect on our lives.
… ‘he was a great friend, even though he was an asshole’… ‘I really liked spending time with her, but I had to because she was family’ … “of course we are happy together! We have beautiful children and a nice home’… ‘I know this is a boring job, but I will stick with it, because otherwise, what will I do?…’maybe I can still pray and maybe its not too late for me…”who will take care of me if I get sick?’…
(These little quotes barely hint at the myriad of ways that we employ to make the fact that what constitutes ‘our lives’, the essential nature and character, if you will, is the same today(as you read this blog) as it was on your very first day at school.)
So?
So what, what is wrong with that, at least I have a life that I can look at and say, ‘hey I’m not doing so bad’!
(You are correct, scott.roger you can come back in the room, we have stopped talking about life as if it were totally unpredictable and un-certain. We won’t talk about interchangeability any more.)
Well, that was fun, wasn’t it? (Yes, I am seriously getting ready to close out this Post for today.) (No, I actually don’t have a more satisfying denouement for todays Post)
(writer leaves, house lights stay off…)
Alright, alright. Seeing that we have some new visitors (from Italy and Sweden and Ghana to name a few) and, of course, Sloveniaaa is in da house!! I will try to impart or at least ’duct tape’ some kind of coherent point to this Post.
If pressed, I would have to say the point of this (Post) is that our essential natures (clarks, scotts and rogers) will determine how our lives are experienced and will force a consistency throughout the years (of our lives).
Having said that, I will remind everyone that the Wakefield Doctrine is predicated (yeah! he said predicated, he must be back from wherever…) on the idea that we all have the full range of potential, we are all (potentially) clarks and scotts and rogers.
And despite how this Post reads, we always have the potential to feel, act, or think in the manner of the other two personality types. In fact, that really is the purpose of the WakefieldDoctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers).
So, if this Post doesn’t get the Progenitor roger to write another comfortable and enjoyable reading Post, I don’t know what will.
For now….goodnight Slovinaaannssss!!!!!!!!!
(And a virtual shoutout to jen and kino and our other new friends from sl y’all come back now, hear?)
…I’ll bet you thought that ‘Winter Wonderland’ (music by Felix Bernard, and lyrics by Richard Smith) was just some old 40’s, ‘girls like this song’ kind of Xmas carole, now didn’t you?
As readers know by now, unlike our talented but under-producing Progenitor roger, when it comes to writing these Posts I have a certain set of conditions that I find essential in order to get the words to appear. First and foremost is a subtitle that I ‘get something from’; a vibe, a laugh, could be anything but it (the subtitle) must make me stop and “Yeah, I like that!”. Once I have that, and hopefully the germ of a topic, the rest is grinding out the words. Write and re-write.
And when it comes to sub-titles, I definitely have a soft spot for song lyrics. (Downspring Glenn and I were discussing this idea just last night. We both agreed that any song that you remember, has an emotional charge. Good/bad, weak/strong, not mattering, it will always have something that gives you a little kick when you run the song through your head. Something to do with music itself having an affinity for emotional content. Simply put, song lyrics are hard to disregard).
Which brings us to the current Post’s subtitle.
(Now, some of my musical references have been ‘constructively criticized’ as being limited by my age/taste (in music), and to the person who offered this constructive criticism (I channel Samuel Jackson to say) ” I hope you die and burn in Hell”.)
Yesterday morning I heard the Doctrine calling (‘…clark….time for another post…’). OK, not the worse thing to have to do. At just about this time the weather forecast impinged on my consciousness with something about snow later. All of a sudden the phrase ’sleigh bells ring, can’t you (something something) them’ gets in my head. And the music of course, the damn catchy music.
So, on to google and a quick search turned up the whole story, name of song, lyrics a damn mp3. I played a brief clip of the song and that starts the mindworm, and its like, ‘goddamn lets write this thing so I can play some music I like and get the tune out of my head’.
So I scan the lyrics for the part about ‘the sleighbells’ and the line “Later on we’ll conspire” jumps out on the screen, and goes for my head, like one of those semi- chimpanzees that they use on TV shows (when the Producer wants ‘cute’ and but doesn’t want the risk that one of the actors might get their faces bitten off by the anthropomorphically bad tempered real chimps.)
(Then I read all of the lyrics. …. What have we here?)
This, (classic, hear it every damn Christmas, included in every Xmas music CD compilation set that Time-Warner or whoever else sells this shit to people on cable TV) song, ‘Winter Wonderland’ has very much got my attention.
The lyrics! Jesus Christ, the lyrics! (I am liking this Richard Smith guy, get weird much, Richard?) (lol)
(And just so you can have the damn song stuck in your head for a week, here is a link to a video of Winter Wonderland ).
Sleigh bells ring, are you listening,
In the lane, snow is glistening
A beautiful sight,
We’re happy tonight.
Walking in a winter wonderland. (ok nothing strange, it is a fairly attractive image, sort of what we remember about the song.)
Gone away is the bluebird,
Here to stay is a new bird
He sings a love song,
As we go along,
Walking in a winter wonderland. (still safe, expanding the imagery including local fauna in order to stress seasonal climate changes, safe, safe.)
In the meadow we can build a snowman,
Then pretend that he is Parson Brown (?)
He’ll say: Are you married? (Who do you mean and who the fuck is Parson Brown?) We’ll say: No man,
But you can do the job
When you’re in town. (!? The ground is beginning to feel decidedly spongy…)
Later on, we’ll conspire,
As we dream by the fire
To face unafraid,
The plans that we’ve made, (Yes! The plans tell about the Plans George…)
Walking in a winter wonderland.
In the meadow we can build a snowman,
And pretend that he’s a circus clown (No, there is absolutely nothing funny/charming/cute about a circus clown made of snow, standing alone, not moving…yet)
We’ll have lots of fun with mister snowman,
Until the other kids knock him down. (Other kids? How old is this person, I mean he is talking about marriage for Christs sake!)
When it snows, ain’t it thrilling,
Though your nose gets a chilling
We’ll frolic and play, the Eskimo way, (Yeah eat still warm animal flesh, kiss with our noses and give birth on an ice flo. Merry Christmas you weird-ass singing 27 going on 13 year old) Walking in a winter wonderland.
So that you, the Reader doesn’t leave without learning a new thing about the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers), did you know that there were only 3 jobs in the whole world? Well, there are and they are:
Scientist, Salesman and Machine Operator.
A Scientist is (for our purposes) the one who wants, no, make that needs to discover the unknown and upon discovery wants to share it with others. Clarks, it has been noted elsewhere are the creative one of the three, creative in the purest sense of the word.
A Salesman is the one who wants to change others, to get them to conform to his/her will. A scott will get others to do things just because if she is the one directing others then no one is directing her.
A Machine Operator is a person who believes that the only tasks worth doing is the one with a defined set of variables, anything from engineer to accountant to musician. Rogers tend to be the most excellent of musicians from a technical standpoint. (If you had a band comprised of a clark, a scott and a roger, the scott would be the ‘front man/woman’, the roger would play lead and the clark would play rhythm (but also be the main songwriter).
So get out there and look around. What do you like to do for work or for fun? I guarantee that whatever it is, it will fit into one of these three jobs and more than likely it will correspond to whatever it is you are (clark or scott or roger).
(I have to go now, there is a circus clown with coal for eyes and a carrot for a nose on my front lawn and I think he is upset.)
First and Foremost; blatant plugs for stuff I like, only marginally related to the subject at hand. There are apparently several ” subjects at hand”, which we’ll get to momentarily.
1) As to quotation marks: may I blatantly plug the marvelous Lynn Truss, author of the phenomenal ” Eats, Shoots and Leaves”. I will resist the urge to type in the entire ” Panda joke” here; it appears on the back cover of most editions. Suffice to say that I first heard it read over the air by Teri Gross during a ” Fresh Air” interview, and laughed so hard that that much of my Starbucks Venti Dark Roast landed on the inside window of the car. You are hereby instructed to get a copy and read immediately, and do not ask, repeat do not ask, what the book is about. Because then you won’t bother, much to your detriment. ( Damn, that’s a lot of punctuation, and ” we’ve only just begun”.
Apparently I am channeling Karen Carpenter this morning; who will not rest until I mention that she not only sang the stuff against her will, but actually played drums simultaneously. And, had some decent chops to boot. She is eternally annoyed that they insisted on editing her drum solos from Carpenters tracks. And she means “eternally” literally, apparently.
And This Just In: A Message for the Clark, from the Great Beyond….Clark…Clark…. this is Jimi….Clark, for God’s sake, will you please change the strings on the Mockingbird, or at least stop trying to play ” Voodoo Chile” without a wah pedal… that’s all for now…. oh yeah, you’ve almost got the ” Foxy Lady” lick down… what’s it been, forty-three #%^&* years??… OK bye…..
Oh wait, one more….from the lovely, lovely Ludwig Van….he says that he really could hear the Ninth all right , he was just hamming it up. Good joke, eh?….Ok bye, really. Dit…
God , I hate when that happens. You should have heard what Mozart told me last week. Now back to “reality”.
Another plug, this one for an old friend from re-enacting days; Steve Salisbury, aka ” Big Bear”. ( Bigbeartrading.com) Purveyor of all manner of arcane and sundry historical objects. Should you need an elephant gun, Steve’s your man. Should you need the elephant to match, he can do that, too. Although there might be an additional shipping charge…plus, you’ll have to adopt two Masai tribesmen and their families as part of the deal. I personally refer to Big Bear as ” The Fire God”. Many years ago, Steve was 1st Sergeant for the 21st Mississippi, and I was a lowly corporal. (Lowlier than most corporals…) On one miserably cold and rainy March morning, he and I were preparing the rank and file for yet more endless drill. Steven produced a small metal tin from his haversack which contained a small piece of flint, a candle end, and some flax. In a steady rain, he magically started a good kindling fire, which lead to a roaring campfire, which led to hot coffee, which led to better temperaments, which in turn led to a quite successful drill. ( Actually, the fire is necessary to provide hot water for field-cleaning muskets.) The entire 21st fell to its knees in worship despite the mud, and he has been the Fire God ever since. Rather a bit embarrassing for all present, truth be told, but this is supposedly how most element-based pagan religions got going.
Anyway, I checked with the Fire God concerning this ” Parson” business fron the Winter Wonderland reference. ( Big Bear is a fountain of knowledge for all things historical). Parsons were Protestant ministers who traveled to rural hamlets to provide any services needed to local residents who had no church at hand. So, the parson would have performed all the local marriage ceremonies, among other things. Hence the lyric reference. As for poor Mr. Smith, he was in a sanitarium at the time of his writing, being treated for “consumption” aka tuberculosis. The Bear says that sanitariums served as dumping grounds for anything at the time that organized medicine couldn’t handle, which was almost everything. ” Winter Wonderland” indeed. Originally having nothing whatever to do with Christmas, it was only the ” sleigh bell” reference that cemented the association that we now hold dear. Ah, the power of American pop culture. Smith likely meant it to be a bit of escapism from the ravages of the Great Depression and Hitler gearing up in Europe. I’m sure that Time-Warner won’t mention any of this in the liner notes. Actually, when you consider other Christmas classics of the general period, there seems to be a steady undercurrent of disparagement that they were trying to overcompensate for. Check out ” White Christmas”….
And as for playing in the snow…. wouldn’t the world be a better place if there were a lot more of that. I for one think we should all regularly drop whatever self- inflated self-important crap we are focusing on and just go play outside. I am reminded of playing baseball in my back yard with my niece Olivia ( on whom the sun apparently really does rise and set). Olivia is eleven now, and racing towards the dreaded pre-teen phase, but baseball was one of our backyard staples in years past. Played with the pre-requisite Nerf equipment, Olivia’s version of baseball remains my favorite to this day. And stands as a wonderful example of how kids view the adult world around them. Olivia’s version, taken apparently from observing the Red Sox from a five-year old’s perspective, plays as follows; batter and pitcher ( the only two players) begin by standing approximately eight feet apart, and make “really mean” faces at one another. Then the batter walks away a few times, apparently a sign of disrespect to the pitcher. Then insults may be exchanged, and at that point, the ball might actually be pitched; care being taken to deliver the ball to the exact three-inch square of space in which the average five-year old may actually make contact . Should that contact actually occur, then the batter runs all of the bases without stopping; the pitcher must retrieve the ball, and can only get an out by throwing the ball at the runner. This will continue for approximately one hour, or until the batter is tired and needs a nap. Score, strikes, innings, all immaterial. Not necessary at all. So, at your earliest opportunity, ask any five-year old to play baseball, and I’ll bet you’ll end up with a very similar version to play in your back yard. Especially if the five-year old has access to a TV. And if the ” Winter Wonderland” guy is 27 reverting back to 13, he should try to revert all the way back to 5….he’d be all the better-adjusted for it later in life; especially if there are marriage plans afoot.
P.S.- I’d like to offer a formal welcome to any and all of our international visitors. We Americans tend to be a bit quirky at times, and may appear to be flat-out insane to those of other cultures. So please bear with us, and please stop back often. Your input would be most intriguing, and a welcome addition.
Bienvenue à la doctrine de Wakefield (la théorie de clarks, de scotts et de rogers) we’ ; aller re obtenir international dans la maison ce soir. Regardez ainsi votre écran que nous allons établir une fois pour toutes comment totalement universel cette chose à nous est vraiment, yo
Ainsi, cher lecteur vous pourriez se demander ce qui continue, ‘ ; quelles sont ces fripouilles à la doctrine jusqu’ici ‘ ; ? vous n’êtes aucun doute demandant à votre propre individu. La réponse est : ‘ ; essai de la doctrine dans une autre langue, naturellement ! ‘ ; (Donnez-moi que W (la trame, aboient, trame) me donnent un H (la trame, aboient, trame) me donnent Y ! !) (ce qui est ce charme ? !) POURQUOI
(This just in….’according to reliable sources, most Readers and Visitors cannot, I repeat, cannot understand what the hell this Post is trying to accomplish.’) (Over…)
Bear with me, this started as a good idea and most of the time there is a way to make the “Good” “Idea” connect in a manner that does not alienate and piss off the audience.
(“I Know!, I Know! Provide an easily accessible cultural marker! oops I mean…”) ” ; Laisse la part un marqueur culturel commun et reconnaissable ! y’ ; all.’ ;
Qui doesn’ ; t savent la scène dans Pulp Fiction où Vincent et Jules récupèrent M. Marsailles’ ; cas d’attaché ?
Est-ce que tout le très d’une manière amusante, mais que ceci indique au sujet des clarks ou des scotts ou rogers que nous n’avons pas déjà su ? (Autre que l’un d’entre eux est le fuckin fou !)
En fait cela servira de question, le point, le ‘ ; Parcelle de terrain Device’ ; de ce poteau très impair ; lesquels des trois ancêtres seraient très probablement l’auteur de ce poteau particulier ?
(So, take it home Mr Author if you please!) (Is this thing on?)(Shit!)
Merci pour venir près. Identifiez correctement l’auteur probable du poteau de ths et gagnez un fichu prix fin ! !1
Ainsi jusqu’à la fois prochaine …… Bonne nuit Sloviniaannnnsss ! ! ! !
1)A damn fine hat is the prize, yo (English versions only).
Interesting dynamic possibly getting established in these Posts, i.e. more from the Progenitor roger which we are not reluctant to say is welcome news for many of our Readers and Visitors. While so far, relatively few in numbers, the Posts (from the roger) have a way about them that is enjoyable, different from the ‘always informative, frequently creatively amusing, but sometimes too much information’ from yours truly. (either the clark or the scott, can you guess which?)
Anyway, the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) is nothing if it is not constantly shifting, changing and trying to evolve. So while most of the Posts will still come from the same source, already the beginnings of a ’sense of conversation’ is making itself apparent. The beauty part (as a certain timeshare rep was often heard to say) is that the Doctrine is the Doctrine. Really quite simple once the basic premise is established. The challenge has been (and will continue to be) presenting it in a manner that allows people from all walks of life to understand, find application in their lives and have fun with it.
The Posts that involve others in the original Wakefield Doctrine group (you have seen the term Progenitors and Downsprings) have been well received, so expect to see more Posts that are built around interviews, even conversations among these people. The varied perspective and different contexts is most informative. (Yes, yes I know… not exactly rogerian in my writing style, lol.) Also, we have people joining the effort through the avenue of Comments and Replys who have been very helpful in our efforts to make the Wakefield Doctrine your one-stop blog for ‘the-simplest-way-to-understand-what-the-hell-the-people-around-you-are-trying-to-do!’
In fact ( to channel my inner gangsta…) lets chill and give some shout outs (‘Apesadumbrado mi dialecto de la cultura es poco una hoja de metal esta mañana.) to our Friends in the ’sphere: Mel at ‘the Spatula’ (http://spatulainthewilderness.com/) as far as consistent quality at a ridiculous ‘rate of production’ , Mel is the man; Jason at Project: Enlightenment (http://projectenlightenment.wordpress.com/) I go there a lot and even make Comments. (Jason has a good sense of humor which is fortunate, as I have at times in order to illustrate the reasoning behind my Comment, (on a question of spirituallity no less, and used a reference to Helen Keller jokes. hehe). And, of course, ‘ronin (http://renaissanceronin.wordpress.com/) he has been a frequent contributor of Comments/Replies to Posts. (Not everyone gets ‘ronin’s take on things, but if there is a harder working blog guy out there, I haven’t met them.)
Oh, oh (cue: Horshack from ‘Welcome Back, Kotter); Do want to thank some (non-blog owners) for their contributions. AKH (aka Almost Katherine Hepburn) new to the Doctrine written some very insightful Comments, good shit. (I meant that in a complimentary, keep the Comments coming sort of way), and MJM who is a (new) voice from the rogerian side of the world.
(Have I filled up enough white space yet?)
The Doctrine? What can I say about the Doctrine that has not already been said? Nothing comes to mind but I don’t think I can ever say it often enough:
We all start with the attributes of all three and by the time we are 5 years old we are (predominantly) a clark or a scott or a roger. There are no gender differences in the Doctrine, only in how we as individuals express our natures, very much as there are cultural differences. But a scottian female is as much a ‘act first, think later, essentially predatory being as is a scottian male. And the same for the rogers and the clarks. Those of us here, reading this are not typical of our forms. Most rogers would not ‘get it’ (as with clarks and scott). What we share is a capacity to imagine beyond ourselves, we can allow that maybe we do not know the final definition of reality. But just about everyone who as ‘gotten’ the basic premise of the Doctrine, seem to get a kick out of seeing the clarks, scotts and rogers in (their) everyday world. And the expression: ‘he/she is such a roger‘ is getting heard more and more.
Almost forgot, we are working on a ‘test’ or survey for the Doctrine should be showing up in a week or so! Stay tuned.
(If the internet in general and blogs specifically are not all about surveys, then I am going to turn in my keyboard.) (I mean, really “What kind of animal are You”, “Do you FIt IN”, “WHY do boys want to run me over with their cars all the time”…take our test and find out why!)
Also to any of our SL friends reading. (LOCAL CHAT: Hello lol) Hi Jen and Kino and anyone else….and…wait for it…..So long for now Sloviniaannssss!!!
I have said, in a previous Post, that the key to happy and successful Post writing (for me) is a good subtitle. Well I have to say at this point, you know you are in trouble when, in search of an uplifting and inspiring subtitle, the best you can do is an obscure Shakespeare quote. Oh, well once more unto the breach.(?) (Sorry).
Really, I would like you to feel bad for me! Since way early this morning I have tried: Bob Dylan (‘Times they are a’changin’), Charles Dickens ( a line from Christmas Carol about undigested food) and the Beatles (the Beatles! for crying out loud, they never let you down in the catchy song lyric department). But no, nothin, nada, zilch. Like the man says, ‘you gots ta have a subtitle, how can you write a Post if you don’t have a subtitle? If you don’t have a subtitle how can you write a Post?’
So, I was forced to accept that it was time the bring out the big gun, nothing less than the ‘how-f*ckin-erudite-can-you-get’ subtitle source…
‘Ladies and Gentlemen, the one, the only, you laughed at Puck, you cried with Juliet, you shouted ‘Look out” to Shylock, lets have a warm and heart-felt Doctrine-style round of applause for Willlliamm SSHaakespearrreee!!!!’
(To any First Time Visitors: you have picked a hell of a day to start reading the Wakefield Doctrine (Lloyd Bridges, Airplane! 1980)
Alright to the Post at hand. We might have a little trouble getting started but I think there is a solution: Flashback Post!
( Most of what comprises my background, both social and cultural was beamed directly into my febrile young mind from since before I can remember and the lesson that I am benefitting from today is that I must look to the source of all that I have learned at the knee of my cultural nanny, (the kindly, always there for me, near constant companion growing up…my television). From whose loving blue gaze I have learned all about being: a Man and a Woman, a good Friend and a wily Foe, a Good Citizen and a Smart Shopper, A Concerned Parent and one of Jerry’s Kids.
….. When there is nothing fresh to write….do a Flashback!!)
By the way, if you are new to the Doctrine, I am the one who (uses) all the parentheses I can when I write. And since you are new, here is your first Test!
Which of the three (clarks, scotts or rogers) must I be, given my proclivity for this grammatical device?
Come on! You know this, go with the first thing that pops into your head!
Very good! Now to answer (this Question) leave a Comment (at the bottom of the Post) and you will be entered in our new “Identify the Writer Contest“!1
(On with the “Flash Back” Post).
(…Hello.)Welcome. (again…)
(You are somewhere in this blog.)
In the pages of this blog is the Wakefield Doctrine.
The Wakefield Doctrine is nothing less than the categorization of all people into 3 groups: clarks, scotts and rogers. As you read this blog you will see that while we all possess the qualities of all three groups, you are most predominantly one or the other or the other.
The special value of the Wakefield Doctrine is (that it is)based on characteristic way(s) of perceiving the world. Most other personality systems attempt to catalog behavior; we do not. Our system describes how a person perceives the world and therefore all subsequent behavior is extrapolated from this.
And it seems to work.
So read, contribute, whatever.
The above is from our very first Post, in fact it is our very first Post. Writing is a funny and slippery activity, sometimes it is there, sometimes not so much. Not surprisingly, the fundamental idea on which the Doctrine is built is there (and not so much else): ‘based on…characteristic ways of perceiving the world…‘ The other key concept found in this first Post being expressed in the statement that we all possess the potential to be any of the the three, simply is a matter of being predominantly one (of the three).
Auspicious start no? Well, it took a while to start to get comfortable….
The end of July and we see some effort to provide a continuity to the Posts with this statement:
With a basic understanding of the characteristics of each group (clarks, scotts and rogers), anyone can understand everyone else! You will know how those around you will act in virtually any situation. Finally you can understand what has never made sense to you about the people you work with, live with and/or are friends with. The answer to the question, ‘Why on earth would you do that/say that/feel that way?’
But what is still quite missing is the sense of addressing a Reader (assumed or imagined). These early Posts were mostly concerned with trying harness the ‘enthusiasm’ of the original group of people referred to as Progenitors and Downsprings.
At the same time (as these Posts were being written), the early content of the Pages was being developed. Page content was initially perceived as being the key element to the Doctrine. The thinking then was that, if a Reader found their way to the WakefieldDoctrine, then they could learn all that was necessary to appreciate the beauty and wisdom of the Wakefield Doctrine, simply by reading the Pages. However, the current thinking places the emphasis on the Posts and in creating a sense of ‘conversation’ whereby the Doctrine is described in everyday terms and contexts.
But in the Pages there are some really fun teaching tools, my personal favorites are the two video clips on the ‘So which am I’ Page. One is a scene from the movie Casino and the other a scene from Wolf. Lets put an end to this tortured Post with a look at these two clips. Who doesn’t enjoy watching video clips?
Second: A scott and a roger in ‘conflict’ (as much as that ever happens) Wolf
So, it looks like our time is up (Thank god!).
Y’all don’t be strangers. We will now open the floor for questions….
(“Hey, Hey, say the thing about Slovenia!!”)
Alright, if you insist..’Thank you all for visiting the Wakefield Doctrine (the home of the theory of clark,scotts and rogers) and a heartfelt: ‘Goodnight Slloovviniaaannnnsss!!!’
1)Some restrictions may apply, Progenitors and Downsprings are not eligible to play, see contest Rules for complete instructions
Just a quick Post….we are all hard at work on both the Interview Post (it’s looking like we have a frequent contributor (AKH) helping us and doing and interview with Downspring Glenn.) and ‘the Test’, something that will hopefully make it easier to decide if you are a clark or scott or roger. The process is taking longer than originally thought, but given that the group is comprised of 2 scotts,3 rogers and 3 clarks, we all should be grateful if it comes together before the end of the year!
Anyway, always watching the ‘red dots’ on the Visitor Location widget on the front page (the little globe in the left hand column); happy to say we are seeing an increase in the numbers of new Visitors/Readers from around Planet E! Angola, United Arab Emirates, Brazil and the Philippines to name a few. Oh yeah, and Canada eh? (Sorry Del, couldn’t resist…)
Given how this blog is designed, with most recent Posts at the top of the page, we want to say hello to all our new Readers and remind everyone to be sure to read the section in the right-hand column (Tips for the First Time Visitor). With an increasingly international demographic, it will be helpful to say a word or two about the cultural neutrality (of the Wakefield Doctrine).
We make much, here at the Wakefield Doctrine, about being gender neutral. That it is not about being a female scott (or roger or clark) but it is about being a female who is a scott. Or to put it in Doctrine terms: a female with a scottian perceptual bias. In other words, the Doctrine says that we, as humans perceive the world in three basic/fundamental ways and the ways are labeled a clark or a scott or a roger. How we behave is a result of how we perceive the world…so a (female) who has a scottian perception of the world will see it (the world) as much as a predator would, as does her scottian (male) counter part.
So, real quick. The Wakefield Doctrine is culture neutral. A clark is a clark in Angola or in Akron, a scott will be just as scottian in France as she would be in ‘philly and a roger is always rogerian. (Damn you can spot those guys right away/anywhere. They are ‘the people’, they are the townsfolk and village elders, they are actors and the accountants, no matter where you are, if there are more than 5 people, chances are 3 are rogers.)
So, tp paraphrase today’s subtitle, ‘read and understand what you find in the Pages of this here blog here’. Leave questions and leave comments.
Read, learn have fun. They are out there!
Today, when you go to work or school, if you go shopping or stay at home with the kids, look at the people around you. Listen to how they talk, are they going on and on and on? or do they speak in short, ‘do this/do that’ phrases?, are they whining and complaining? You will begin to see distinctions in how the people around you act. The distinctions are telling you how (that other person) is viewing the world. Listen.
(If you have stayed with this Post this far, or better if you have read some of the Pages, then you will start to see the clarks, the scotts and the rogers around you. Guaranteed. At first it may be difficult to distinguish a roger from a scott, but just noticing the difference is the important step. The rest will follow.)
Well, just wanted to get in a short Post (sure, short). Watch for the Interviews coming later this week.
(Hello to our SL friends! Jen, Kino, Delilah you know who you are (I just mentioned your damn names, of course you know who you are!)
Almost forgot, (friend of the Doctrine) Mel has a rather excellent Post, at ‘the Spatula’ running today, about Family Christmas letters. Don’t know if he wants a huge number of Comments suggesting ‘opening lines of a family Christmas letter’ (but it do look tempting).
The Opinions expressed in the ‘Interview’ portion of this Post are solely those of the participants, and may or may not reflect the beliefs, assumptions or precepts represented by the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers), its Progenitors or anyone else. This ‘Interview’ is presented for educational and informational purposes, and may not be reproduced in any medium without the express written permission of the Owners, Progenitors and/or Creators. The ‘Interview’ section of this Post is not meant to prevent or treat any diseases or conditions, side effects may include, dizziness, confusion, increased thoughts of suicide and sexual activity. If these conditions worsen or persist for more than 4 hours immediately consult a professional. Assumptions and conclusions are for comparison purposes, your conclusions and or assumptions may vary. Read carefully and follow the yellow brick wall, binyons.
(clark) “Glenn, how are you doing? I’ll be the one conducting this ‘interview’ for the purposes of illustrating certain aspects of the Wakefield Doctrine. And with me are Denise and AKH. Denise you know cause she is one of the group of Downsprings, AKH has been writing Comments and ‘what not’ and is way ‘up on the Doctrine.’ They may ask a few ‘follow-up questions, you don’t mind, do you?
(clark) How are you ‘today’?
(Glenn) I’m alright Little Buddy. How are you?
(clark) Lets start with music. What do you think about music? Take it/Leave it? Why…
(Glenn) Cannot live without music. Love Rock and Roll—Anything prior to 1967. Love good singer songwriters—John Prine, Fred Eaglesmith, Tom Russell. Love Big Sandy and his Fly-Rite Boys. Crazy about Los Straitjackets.
(clark) They say we can pick our friends but we can’t pick our family. (You have heard that saying right?) Trade 2 family members for 2 friends. Tell us why (both getting rid of and picking up option on…like baseball).
(Glenn) Trade away mother—Pick up a mother who really wants her children to be happy rather than one who dishes out guilt and victimhood. I would replace her with anyone else’s mother. Father—Trade him away for being a blank space and replace him with my deceased friend, Al, who was more of a father to me than most fathers are to most sons.
(clark) Let’s shift gears here (ha ha). You are on the road, car behind you starts the tailgate thing, when you don’t get out of their way they do the high beam thing, what do you do? (Same questions but this time you have your children and kids in the car.)
(Glenn) Slow way the fuck down and change lanes in front of them if they try to pass. Keep doing it until they back off. Ideal ending: They pull out to pass recklessly and ram a gas truck head on resulting in a giant fireball explosion killing both drivers and lots of nearby helpless villagers.
****(AKH) Hey wait! You didn’t answer the question if you had kids in your car! It’s one thing to risk your ‘life’ but what about your children? (And I don’t mean in the other car, that’s their problem but you have your children in the car…) So?
(Glenn) Didn’t see that additional part of the question. Same answer. I’ve done it. Probably not right to do it, but you can’t let some dipshit disrespect you on the highway, man. You gotta respond. Let the fucker know he picked the wrong guy to act like a fucking two year old with. But, no finger. That is a helpless, impotent gesture best left to the rogers. Just look away as you finally drive on. Like you never knew he was there. Infuriating. Flipping the bird lets him know he got to you and that you have no idea what to do about it. Slowing way down and changing lanes is ….I don’t know…ominous. You’re willing to get dangerous that way—so what else are you capable of?
****(Denise): Seriously? Wow. Hm.
(Glenn) Do my answers shock you, Denise?
(clark)The Wakefield Doctrine…what do you think about it? strengths? weaknesses? (Glenn)It is fun and useful. It helps me know myself better. It also help me understand why some people piss me off.
****(AKH) Hey, I get my dose of Wakefield Doctrine every day, you got to admit it is really something, don’t you? Seems like pretty weak praise from the ‘high energy scottian personality type’
(Glenn) Good point AKH. So, let me elaborate( or let me elongate as the rogers might say..). (parentheses for you Clark)—It IS fun. It is internally consistent and logical. It’s weakness? Any system that REDUCES the complexity of the world as this surely does—necessarily leaves out important data. It is something of a backwards telescope. But to simplify, you must eliminate—so it only makes sense that any such system would have this weakness. One of the things that appeals to me about the doctrine is that it is a SECRET way to understand people. Most people do not possess this perspective. It is like a hidden advantage.
****(Denise): But you didn’t answer the question completely. Everyone knows it’s fun and obviously it can be useful. Do you really care that now (w/the help of the WD) you can know why some people piss you off? Do you think it helps you be a better person?
(Glenn)It is not my goal to be a better person. What a fucking rogerian goal! I’m a pretty good person as I am. I’m not in a campaign to improve. It does make me a (slightly) more effective person. It also amuses me. Hence, it is fun. If I ever decide I want to be a “better person” (whatever that is), I’ll look elsewhere, not to the doctrine. In fact, the doctrine might be the last place to look. Because one of its weaknesses is it seems to let people off the hook. Nobody is an asshole anymore. “Oh that’s just how rogers are..” Or, “All scotts are pushy”, or “ don’t expect a lot of enthusiasm from her, She’s a clark”. The doctrine is morally neutral. That is both a strength and a limitation. But, it seems to me that it therefore cannot be used to “be a better person”—again whatever the fuck THAT is..
(clark) Last question: You can do anything you want tomorrow. A day without consequences. Still all of the same people and places, but you can do anything you want with that day. What do you do and why don’t you do it today?
(Glenn)I get sex from new partners. Lots of wild uninhibited crazy sex. Later, I jump on a plane and go to Key West just because I can. I won’t do it today because there are consequences. Job, marriage, finances, –all that Rogerian shit.
****(Denise): You make me laugh! Ah, so you adhere to the constraints put on you by “all that Rogerian shit”. Are you sure you are a scott? Well, are ya punk?
(Glenn) I’m a scott, but I’m not a fool. I DO take more chances with all of the consequences listed above than most people do—but I try to be smart about it. I adhere to some constraints, usually grudgingly, because my self- interest requires that of me. But clarks question posited no consequences. So, therefore total hedonism is the only response possible. In THAT circumstance, my self-interest demands total self-indulgence. In the real world, where scotts actually live, one must pursue one’s self-interests with a bit more calculation. By the way, Denise, I love when you call me punk like that. Kinda turns me on…
(clark)Thanks for your time. You are fairly interesting and much more polite than I thought a scott would be…
(Glenn) Fuck you!
(clark)…yeah speaking of that, if you had to be one of the other 2 (clark orroger) which would you be for a day and why?
(Glenn) I have written in this blog that I have been both of the other two styles at times in my life before. Being a clark was fucking scary. Being a roger was humiliating. I guess I would be the roger though. I prefer humiliated to the kind of scary that clarkhood causes. Not knowing what is real is absolutely terrifying. Nothing makes sense—or everything makes its own contradictory sense –all the fucking time. No respite. Constant disorientation. Every day a new nightmare. Fuck that! Let me be a roger for just a day. I’ll cry, be a victim, try to fit in, be emotionally whiny and immature—I can handle a day of that much more easily than I can handle the utter ambiguity of a clark’s world.
(clark) Well, speaking for the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) and my two very able associates, thanks a lot for a look into the post Cambrian, mid-equatorial savannah-like environment that you people call home.
(Not to get too Columbo on you…but if you been watching the stats (the little red dots on the globe thing), then you know that we are getting all international at the Doctrine. I added to the Tips to First Time Readers that: the Doctrine ‘is both gender and culture neutral’. You being the ‘travelling Downspring anything you want to say to our international Readers that might help them ‘get the Doctrine’ quicker?
(Glenn) Ok. All you foreign jabakies, here’s how it is. Three types of people. Scotts, clarks, and rogers. Scotts DO stuff. Clarks THINK stuff. Rogers FEEL stuff. Try to figure out which you are—and then determine which one other people are. It is fun, and will help you understand the idiocy of other people more goodishly. Scotts are salesmen. Rogers are machine operators. Clarks are scientists. It’s remarkably simple and yet universally applicable. Even in YOUR fucked up country.
Well, that was a refreshing change from the usual, ‘I would prefer to…blah…blah…(parentheses)…doctrine…ha ha’ Post, wasn’t it? (Don’t make me go get some parentheses, we are having such a good time).
I was originally going to do some kind of ‘lecture hall set-up’ complete with an implied dialogue with late arrivals to a lecture hall. But I got to the point where I was looking up the latin for ‘cast of characters’1, and I caught myself. ‘Trying a bit too hard, clark?’ Fortunately I swiped and backspaced that shit away.
This ‘Interview’ did, in fact, occur involving the following real people: Glenn one of the original (scottian)Downsprings and Denise a (clarklike) Downspring and AKH(Almost Katherine Hepburn) who is one of the first to join us as a result of this blog. She (AKH) has caught on to the Doctrine pretty damn quick and has made valuable contributions in such a way as to be a credit to her people.
What we did was start with original set of questions emailed to Glenn, his answers sent to Denise and AKH, their responses added, back to Glenn and done.
For any New Readers, the Wakefield Doctrine is a fun and interesting way to understand human behavior. This blog has pages and Posts with information and insight that will give you the opportunity to see the people around you in a whole new light. This ‘Interview’ is an illustration of the ‘worldview’ of a scott, but as you will see, there is no single set-in-stone description of a scott (or a roger or a clark), as much as the rogers out there may want to believe. But to hear ‘a scott’ and ‘a couple of clarks‘ actually interact is helpful in understanding what the Wakefield Doctrine is all about.
So Welcome! Read, learn, enjoy and leave a damn Comment. Seriously, I know you are out there because that globe thing in the left-hand column says you are…
(Despite how Glenn sounds, (after all he is a scott) all are welcome and invited to participate in this noble venture.
(And you get to hang out with Slovinannssss!!)
Shit, for that matter you get to be associated with Virtual People along with Foreign People, how cool is that? I did add that part above about ‘culture neutral’ simply because it is true. The Virtual People reference is to ‘Friends of the Doctrine‘ from SL: Jen and Kino and Delilah(who has a blog of her own, listed in our blogroll.)
Ten Four
…Speaking of ‘ten four’, for any of our international readers (and for that matter some of our domestic fans) this Post’s subtitle is a couple of lines from a damn cultural treasure, “Hot Rod Lincoln’. You need to hear the song performed in order to really get the rhythm of the lyrics, which is the genius of this song and makes it so much fun. Click here (you’re welcome Glenn)
Largo al factotum della città.
Presto a bottega, ché l’alba è già.
Ah, che bel vivere, che bel piacere
per un barbiere di qualità!
Ah, bravo Figaro!
Bravo, brayissimo;
fortunatissimo per verità!
Pronto a far tutto,
la notte e il giorno
sempre d’intorno,
in giro sta.
Miglior cuccagna per un barbiere,
vita più nobile, no, non si dà.
Rasori e pettini, lancette e forbici,
al mio comando tutto qui sta.
V’è la risorsa, poi, del mestiere
colla donnetta col cavaliere
Ah, che bel vivere, che bel piacere
per un barbiere di qualità!
Tutti mi chiedono, tutti mi vogliono,
donne, ragazzi, vecchi, fanciulle:
Qua la parrucca. Presto la barba
Qua la sanguigna. Presto il biglietto
Figaro … Figaro
Son qua, son qua.
Figaro… Figaro…
Eccomi qua.
Ahimè, che furia!
Ahimè, che folla!
Una alla volta, per carità!
Figaro su, Figaro giù
Pronto prontissimo son come il fulmine:
sono il factotum della città.
Ah, bravo Figaro!
Bravo, bravissimo;
a te fortuna non mancherà. ‘
(The above is from a Libretto from different source, if any Italian speaking Readers would Comment if above is even close to video lyrics)
I can explain! Really, I can give you a rational basis for todays…Post?
Look, some Posts are well planned and (hopefully) well executed expositions of an idea or a theme, something that says, ‘we have all been thinking about… now that you mention it… since you asked, the answer to your question is…’ A Post that answers questions or provides valuable information.
The previous Post (‘…Pulled out of San Pedro late one night..’) is a perfect example of a rational and reasonable little Post.
Today’s Post….maybe not as much.
But hey, there was the (…when the moon hit your eye like a big pizza pie…) that was a little bit of the, (as roger might say) ’spontaneous conception.’ school of Post writing.And there have been other Posts that seem to show up in the morning, screaming like a chicken with it’s head cut off “…write about this…write about this!!” (Apologies to any PETA PALS, my sub-conscious apparently has managed to get an ‘outside line’, as we used to say in the day of rotary dial phones.)
But it is my Post and you are (my) Readers, so the least I can do is come up with some explanation as to why we are watching opera, lyrics in Italian, video with English sub-titles. Surely there is something in the path I followed this morning (to end up here) that will lend even the slightest patina of rationality.
No, no there isn’t.
So screw it. Here is how it all went down.
Minding my own business this morning and decided to listen to the ‘famous Barber of Seville song’. (There has got to be a secret ’sons of Rossini’ sect out there planning to attack Warner Brothers and steal all the Looney Tune archives. Bugs and Company having single-handedly destroyed most of this (and other reasonably enjoyable) opera by having Bugs or Elmer (in drag no doubt) doing an acceptable (to my 6 year old Saturday morning cartoon watching ears) rendition of this and other Great Music.
Anyway, not really a fan of opera, but this particular morning as I listened to (Figaro’s Aria), I could hear lyrics! Not just ‘figaro, figaro’. Sure, the lyrics have been there all along, but this time I heard them. This Figaro guy, he was telling a damn story!
And whatever, sub-conscious energy switch was thrown, I was stuck.
I mean, it was instant the hell with work! Find out more about the opera, find a video, do whatever has to be done so that I can to do Post all about this fine piece of music.
So, here you have it. Figaro’s Aria with libretto included.
Just to start the week on a more reasoned basis, this will be a short Post. With the simple goal of stating the Premise and the Principles, the Goal(s) and the Guidelines (of) the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers).
Originally conceived from the observations of three friends and their distinctive yet complementary worldviews, the Doctrine has evolved into a coherent and cohesive description of the worldview of all people everywhere, as divided into three groups: clarks, scotts and rogers. The key premise to this, thing of ours, is that the way we perceive the world around us is the predicate to all behavior. Further, that while all people, male and female, foreign and domestic are born with the potential, the capacities represented by the three groups (clarks, scotts and rogers) it is only by the end of early childhood (ages 3 to 5) do we ‘become’ predominately one of the three of these personality types. Throughout our lives we repeat and practice and make ourselves completely a clark or a scott or a roger.
There are a certain percentage of clarks and scotts and rogers, who not completely and totally conditioned, are capable of seeing and accepting the possibility of differing worldviews (or more tellingly, imaging differing realities) that will be able to read this Wakefield Doctrine and get something from it. (Amusement, break from boredom, maybe even a baby-satori leading to a samadhi-ette like state). Suffice it to say, this blog has as it’s purpose, the presentation of the theory of clark, scotts and rogers to as wide an audience as possible.
So, whether you are new to this site or have been here before, Welcome to the Doctrine. Read, Learn, Enjoy (and buy a hat).
There will be longer Posts (mostly) and shorter Posts (like this one). Funnier ones and more serious ones. These Posts change, the contents of the Pages is more lasting. You will see tabs at the top of the page labeled clarks, scotts, rogers, so, which am I, about. Here is the more stable content, very helpful to ‘flesh out’ what we talk about in these Posts.
These Posts are intended to be ‘an overheard conversation’, a conversation between people familiar with the Wakefield Doctrine. Sometimes you will see Interviews, sometimes you will see pieces of opera (can’t explain that). But what is written in these Posts is more of a down-to-earth, easier to apply to ‘real life’ parts of the Doctrine. In fact, it is our belief that if we write a Post that is a faithful representation of the conversations we (here at the Wakefield Doctrine) actually have, it will be much easier to assimilate the whole damn mess. You should know very quickly what is meant by an expression like, ‘he is such a roger‘ or ’she is so scottian’.
So thats all for this Post.
(Also we often refer to ‘Sloviiiaaannnsss’ that is an affectionate reference to the fact that we are seeing increasing numbers of foreign Visitors/Readers, among them folks logging in from Slovenia).
Any Questions, leave as a Comment. All will be responded to…
(The Doctrine is also beginning to makes it’s prescence felt in SL. So we like to say hello to Friends of the Doctrine there as well. Congrats to Jen on her good tidings, to Delilhah the very sucessful (and supportive) Creator and Landlady of Old NYC and Kino, a friend who has been selfless in listening to my endless questions and ‘thought’. Hey y’all!)
…And if nothing else is true about the Doctrine, this is: ‘we likes our music’ so here is a little from ‘the youtube’
Seeing as how the Clark has recently gone all” operatic” on your asses, and has inadvertently left that seldom-visited closet door ajar….
Cut to black-and-white scene: 1961- the Wilson School in Rumford, RI has taken the only field trip in its history to hear the RI Philharmonic play stuff from Bizet’s ” Carmen”. At least one kid ( out of probable 200 or so) is vastly impressed.
Cut to 2007, in color: the Roger, riding in traffic on Rt.2, listening to recently downloaded cool stuff on car CD , makes derisive faces at guy in next lane with horrifically loud system that is shaking the welds of his trunk apart, at an estimated 40% THD. What’s he listening to? Who cares? It’s re-arranging the frontal lobes of his brain, but sadly keeps falling back into the same relative position, hence the same result. SOS. And me? I was TRYINGto listen to the LA Guitar Quartet doing stuff from ” Carmen”. Yeah, that’s right, MF. Opera done on classical guitars.
( Camera slowly pans from baboon in other car, to baboon in my car ( yes I know) , to passenger seat …zooms in on shoebox lined with aluminum foil, a Confederate D-guard Bowie knife ( look it up), a chaotic assortment of band-aids ( not a one with the Flinstones on it), two bath towels, a fifth of Tullamore Dew, and the ever-present roll of duct tape. Weird, annoying music from the shower scene in ” Pschyo” plays fervently and fades as I yet again pull into the Post Office parking lot.
This happens every few years or so. I listen to a little too much classical guitar ( especially Spanish), and, in a fit of Van-Gogh-ish self-loathing, am driven to chop the fingers off my hand ( I alternate left and right) and mail them to Paco de Lucia in Andalucia, Spain. Because I occasionally channel the ghost of Andres Segovia, and he tells me it would be for the best. Because if I either can’ t or won’t use the damn things the way God intended, well…send them to someone who actually knows how to play. The trouble is, Paco keeps sending them back. Says he appreciates the thought, but it’s very weird, and I’m scaring the family. And that he plays just fine with what God gave him ( the sarcastic bastard). Plus, he always sends money to have them re-attached ( no miracle surgery, this is where the band-aids, duct tape, and Tullamore Dew come in to play). So, I try again, and after a while I begin to think that maybe I’m not so bad. Maybe I’ve got a few chops after all, those freaking crazy Spanish guys should just stay on their side of the pond and maybe get a Les Paul and a modeling amp that at least has a decent Marshall sample in it. Damned rose-chewin’- high-heel wearin’- bullfight-watchin’ MFs. Yeah. That’s right. Damn straight, too.
Cut to Rt.2, two years later; LAGQ is in the CD player again, because some punk on some back-water blog site had to go spouting off about opera… but damn, that sounds good…wait…Andres? Is that you? … no, no, man, I didn’t really mean any of that…what? No, I don’t know any ” Paco”…What?? You say “Esteban” wants them?…1% commission from QVC? Well… damn it, hold on, where did I put the %)&%* duct tape….
Roger’s Recommendations for the Operatically Inclined;
LA Guitar Quartet- Sequidilla, Aragonaise ( from” Carmen”) Youtube clips from 92nd Street Y; Overture from Rossini’s ” Barber of Seville”: Guitalion Quartet- ” Habanera” from Carmen; Soldier’s March ( play this stuff fairly loud- the dynamics are awesome). And , no, it will not break the welds in the trunk of your car.
It is nothing short of breath-taking, the ground we have covered here at the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) in the very, terribly short time since we started this blog thing. Many Posts, many Comments and a great deal learned; about the world of blogs and the place (in it) for the Wakefield Doctrine. To each, according to personality type (clark or scott or roger), this experience has been much, much more than any of us had anticipated. For this we are collectively and cohabitatively grateful. And so this Post is about recognising and expressing our appreciation for what we have found here in the blogosphere, strange place that it is.
The People are it. The reason for starting and the reason for continuing is/are the people involved. So, please permit me the honor of givin my peeps and (peep-ettes) a totally Wakefieldian shout-out:
The Progenitors and Downsprings: Hey, what can I say? What they are is what this is. This is the group that formed the backup to our effort to take the theory of clarks, scott and rogers to the werld. (And I mean ‘backup’ in the most complete sense of the word, once started having them all there meant we could not run out the back door when things got a little dicey.) Thanks, guys…
…not that we are into categories/made-up titles (no?!) but when talking about the Progenitors and Downsprings, we want to thank AKH for her work, her contribution to the Doctrine. Metaphorically stand up, AKH, let the people see you. (OK, scott enough whistling/dog howl sounds). Your help A, especially on the ‘Interview’ series has been v appreciated.
To the Friends of the Doctrine: Thanks for your interest and support for these past months. Mel at the Spatula, Jason at the Project, ‘Ronin at the Life and Times , Oscar at Meaning to.. and Delilah at Old New York City SL. You have been more help than you know, not just the moral support but technical and other blogation related skills. Thanks guys.
(Speaking of Delilah) our SL contingent is in da house! Jen, the first I met inworld who did not run away…and (now) leading authority on rogers in SL, Kino who has the patience of Job whose opinion I hold in the highest regard and Delilah the creator of the rather nicely done ‘Old New York City sim. Thank you all very much for your help and support. (Hi Jazz…)
…our Readers and Visitors:
Angola…Feliz Natal e (feriados felizes do específico da cultura)!
Australia..Merry Christmas and Happy (culture specific) Holidays!…on the barbe
Belgium…Vrolijke Kerstmis en Gelukkig (kweek specifiek) Vakanties!
Bosnia and Herzegovenia… Čestit Božić i Srećna (specifična kultura) praznici! (I hope!)
Brazil….Feliz Natal e (feriados felizes do específico da cultura)!
Canada…Merry Christmas and Happy (culture specific) Holidays!…eh?
China…愉快的聖誕節和幸福（文化細節）假期！
Columbia…¡Feliz Navidad y Feliz (cultiva específico) Feriados!
France…Joyeux Noël et Heureux (cultiver spécifique) les Vacances !
Germany…Fröhlich Weihnachts und Glücklich (kultivieren spezifisch) Feiertage!
Ghana…Merry Christmas and Happy (culture specific) Holidays!…(!click!)
Greece…Καλά Χριστούγεννα και ευτυχισμένο (πολιτισμός συγκεκριμένες) διακοπές!
Ireland…Merry Christmas and Happy (culture specific) Holidays!…go bragh
Israel…חג מולד שמח ושמח (תרבות ספציפי) חופשה
Italy…Buon Natale e Felice (la cultura specifica) le Vacanze!
Philipines…Merry Christmas and Happy (culture specific) Holidays!…(send translation-o)
Slovenia…vesel Božič ter vesel ( kultura poseben ) dopust
Spain…¡Feliz Navidad y Feliz (cultiva específico) las Vacaciones!
Sweden…Munter Jul och lycklig (odla specifik) Helgdagar!
United Arab Emirates…عيد الميلاد قد وسعيد (ثقافة معينة (العطلة?! (dude!)
United Kingdom…Merry Christmas and Happy (culture specific) Holidays! pip! pip!
United States…Merry Christmas and Happy (culture specific) Holidays! y’all!
So, tune in next week, there will be an Interview with none other than the Progenitor roger. You will not want to miss it!
Apologies to any whose (translated) Greeting comes out as “I hope the dog eats all your fish..” or something. It’s the damn internet, I want to click once and get an accurate translation into any language in the world. What’s un-reasonable about that?
Must always include a lesson in the Doctrine…today it will be a quick one: idiomatic Doctrine adjectives: ‘clarks are from space, scotts are from mars and rogers are from hell’
Music, yes there must be some kind of appropriate music:
…Goodnight slovenians,,, thanks for adding something to the Doctrine that is good and valuable and unexpected..
Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine. Sorry to dissappoint, but the Interview with the roger(Progenitor) is not complete and as such is nowhere near ready to Post. Sunday is a time when I try to get something/anything new in but was drawing a major blank until the name James Joyce flashed against my 3am brain and so we are going to walk to amateur experimental-writing land this morning. And by the way there is something weird about trying to write like this and yes I will tell you something you do not in fact know but the lose or surrender of most punctuation is really hard on the typing. Thank god for the occaisional period although I don’t know how many of them I have left but for some reason doing this Post the way I am I am mis-spelling alomst every third word I promise that I will spellcheck this thing and not put you throught that ordeal or misspelling everything in the name of an art for which I have no techniques be warned though I did look up EE Cummings before I started and at the first opportunity I know I will jam a reference to his stuff. My mother used to have an expression that went a little knowledge is a dangerous thing I think this is an example of what she meant although she died in 1979 and could not have imagined this particular form of acting without regard to justification. Although she (my mother) was a clark of the first order so I would bet that she would have no problem accepting the strangeness of this Post. We clarks are good at that we will witness the second coming and not show a reaction. But she was a clark in all the classic forms of expression you must allow for the time/culture she existed in which for my purposes and perception would be the 1950s through the 1970s. But as a clark she was the perfect selfless-to-a-fault mother and just in case there was any doubt about here type (clark, scott or roger) she has a 3rd grade school teacher. Hey no clark there. Anyway not sure how i got off on that tangent. Damd did i just lose capital letters? Oh well what can you do. so i was saying i brushed up on ee cumming because we all had the wednesday in spring 5th grade english class that started on the poetry and who did not like the phrase and the world was puddle wonderful? but the fun for me was that he did not need to use punctuation or even particularly spell things right and he certainly felt free to make up his own words. i never got much into that poetry thing then but like so much i am only now coming to appreciate things that i thought at a previous time i just did not have the time for. and maybe that is part of what this post is saying to me. while it is not uncommon to put things off, i am coming to an understand only now of how there is not a later for things to get done and as i look back i realise how much time i wasted. this is not a negative thought rather for me this realization produces in me the acceptance and will that whatever i might find of interest today i should and must invest all i have to invest in it now, not later. yeah, yeah i know kind of basic, mature adult looking at life shit. bear with me am filling up the page and can get out hopefully without a topic but no, i stayed too long. so i was talking with downspring glenn, who of course is a scott you saw his interview last week and we got on the subject of post writing and what to do when there is no topic. he is just a scott and as such is strongest in the here and now where all those people live but afterall all of us participating in this Doctrine thing are no more a pure form of our type than we are neither so as an evolved scott glenn is able and quite helpful in working on the development of the Doctrine at least as far as this current effort to bring it to the world. did I get off on a tangent? how the fuck could you tell? this stuff is probably harder to write than it is to read at least you can stop at any point an say yeah that was cute that was creative so when is there a point going to be made and maybe i will just check back in on tuesday or so. and btw i have no idea of what the appropriate music is going to be with this odd little post but if the cat smiles it will be what it needs to be. where was i oh yeah, glenn and the discussion of topics for posts. he said hey why don’t you write about the differences between… and then a number of suggestions most sports as a vehicle for comparing clarks, scotts and rogers. i think he suggested baseball, football and golf i said sure that sounds like a good idea and then he moved on to compare the three stooges which he realized we had already done in person i think talking with downspring joanne who i want to thank for her efforts at working on the questionaire which no else is helpin on. damn i wish i still had itlaics. anyway glenns last suggestion was pick a person in the world that you really hate and tell them how much you hate them and why you hate them. good idea. i hate glenn very much much and it is because he is so scottian at times that i don’t understand…ha ha got you going for a second huh? glenn it is strange how presentation changes everything. words are the point but how important is how they are arranged/laid out/presented/fuckin typed? apparently it makes all the difference in the world. so to complete this minor cycle in the overall arch of the post and my spelling is really going downhill, i hoep that this thing does not decide that spelloing does not matter as grammar and everything else seems to not matter. will do my best to hold on to the last shred of coherency almost done. anyway since we always include some new information about the wakefield doctrine in every post. hey do they still do the prizes in boxes of cereal? i still remember the whole digging to the bottom of the box of frosted flakes looking for the prize that was invariably contained in some kind of white paper envelope that was sealed around the edges in a most peculiar way. the lesson? oh yeah hazel used to use that expression the oh yeah thing jeez what a not to be described yet total energy black hole that hole my hazel relationship thing was. even allowing for the first relationship effect which is cheating here because if you bring up a significant life event i don’t think you should try to control it by laying a in-retrospect i certainly understand what i …blah blah blah but it was the focal point of my existance while it was happening and for too many years after it was over. wtf where the hell am i? where are my caps, my parentheses, jeez louise it is a lot easier to get lost in this rather tedious technique than it is to get out. must find paragraph key…i now it is here somewhere none of the keys have letters anymore shit try something hit any k)y ok {? maye hit1234 nah numbers \
Ah! I’m out! Thank you jesus! I am out of that, that, a lot funnier to read than to write, thing. Whew, man I thought that would never end.
Hey, plenty of white space filled in…maybe I can just tie up a few loose thoughts, find some music and put this bad boy in the category: ‘Keep one as Proptype, cancel production run“
Damn, what little typing skills I had, seem a bit messed up by this little experiment. Alright loose end tying time, (in no particular order):
there was a person by the name of hazel; my mother was, in fact, a 3rd grade teacher (quite a good one, but she was a clark); hey I gots italics!; golf is a clarklike sport; football is scottian and baseball is the rogerian sport.
Alright. Now for some music….(man! I just ‘previewed’ this Post, jesus christ what a mess! am thinking of putting music first, be weird but that really, totally is a meaningless term at least for today.) Nah…better put it down here, someplace for the Reader to run to:
So…
Will not leave without a Goodnight to our friends in Slovenia…hey guys…
The Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) is predicated in the notion of three ‘personality types’, or to get pseudo-technical, three sets of perceptual biases. The distinction between personality type and perceptual bias is critical. If one considers action/behavior and attempts to deduce the motivation, the other assumes to understand the ‘world that the individual is experiencing’ and therefore resultant behavior is easily predictable. Let’s put it another way.
A written description of a behavior: man walks into a room full of party goers and shouts to a person across the room’. So, what is his inner motivation? Damn hard question to answer, a thousand possible answers; (maybe) he is hard of hearing, the person he is calling to is hard of hearing, it is noisy…and on and on.
Now try this: a scott walks into a room full of party goers, a roger walks into a room full of party goers, a clark walks into…(well, you get the idea)
The point of the Doctrine is this: know how the individual is experiencing the world and you will know how she/he will act. In any situation. No deep background analysis necessary.
OK!
We have met the minimum educational requirement that all Posts must adhere to, on with the Interview (with the roger).
(A little set-up first. The Progenitor roger agreed to be ’interviewed’ by your narrator and Downspring Denise and AKH (talented newcomer). We simply repeated the format and questions that were employed in the Interview with Downspring Glenn)
There will be music at the end (you advanced Readers can go there now, start the music to listen to as you read the following):
Intro: Today we have the pleasure to ‘interview’ none other than the Progenitor Roger, (as in ‘roger’ of the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
(clark) “I’ll be the one conducting this interview for the purposes of illustrating certain aspects of the Wakefield Doctrine. And with me are Denise and AKH. Denise you know, cause she is one of the group of Downsprings, AKH be writing Comments and is way ‘up on the Doctrine.”
(clark) So, Roger, How are you ‘today’?
(Roger) Oh just &$%# peachy.
*******(AKH) Hey man, What’s up your ass?
***********(Denise) Really? What do you think got his panties in a bunch?
(clark) If I can start with a question on one of the features of the Doctrine that bears your name, meaning ‘rogerian expression’. The full definition for any New Readers will be found here on the rogersPage. We all know them when we hear them, there is always the ‘stunned laughter’ reaction of the listener. (My personal favorite: ‘those salesmen, when they write blogs, they are too self-absorbent’.) So, Roger, Do you have a favorite (rogerian expression)?
(Roger) I always think of ” I’ll surpass on that.” It was the first officially recognized one, and brings back pleasant memories of days of yore. Nowadays I consider them as the fun part of forcing language to evolve as need be.
(clark) How do you explain why they are so unmistakable?
(Roger) It’s based on seeing language as a flexible thing that sometimes needs to be tweaked a bit. It is also a shortcut; it’s easier to twist out a new word than to go through the thought process of finding the “correct” one.
*******(Denise) The hell it is. I think half the time it’s just how it comes out of your mouth. But it does make me laugh. Just admit it - you love that people get a kick out of it.
(Roger) Of course I do, but it happens whether there are witnesses or not. Inside my head, it just feels slightly …dysfunctional?
(clark) Ok, let’s get to the same questions we asked Glenn, the other day. What do you think about music? Take it/Leave it? Why…
(Roger) Absolutely essential. Every creature knows to communicate through making meaningful noise.
*******(AKH) I don’t know about it always being meaningful. Sometimes it just sucks. But it can put me in a certain mood depending on what I’m listening to.
( Roger) So even if you hear something you don’t like, it still represents something. Subjectively, whenever people consider ” music”, it’s always referring first to the stuff they like. So I consider rap and hip-hop to be ” meaningful noise” , but certainly not music. ( just my opinion)
(clark) They say we can pick our friends but we can’t pick our family. (You have heard that saying right?) Trade 2 family members for 2 friends. Tell us why (both getting rid of and picking up option on…like baseball).
(Roger) I’ll trade (for) my brother-in-law Tom ( he’s actually sane anyway) and my niece Olivia, who should have been my daughter anyway. For two draft picks to be named later.
*******(Denise) ohh… you mean you would take Tom and Olivia, who do you trade away?
( Roger) Oh yeah….Olivia’s parents. To a galaxy far, far away.
(clark) Let’s shift gears here (ha ha). You are on the road, car behind you starts the tailgate thing, when you don’t get out of their way they do the high beam thing, what do you do? (Same questions but this time you have your children and kids in the car.)
(Roger) See to the children’s safety at all times, period. Much more important than your wounded sense of whatever.
*******(AKH) Yeah, those kind of drivers aren’t worth it. Besides, ignoring them probably pisses ‘em off even more. ha ha
(clark)The Wakefield Doctrine…what do you think about it? strengths? weaknesses?
(Roger). Strengths… a nifty little package of psycho-tidbits that will allow you to see things that you would never consider normally. Weaknesses…a nifty little package of psycho-tidbits that will allow you to see things that you would never consider normally.
(clark) Last question: You can do anything you want tomorrow. A day without consequences. Still all of the same people and places, but you can do anything you want with that day. What do you do and why don’t you do it today?
(Roger) I’ll take Olivia up to Lasallette to ” see the angels.” She was there last at age two. Couldn’t do it today because her mother is a %&^*# ing %#!#&.
(clark) Thanks for your time. You are fairly direct and much more precise than I thought a roger would be…
(Roger) God, you are such a Clark….
*******(Denise) …you wish you were one, dont ’cha…..
(Roger)No, I’m good, thanks…
(clark)…yeah speaking of that, if you had to be one of the other 2 (clark orscott) which would you be for a day and why?
(Roger) I’ll go with Scott for a day, so I could kick a few pertinent asses and not fret over the consequences. Also get a rack of ribs and maybe even cook them this time.
*******(AKH) Scott?! Really?! I’d love to see you try to pull that off…
(Roger) What, kicking the asses, or cooking the ribs? LOL
(clark) Well, speaking for the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) and my two very able associates, thanks a lot for a look into ‘the soft and comforting grassy plain, where you can see your herd spreading in all directions as far as the eye can see’ environment that you people call home.
(Not to get too Columbo on you…but if you been watching the stats (the little red dots on the globe thing), then you know that we are getting all international at the Doctrine. (And remember that I added to the Tips to First Time Readers that: the Doctrine ‘is both gender and culture neutral’) You being a Progenitor anything you want to say to our international Readers that might help them ‘get the Doctrine’ quicker?
(Roger) No, that statement covers it quite well… just too bad that some cultures will be offended because we are gender and culture neutral. What can you do? Onward and upward….
Now, that was fairly informative, wasn’t it? WELL? WAS IT INFORMATIVE?! DO NOT! I REPEAT, DO NOT SIT BACK WITH A SUPERCILIOUS SMILE ON YOUR FACE….
(huh! how let that one in?)
Anyway, music time!
A bonus for the rogers clearly well-intentioned effort to make this Interview thing being as useful to others (herd and non-herd) Readers and new Visitors alike. Enjoy:
Last of the Old and Pre of the New…from the Progenitors and (the) Downsprings, our collective wishes for a year that you will remember…
With a New Year coinciding with ‘time for a new Post’ the temptation to write a 2009 in retrospect along with a what’s in store for the coming year Post was almost irrestible. Fortunately, I am resisting the temptation. As enjoyable as it would be to find amusing ways to remind you, our Readers about the high points of the last six months, worse, compound the indulgence by trying to describe future Posts, I am not going to do that.
I will do what makes me feel best, which is to remind myself of the original intent and core beliefs of this ‘thing of ours’(cosa nostra). One of the first rules was that anything that anyone of the original group (Progenitors and Downsprings) submitted to the Doctrine would be presented without edit or influence, spin or polish.
This rule has made for some ’suspensful moments (‘jeez do you really need to call him that?”). But all has been rendered without edit or influence; to the benefit and credit of the Wakefield Doctrine.
Not totally without a sense of tradition, and given that most of our New Year greetings are from rogers, here is a little music. (a simple link so you can play the music and continue to read this Post).
So from some of us at the Doctrine:
Old lang syne (from Phyllis)
I was going to review famous people who died in 2009, like Michael Jackson (probable Clark). However, I like to think of people that were a part of our circle.
Big Andy and Hughie (definitely the best a Roger can be. Kind, and generous, and maybe a little too emotional).
Al and Katie (the powerful force of a Clark, Scott duo)
Russell (there is nothing like a Scott on your side). Quick little story: Most of our friends found out that I had cancer when I showed up Saturday night with a baseball cap covering a ”patchy” hairdo. Most people shared a sense of concern and hopefulness. Russell came into the room. Looked at me, gasped, and yelled “Take off that cap.” As I did so, I had the feeling that Russell was going to attack my cancer bare handed. It was a very comforting feeling.
“Let’s raise a cup of cheer. For auld lang syne”
And from frequently contributing Progenitor:
To the Doctrine faithful;
After having pondered both weak and weary on the notion of a year-end message, I’ll just say that I am most impressed with the calibre of people who get involved with stuff like this. To want to go to the trouble of reading blogs, nevermind writing for one, takes something quite special; as Clark will now attest to. You pull your hair out every few days, carefully re-attach it, and repeat. I have enjoyed it immensely, having little actual hair to be concerned over. And, have been made aware of the vast universe of blogs; people who all do this not because they have to, but because they must. A heartfelt salute to us all.
To our newly found readers;
As our ranks have grown, we have seen this project go in some really unique and intriguing directions. Thanks for your support and contributions, they make a world of difference, and give us an endless supply of new roads to venture down. So welcome once again, and please feel free to throw something up onto the Doctrine wall whenever the spirit moves you; it will definitely stick.
– the Roger
So, from all of us in the world of clarks, scotts and rogers we invite you to return and enjoy the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers).
Good night and…..
…..wha? what time is it? Oh jeez…it’s light out! *&^%%* goddamn I fell asleep without posting this thing!!!
Man o man, now I blew it. Perfectly good Post above but that was New Year’s Eve, even the music is New Year’s Eve,…(damn think!!!)
Music!
(OK that will keep ‘em busy and put ‘em in a better more New Year’s Day mood).
Resolutions list! Everyone likes a resolution list, always makes them feeling that they are not so bad in comparison to the things that someone else seems to think they need to change. (So format something quick, Leo must be over by now.)
On behalf of all the Progentiors and Downsprings I Resolve for the New Year 2010: (‘hey! can he do that?’)
* to accept the parts of ourselves that is not dominant, if a clark to accept the rogerian and scottian elements in my personality and to encourage those qualities rather than try to suppress them
* to accept those of the other types, to not be un-necessarily critical of people just because they may be rogersor scotts or clarks, rather to know when interacting with different forms that what they show as qualities I could benefit from in increasing within myself
* to work to spread the Wakefield Doctrine to everyone else on the planet, through this blog or in SL or at work or at play, in a way that is not weird or off-putting to apply the principles of attraction rather than promotion
* (finally) to do whatever needs to be done to develop and empower, to encourage and work (including deconstructing) so that the other two aspects of my self (be it clark or scott or roger) will become more active, never replacing or threatening my original form but complimenting and supplementing what is my dominant type.
(…”There that should hold the little bastards’…RIP Soupy Sales)
So Happy New Year Sloviinniaaansssssssss!! (and everyone else too, of course)
In the time it takes to write this, it is about time this subject is addressed, when will it be time to get serious….it’s about Time.
The un-marked Rolodex stopped spinning this morning and came up Chambers Brothers, which means the topic is Time. (I will say with pride that I resisted the Pink Floyd and stayed with the original source.)
On with it then. Everything can be seen in light of the Wakefield Doctrine, ever thang. Even Time. Especially Time.
(BTW I did make some New Year’s resolutions, and primary among them was to present the Doctrine in as effective a manner as possible, which means that every Post/any Post contain something of the ‘real world’ that will offer concrete and objective expressions of the Wakefield Doctrine. And I will not stint to present the Doctrine in as many different ‘contexts’ as may make themselves available.)
Time to start?
clarks are of the future, scotts of the present and rogers of the past.
(for clarks) the future never arrives, (for scotts) the present is over too soon and (for rogers) the past is essential.
All very obvious, but what are we to learn about the ‘worldview’ of each of the three in this context?
clarks, as well known by now, live in their heads. They inhabit the world as outsiders, for various reasons clarks feel the need to earn the respect and acceptance of virtually everyone else they encounter. Implicit in this statement is the idea that they must make an extra effort, to compensate. Being clarks, they are perfectly suited to the task; come up with a plan, something no one has thought of, in order to do something to redeem themselves…in the future. clarks are doomed by both the (false) premise and the un-manageable definition of success. But clarks live in their heads and their strengths are their downfall. They are trapped by an idea, false to the rest of the world, but true to circular logic inherent in a worldview of ‘me and the rest of the world’. And as Time passes, the requirements of the gesture that earns the respect of everyone else, grows and grows. Impossible expectations become a way of life that trades effort for acceptance, surrenders any chance to realise the falseness of the original distinction in exchange for the illusion that one more plan might be the one to make it all worthwhile.
scotts, people of action, they are the ones that live in the here and now (without the serenity). Actions speak louder than words? Actions speak in place of thought. The very distinctive trait of scotts, their living in and of the present, imbues them with certainty. If your mind is reflected in your acts and your acts are of the present then you will have a certainty of purpose, which is why, for good or (very, very often) bad, scotts are the leaders. Most people, most of the time prefer to listen (and by extension, follow) the person with the most certainty, conviction, sureness. That would be your nearby scott.
(There is a ‘test’ utilized in sales, specifically timeshare sales, in which the sales representative will meet the customers, talk about what they will be doing in the next couple of hours and then abruptly say “follow me”. Without hesitation, without looking back to see if the customers are, the rep will walk off. If they follow a sale is a near certainty, if one or both people have not followed the rep knows there is work to be done.)
The negative aspect of Time to a scott? (One word: ‘getting old’). Age. scotts are not the ones who ‘age well’. Since most of their lives are lived physically, in action/in motion the decline of health and physical prowess is anathema to the scott, both male and female, (for parallel but slightly different reasons). Want to scare a scott? tell them they are getting old. (might want to be sure your exit path is clear first, though).
rogers? too easy. (Is there a genealogist in the house?) Call from the Department of Redundancy Department1, for the first rogers to pick of the courtesy phone…As we know the strength of rogers is the source of their limitations. They organise and they preserve (for posterity). But Everything a roger deems valuable enough to preserve is considered Perfect. (As in, ‘improve on this? are you crazy didn’t you just hear the guy say Perfect?). For a roger, ‘if it is worth doing it is worth repeating,…without change or alteration’.
Damn, what a busy morning we gots here.
BREAKTIME!!!!
OK, back to work.
Let’s consider the ‘point’ of todays’ Post. Time is the universal, inescapable common experience. Only problem is that we all live through it differently and more importantly, we all view the effects of Time in very different ways(or to be more exact, three different ways). And the Wakefield Doctrine is nothing if it is not an effort to find new ways to see the world through the eyes of another person.
(Hey Slovinanss!, it’s snowing out. Early class! Go out there and step into the shoes of the others, have some fun.)
Mr. Chambers, if you will…
1) phrase from the totally wonderful Firesign Theater (just find an old person, ask them), specifically from a line in the ‘I Think We Are All Bozos On This Bus’ album. (Album? hey I did say old person)
We, the People of the Wakefield Doctrine, hereby declare that all Scotts, Clarks and Rogers are created equal; and are endowed by The Cat with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We the People also declare ourselves in support of said Doctrine, extolling it to be a heretofore unseen manner of understanding our fellow humanoids. We Hereby Pledge that our Doctrine be used only for Good, strictly to enhance our common experience with others. Furthermore, We the People resolve that the Doctrine be not used to reinforce stereotypic thinking of any sort; but rather to serve as a beacon of insightful perception.
We designate our People in the following manner; the Progenitors ( the original Clark, Scott, and Roger), the Downsprings ( second- generation veterans), and Acolytes. We hold that Acolytes will advance to the Downsprings as their knowledge and insight increases, and will also submit Posts to the Blog as they are added to the Mailing List. All adherents are encouraged, yea even required, to Submit Posts to the Blog. All Posts are welcome, in that they serve to illuminate the tenets of the Doctrine throughout our own lives, and even into the annals of history itself. We hold these truths to be self-evident; and hold that they have been a thread throughout humanity from the Beginning.
Interesting Post today. Some direct personal experience with clarks, scotts and rogers shared by the Progenitors and Downsprings that comprise the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers).
…what is that? you want to know in Twenty five Words (25) or Less! what exactly is the Wakefield Doctrine? ( Who the hell let that apostic heckler in the house, damn!)
!…, they are just not gonna go away…shit, starting to piss me off…don’t they know I am the source of all wisdom in this heaven-gifted blog? Alright, binyon! You want to hear a whole worldview and means of understanding our fellow humans reduced to a damn TV Commercial?
The Wakefield Doctrine (trin…trin…trin) (theory of, no the certainty of…clarks, scotts and rogers… not ralph, steve and edna…clarks, scotts and rogers)
Wakefield Doctrine, the; (noun): to see the world as another sees it, to understand not only why they act a certain way, to understand that is the only way…
(CHA…CHING! 25! count’em twennnteeefive, not 23 not 27 Twenty Five) (and it almost makes sense, too) (take that, you Diet-of-Worms, wait for a mistake, tear down-to-try-and-be-noticed-intellectually-inconsequential, poseur!) (Yeah! I called you a poseur, and what are you going to do about it? huh? Let’s hear a retort, not so easy when you have to do more than sit in the back of the room, in the dark and take potshots at the person standing on stage, up in the lights?) (And when the hell did this culture turn the corner where sniper was a role to be admired?)
What? is this thing still on? Heh…heh…Lets get back to the Post and put this ‘unpleasantness’ behind us, shall we?
With the onset of the New Year, we will be trying to present the Wakefield Doctrine in ways, we hope, will make finding ‘local’ applications much easier. (An awkward way of saying, ‘we want you to be able to read this thing once and be able to say, “yeah I know who the rogers in my life are” or “of course, so and so is what they are calling a scott“). None of us here at the Doctrine is a professional or otherwise trained writer, (‘no! I just won’t accept that!’). This is not so uncommon in the, ‘desire trumps skill’ world of blog writing. I have written elsewhere that one hundred years ago, the authors of this blog, if the wherewithal was present, would have arranged to have pamphlets printed which we would take to a busy street corner and try to inveigle the passerbys to stop and listen and take and read what we had to say. In any decent sized town (100 years ago) you might have found one, maybe two of us engaged in such street corner/public square eccentricities. But today….for a thousand dollars I can ‘print’ a million of my pamphlets and the the ’street corner’ has a million passerbys who I can try and get to read my little treatise. Some things never change.
But that was then and this is now….(no shit!, never really got why people get anything from that particular expression). But the thinking is, lets really make an effort to present the Wakefield Doctrine in personal terms, such that the first time Visitor/Reader will have a much easier time making sense of this, this…(damn, can’t find the word). Anyway, what follows are the responses of the Progenitors and Downsprings to the question: can you give us a brief description of people or a relationships in your life and relate it to the Wakefield Doctrine?
(From Joanne):
I was visiting Dave M., a Roger, from the Friday night gang, in the hospital yesterday. He’s ok, they’re doing tests…some heart issues. Anyway, he and I, both Rogers, started talking about our favorite TV shows..it’s funny, we were both nodding our heads in unison as we each mentioned any shows that we liked: Extreme Engineering, History channel stuff, Ask This Old House, Haulin’ House (Dave, not me…yet). Lots of how-to stuff. All of this is opposed to conversations with my friend Miki (Scott) “.just give me the damn hammer and I’ll do it. By the time you listen to all of that stuff, it could be done”. And I reply…”But not well”. We went Christmas shopping a few weeks ago, and she found a couple of things she thought would look nice on my mother and aunt. I would have thought my way out of not buying them…they just looked too big or not right, or what if she didn’t like them and would be forced to wear them. Instead, she just held them up…said” These will look great on them!” ran over to the register and bought them. Wouldn’t you know it, they looked great! Don’t know how she does it..but I’m trying to learn.
(From Glenn):
I was riding around in the car with my friend, Clark(a clark). A subject comes up and he goes off on a tangent about “time-lines” and “strings”( or some such shit) and I have heard this stuff before. I do not understand it—and it bores me. So, I usually astrally project myself into another place and time while still listening to the drone of clark’s narrative(the drone—not the words—the words will make your eyes bleed). When the drone ends, we resume the conversation as if there were no tangent and as if I had been there all along. Clark never suspects that I left. Clarks seem to know that if they talk about some of their clarklike ideas, people will usually just not respond. Clarks do not expect a response—and are not offended or surprised that there is no response. Perhaps the clark says to himself after one of these musings, “I may have over-estimated this scott’s attention-span. I better back off for awhile and talk about something less obscure and scary. Then the scott will rejoin the conversation”. Whatever, it all works out fine. Fuck you most gratuitously.
(From AKH):
A long, long time ago I was the assistant to the Controller (Charlie) of a manufacturing company. He was no doubt a Scott (just look at his title!). Apparently there had been others before me who did not last long working with Charlie. Most likely Rogers, as they do not have the propensity for standing up against outspoken, egotistical outsiders. What a bunch of frickin’ spineless, whimpering babies. Didn’t seem to bother Charlie. Being a true Scott, he went on with the business at hand, unperturbed, pretending to be oblivious to his effect on people all the while knowing he was superior, making those sissy-assed Rogers squirm in their seats. What an ego! It was surprising that he didn’t fall over from weight of his large head. Very condescending with that smug grin on his face. Needless to say (what a dumb phrase-just frickin say it), there were several Rogers at the company who couldn’t stand the guy. Always gathering (like a herd – strength in numbers) to talk about him. They were all of the opinion that I wouldn’t last a month working for Charlie. Being a Scott myself, I set out not only to prove their stupid asses wrong, but to prove I could stand up to another Scott without my tail between my goddamn legs. And you ask “so did you?” You bet your ass I did. Long story short, Charlie and I got along quite well, constantly “sparring” in a supposedly “innocent” manner. Overtly, and sometimes subliminally, testing each other, each of us knowing that we were right. I outlasted my predecessors by 2 years before I had to leave due to personal reasons (no, absolutely NOT the result of working with Charlie). In retrospect, it was actually quite stimulating working with know-it-all asshole.
From Denise:
As way of example (I will try to keep this short): in my last life I worked in a law firm. I often had to deal with a lunatic scott attorney via telephone. One day, trying to get a somewhat complicated settlement done, I was talking with “Joe” and thought how rude of him – he’s yelling at one of his workers when he should be giving me his full attention. I held the phone away from my ear a few seconds and then with horror realized he was yelling at me. This was a first for me (the being yelled at) but what surprised me more was my reaction. I immediately (and still professionally) took hold of the situation. I told him (in what a clark might think harsh way) I would do such and such and call him later. Oh yeah, I slammed the phone down. When I spoke with “Joe” later that day it was as if I was his best buddy.
(to also participate, I will exert a teeny bit of editorial license and relate the story of the ‘eureka’ moment of the Wakefield Doctrine)
From Clark:
At one time in the past, Scott (the progenitor scott) worked at a music store doing, among other things, repair on equipment brought in by customers of the store. Visiting him one day I witnessed the following:
A customer came into the store and presented to Scott a ‘double cassette recorder’ (This machine had dual volume tone controls (for each cassette) and it had one master volume control). 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”.
Scottlooked at the recorder briefly, took some electrical tape from under the counter, carefully put the tape over the master control volume (which he turned back up), slid the recorder over the counter and said to the customer, “there its all right now”.
The customer tried the recorder, ran it through it’s paces, saw that it worked like new and walked out of the store without another word; totally satisfied that his cassette recorded had been fixed.
For whatever reason, it came to me that what I saw represented a distinctly different view of the world. Scott saw the customer and the problem in a clearly different way and therefore his behavior was what it was. If I had not been standing there, I am sure it would not have made the impression it did. (And I would now be typing the clark Doctrine (the theory of clarks).
Music? Of course there is music! How can you have a blog Post if you don’t have music? You have music so you have to have a Post!
So, we hope you have enjoyed our little Post…we will be taking a little time off. Not certain how much time, a day, a week, a year. Keep on reading. If the cursor is still blinking then we probably are just looking for response.
Sloviania….we luv ya.
(Hey speaking of Slovianians…I see France is in the house…there is something about the idea of American music in Paris that brings the 50s to mind. No, not needing to be overaly accurate, my damn keyboard. Hell, when I saw the following vid I thought ‘damn I thought it was a clarinet or something, never thought saxophone).
…hey! When was the last time we did a non-music clip? Here is a little something you might be offended by! (the acts punchline says it all). (In case of negative reaction: lighten up).
Attention…Company! Shoulder… Arms! By the right flank, by files left…March! By Company into line…March! Halt! Order… Arms! In place…Rest! ( from Brig. Gen. Wm. Hardee’s North Carolina Drill Manual, pub. 1862)
Ahh… I sometimes dearly miss the ritual of getting the attention of a group of surly re-enactors. ( Mostly Rogers with guns and edged weapons, for God’s sake.) We Rogers do so love a bit of pageantry now and then.
The point to all that is to get your attention, of course. I had really planned on doing a quite straightforward post here, so please forgive the indulgence. I will now get right to it.
By its very nature, the theme of this blog project needs to be repeated now and then for the sake of newcomers. Hopefully should eliminate some of that ” deer in the headlights” syndrome. ( or is that just me…) And hopefully, there will be a newcomer every so often… and if they’re browsing through all the old posts, it would be good if there were one of these ” primers” laying around. So… CSR 101.
The main ” voice” in this project is Clark. He is the originator of the theory. He started this blog, set up its format, checks the pertinent numbers, dots all the ‘i’s. I am Roger; I’ll do posts as the spirits command me, and until now, they have been little ” performance pieces” from my point of view. This is the first time that I have addressed you, the inquisitive public, in a primary ” first-person” voice. As you will discern for yourselves, the forum is open to all, and there have been some very engaging conversations thus far.
The main premise to the Wakefield Doctrine is that there are three fundamental personality types in the world. Clark and I discovered this years ago ( we are both older than dirt) through extensive discussion, debate, examination ( both the big ones and the little ones). And, being typically self- indulgent Americans, we eventually named the types after ourselves. Narcissism, plain and simple. Who, we asked the very heavens, was more important in the world than we? The Cosmos did not answer back, so… there it was. The theory of Clarks, Scotts, and Rogers. And, as a by-product, we also developed the idea that there are only three jobs in the world; scientist, salesman, and machine operator. And wouldn’t you know, the two classifications seem to interact in an almost prophetic fashion.
A brief description of each;
Clarks- Very cerebral by nature. Not necessarily a quiet personality, but very internally involved. Seemingly very conservative externally, there is likely a maelstrom of abstract thinking going on in there. Scientists at the core. They think things up, invent things and ideas.
Scotts- Very competitive and aggressive at heart. Very confident, socially outgoing in a particularly pack-oriented manner. Scotts are typically salesmen by nature. Their concerns are always highly self-motivated, and have a tremendous sense of forward momentum.
Rogers- Very group- associated thinkers, very socially oriented. Moderation, balance, and a sense of overall order are paramount. Machine operatorsat their core, they thrive in a detail- oriented environment.
That’ s not all, of course. This is just re-stating the ground rules. The intriguing truth of all this is that everything and everyone, ever will somehow fit into this framework. Look at yourself, your environment, anything in your universe, and it will work its way into this. Very seldom is any one person strictly defined by just one category; we are all maddeningly complicated combinations of all three. But with some poignantly uncomfortable self-analysis, you’ll find yourself gravitating more towards one type than the others. That is precisely when it starts to make sense. The stark clarity of it will give you a perspective that no one else around you has. You can not only recognize other people’s core natures, but you can predict with astounding accuracy how they will act in any situation.
Here’s a quick example: I’m a Roger. I have done lots of different things in my life, but I identify myself primarily as a musician. I can play guitar better than most people I meet, and am quite comfortable, conversant, capable, and oriented towards the environment of professional musicianship. Pretty impressive, eh? Most people would say so. Does that make me better than them? Better than you? No, actually. But it does mean that I’m a damned good machine operator; meaning that I am skilled at a very particular thing in a very particular environment. That’s all. And that also means that there are many, many things that I haven’t a clue about, because I’ve spent so much time obsessing on the one thing. I can’t fix my toaster, but if you need to know what modal scale to use over a II-V-I chord change, I’m on it. Guy down the street makes a good living fixing toasters; I’ m just hungry because mine doesn’t work. Chew on that, Guitar Boy.
Well, that’s probably enough CSR for one day. I’ve got to go have another crack at that toaster. Now, let’s see… put the fork in, then plug it in…
ON THE NEXT POST: What’s the difference between the Wakefield Doctrine and the Boston Symphony Orchestra? Tune in next time on ” CSR 101″…
Lets talk about COUPLES! Yes, I’m talking about: two of a pair, walkin’ hand in hand, complete each other sentence(s)… let’s hear it for the destroyer of all (non-sexual) friendships the one, the only because we are so close we are a….can you hear it? …the world is saying it, as one, out of two…. the Couple!
I know that (the) roger has you on CSR 101 (clarks, scotts and rogers) and this is the most correct approach to learning this thing. Get the basics of the Doctrine down, look around at the people in your life, match description of each of the three types and your world will soon be populated with clarks, scotts and rogers; all acting and re-acting, interacting and detracting…to your benefit and improvement. …But is there more…? (Go ahead, you know what’s behind thislink.)
Of course there is more, how can there not be more?
There are/is/am the couple, the friendship that has sexual contrast as the primary feature/dynamic. (Hey this is the 21st-damn-Century!) Yes, we are talking about when 2 people are linked by sexual difference. Male-female/male-male/female-female, does not matter. The sexual component does. Make(s) the difference. All of the difference.) (All) (OF) (IT).
They are not friends…they are a Couple! (Here is a little mood music, courtesy of Joe Jackson. Sorry, no video).
OK, fine. What good does that do us?
I’ll tell you. It gives us a very, very useful (teaching) tool for the Wakefield Doctrine. Because the best way to understand the Doctrine is to see examples of the 3 types (of people) in your life. And, as everyone past puberty knows, being a Couple brings out the best in us! (And so, totally the worst in us).
So, let’s begin (our little lesson) with the easiest of the Couples to identify: rogerian male/scottian female.
This is the most ‘attractive’ of Couples. They are both attractive, in every sense of the word. Although if you want to get technical about it, she has the ’sex appeal’ and he has the ’socialibility skills’.
She is hot and he is charming. They look great together. (Now, think about what you know about each respective type: rogers are social, herd based and will identify with the group, scotts are individualistic and will hunt alone, but will focus all attention on one person at a time.)
But how do you really know that you are meeting a scottian/rogerian Couple? The interaction, what they do with each other and to each other. She will be the more aggressive one, he will seem to be more relaxed. One of the ‘primary characteristics of the scottian female/rogerian male couple is how they talk about themselves. She will talk to and about her partner in a very noticeable style. A style that everyone that is listening wants to believe is affectionate ‘criticisms’.
“Hey! You know what roger here did the other day?” “You should have heard roger at the party the other night”…all of these comments and remarks are presented with an overall ‘I really love this guy’ kind of vibe. ‘Jokingly’ critical but still on a fairly personal level. And all for the benefit of the crowd standing around our Couple.
(btw. And he does give every impression of enjoying this kind of exchange, the repartee. (The rogerian male), he laughs at her as much as she appears to be laughing at him.)
There is a clear dynamic tension with this couple. As a Couple they both make an impression, they are not to be ignored.
(Damn this topic is way bigger than I thought…. Let’s find some music to close and we will come back in the next Post to finish (this) discussion of scottian females/rogerian males.) …And if we can through that onwards to other ‘couple combinations’.
But since Joe Jackson is the man today, let’s have him take us out….(ya gotta love the host of whatever British TV show this clip originated on).
Just a thought…
You know that this Doctrine is ‘gender neutral’, right? (You should know it is the first item in the column to the right). I just had a conversation with an associate (at work) about the whole clark, scott, roger thing. And she said, “I’ll only go to the blog if you add a name for a female scott”. To which I replied, “No”
(Quick quiz: which of the three was this person and why is the only possible answer no?)**
(Answers at the bottom of the blog.)*
But to re-state the Doctrine on distinctions between male and female: there is none. It is very simply a matter of using the terms properly, ie. a person is not a femalescott, she is a scottian female; he is not a maleroger he is a rogerian guy, she a rogerian female. (clarks…does it really matter?)
Hope that clears up any lingering confusion about the differences between the male/female versions of clarks, scotts and rogers.
You know….the more I read this (oh, I so read my own Posts)…the more I am thinking that Joe (Jackson) is only giving us a limited musical view of our topic. So I am adding two (not one!) clips of nearly the same song. (The backstory, as I gather it, is that the second of these songs was written in response to the first). Any CW experts want to add or contribute information on these songs is invited to do so. So the first.
(Now what I am believing is a response.)
*(Hi clark. Of the three you are the most likely to jump to the bottom before reading the actual Post)
**(Answers: she is a scott and ’there is no need for a special name for female scotts because they are not ‘female scotts, they are scottian females’ see above)
“The Point….please”, (writes Concerned Reader), “tell us (the Point of):”
a) this blog;
b) all these words, some clever some charming and some just plain odd;
c) since I am asking the Point of the Wakefield Doctrine.
(Concerned Reader goes on to say):
“Have been following this blog since the summer. I have found it to be clever, sometimes even funny but what is the Pay Off?
What is the benefit to me, the Reader, today?
(The internet is nothing if it is not a ‘place’ that is totally jammed full of cute and clever, interesting and intriguing (there you go again with the ‘Clever’ shit) sites.
Tell me, tell your 14 subscribers, what the value to us today in real terms is, what should we expect to see as a return on the investment of our time spent here.”
Dear Concerned Reader,
There is no Point.
The Wakefield Doctrine is simply a modern example of ‘vanity publishing’. Due to the ridiculously easy access and ridiculously large field of promulgation inherent to the internet, the temption of such an immense audience was just not possible to resist. Armed with an average home computer and an internet connection, we have taken a clever idea and vanity published it to a (potential) global readership.
That is all it is.
A idea.
A thought expanded to the level of a topic of casual conversation.
The Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) is whatever you choose to make of it.
**Before we continue with our study of the rogerian male/scottian female Couple, a word about Comments:
We are seeing an increasing and relatively steady Reader/Visit rate from the UK as well as Central and Western US. To these Readers we say:
“Welcome! The free ride is over. If you are still following this blog, it must be assumed you are assimilating ideas contained in the Wakefield Doctrine. That’s great, but we want more. We want you to contribute/comment/feedback. This is vitally important at this juncture. And don’t worry about asking stupid questions, you know the old saying1 .
At the bottom of this Post is a place for Comments, when you are done reading today’s Post, click on it and Comment. Hell, even if it is only in order to identify your ‘type’ (Doctrine-wise), it will be useful to know how many clarks and scotts and rogers are making up the current reader demographic. In the words of the Lady2 ‘You’ve been told’
To continue our examination of the scottian female/rogerian male that we started in a previous Post. We left the discussion with the idea that the interdependency inherent in a Couple-hood like this would be quite interesting. AKH (a Downspring) was gracious enough to spend her time in order to give a us ‘view’ of the relationship from the scottian perspective (or perhaps better to say, ‘from the perspective of one particular scott’). It is invaluable for those of us (clarks and rogers) who simply cannot see this view.
(AKH, if you please):
This material contains matters which may be subjective as they apply to The Wakefield Doctrine. Reader discretion is advised….
First of all, my boyfriend Greg (not established long enough to be considered “partners” yet) is predominately a rogerian guy. Honest to God!! Being a scottian female myself, this post really hit home. It elicited a rather loud Holy Shit! response to say the least. From what I’ve learned to be the tell-tale signs of the clark/scott/rogers of the world you’d think that it wouldn’t have been such a surprise reading this post. The fact of the matter is that I never directly applied this knowledge to my own relationship (stop shaking your head). And you’re thinking “How the hell could you not?” Don’t have an answer to that one. So I will now attempt to enter (my) uncharted territory as it applies to the rogerian male in a relationship.
Ours is a well-balanced, harmonious relationship. Our good sense of humor plays off of each other, often laughing at ourselves. And we goad each other on. And yes, we’re both smart and good-looking. Don’t mean to sound vain, but it is what it is. OK, enough re-iterating from the post (but it’s so spot on!).
To preface, from my female scottian perspective, Greg couldn’t be more suited for me. He’s VERY attentive and puts me on a pedestal (what more could a scottian girl ask for?). When we’re out together I am proud to show the world that he’s with ME. I gloat over the fact that this very handsome guy chose ME. And he enjoys that. Don’t get me wrong, looks aren’t everything, but they certainly don’t hurt. He feeds my ego without even knowing it. So, without further ado, on to the question at hand: What’s up with those rogers? Rogerian guys are usually very passive. Never wanting to rock the boat so to speak. However, sometimes that passivity can be misconstrued as laziness or even disinterest. They are eager to please, but not at the cost of allowing another to take advantage of them. They will and do venture from their herd-like mentality given it is worth it for the “right” person and as a result become more outstanding, more independent if you will. In my particular case I don’t feel as though he was necessarily of a strong herd mentality so much as just following the status quo. Wait a minute, was that a contradiction? Oh it’s all so confusing! No black and white in the world of the clark/scott/rogers. Because we all have some of each within us, it’s sometimes difficult to put things in a nicely-wrapped gift box. Particularly in this response as I am honestly unable to be entirely objective given my relationship with my rogerian boyfriend.
Perhaps due to my limited scottian personality (did she really just say that??) I’m trying to express a need to be viewed as one in a relationship with someone who IS strong and independent. And Greg is. A scottian female would not want to be associated with someone who is weak. It would be too easy, if not downright boring.
Moving along, the rogerian guys can be the class clowns and laugh at themselves easily. It doesn’t bother them too much to be the butt of the joke. They also enjoy laughing at others, usually not with mal-intent. They’re goal-oriented and when serious just might surprise you by their strong convictions. They are, for the most part, agreeable. But not to the point of being submissive. Rogerian men are non-confrontational which works well for the scottian counterpart who deems herself as being somewhat superior. In a scottian/rogerian relationship the individual characteristics balance each other out quite well and is satisfying for both. The rogerian guy is very loyal, caring, loving, unselfish and a good listener with a heart of gold.
All of this being said, a scottian female could not be happier to have a rogerian guy. Am I babbling yet? I’ll quit while I’m ahead (if that).
Thank you AKH.
Speaking of scottian female (perspectives)…. you need to see the following vids. Jesus Christ! After what I said about understanding from another’s perspective and all that ‘walk-a-mile-in-someone-else’s-mocassins’ crap, along come the following two views of Couplehood. (And this Post is about Couplehood/Coupleness/Coupleosity).
Watch and be amazed. (A free hat to any Reader who successfully explains the commonality between these two videos).
Come Slovenians, Comment! Don’t worry about language differences, this is the damn internet, I’ll figure something out.
1. ‘There are no stupid questions, only your questions…
2. The Lady: if you work really, really, really hard and understand the Doctrine cold, you can ask again and maybe we will tell you about her. (She is wonderful)
‘The Eyes have it’; ‘beware the Eyes of March’; …’when the moon hit your eye like a big pizza pie, thats amore’; ‘you, my brown-eyed girl’; and of course our intro quote: ‘the eyes are the mirror to the soul…’
Mr Ricardo? if you please… (reference: eye,yi,yi…)
Eyes. Our Launching Point today will be Eyes…the eyes of the clark, the scott and the roger. If you study very hard and apply yourself, you will be able to determine the type (of person) you are dealing with entirely on the basis of seeing their eyes. (Gotta love the zen-ish feel to that little phrase, ’seeing their eyes’).
Anyway, I found a bunch of (famous) quotes about eyes at various websites, (if I haven’t said it yet today…don’t you love the internet?). Some quotes I thought about using, ranging from the fairly familiar:…”(something)drink to me with only thine eyes(something)”; (to) the nearly familiar…”love is blind, friendship closes its eyes”… and (finally) the downright scary “And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.”(ewww!)
O…’kay! Who is ready for today’s lesson in the Wakefield Doctrine?
(Yes? Janie? “No, not right now, roger is preparing his lesson plan, I am the substitute teacher for right now…”)
(“No, it will not take long and yes I am certified to teach this class.”)
The eyes. clark…scott…roger…
Since scotts are very easy to spot and we will be using a vid clip of a scott and a roger interacting, lets start with the eyes of the clark.
As much as a scott is said to be always focused on their immediate surroundings, a clark will always be (at least partially) focused on a place that just is not available to rogers or scotts. There is a ‘depth’ to the look in the eyes (of the clarks); something that at first glance (ha ha) appears to be non-attention, but is, the primary characteristic of clarks. (What?!)
Lets get right to our example…
So, what do you think you saw?
(Now look at this clip with the sound off…) The eyes are very prominent, to the point of being the focal point (ha ha again) of the face. And there seems, at first glance (alright, enough with the puns), to be a peculiar focus in Flo’s eyes. Not the steely gaze of a scott, but there is an element of ‘calculation’ lurking in the back of that friendly face. A sense of ‘I am doing this right now but I have other matters that I must attend to…’.
(Or I am just being too clarklike, and maybe she is just a daffy broad.)
Lets move on to the eyes of the scotts and the rogers…
The easiest (eyes) to ’detect’ are those of the scotts.
Very simple, very distinctive. The eyes of the scott are clearly focused on their environment, which means the people in the immediate area. They will always be focused on something, on the lookout for threats, searching for prey.
In the following scene from the movie Wolf, we see a scott and a roger (Nicholson and Spader, respectively). The more interesting (of the two characters) to watch is the roger. You know who the scott is, so that leaves the other character as the roger. Look at the scott first. In the scene he stands in one spot, barely moving yet totally concentrating on his prey.
Can you see the look in James (Spader’s characters) eyes change as the scene develops? There is an initial confidence, self-assurance to the eyes of the roger, but watch his expression change when the threat (from the scott) becomes undeniable.
Well I hope you all got something from today’s lesson. Please do not get upset, but my closing music clip is the totally ‘ear worm’ infected White Stripes. (Warning: Unless you are prepared to be humming the bass line from this song all day today, you had best turn the sound off.)
For our international friends:
Slovinanns!!: zavoj zvok ne sveže , nagel! (Our increasing fan base in France): arrêtez le bruit, vite !
Ok, class, let’s settle in… what’s that, Janie? Substitute teacher? We don’t need no stinking substitute teachers. Oh, right… the old “look into my eyes” bit… next time, Jane, just scream real loud, kick him straight in the bollocks, and call 911. Jeez, if a Clark got you, you’d end up babbling about string theory and where the donut shops are in the fourth dimension for the rest of your life. What?… you already know?? He bought you two chocolate-frosteds with jimmies that don’t really exist, and a large decaf ( because caffeine was outlawed ages ago in the “real” universe?)Jane! Jane, look at me!! No, not over my shoulder!!! Jane, you’re fading! Come back….come back….Jane…. come back….Oh, hell. I just hate it when that happens. Another one tanked… All right,then. As for the rest of you, let’s pick it up where we left off….
OK, then so who can tell me the difference between the WD and the BSO? ( see last class’ post ) Anyone? Anyone at all? No? Jane? ( camera pans to Jane, who is staring out the window and trying to do calculus on her fingers ). Ok, forget Jane. She’ll be out there for a while yet.
That was a trick question! The answer is…there is no difference. Well not much, anyway. Back in your seats, let me explain…and someone please grab Jane by the ankle, she’s apparently discovered mutli- dimensional weightlessness , and the window’s open…I think that’s due to the jimmies that don’t exist…Hey, do people outside of Rhode Island know what jimmies are? I had Del’s and clam cakes for breakfast, is that weird?
Ok, enough. Back to work.
The WD/BSO comparison actually struck me as being a good example of the WD on a big, big scale. Macro. Freaking huge. We generally assume the WD to be all about interpersonal stuff ( by the way, great job AKH- and a comment fron Denise that could easily be expanded into a few posts; yeah, that’s a hint, Girlie!). But seen on a larger scale, it actually works quite the same way. Let’s have a look;
The Wakefield DoctrineThe Boston Symphony Orchestra
Clarks- internally active, cerebral Work Being Performed
Scotts- socially outward, good salesmen Conductor; co-ordinator/ interpreter
Rogers- detail-oriented, socially inclusive Orchestra; Strata/sub-strata of specialists
Well, there it is. Self-explanatory, yes? No? Ok, then, let’s break it down a bit.
To have the BSO function properly, there is an absolutely overwhelming level of coordination that must be maintained on several critical levels, all simultaneously. If anyone drops the ball, then the end result is percieved as a bad performance, a lousy conductor, a mediocre orchestra. In their world, that’s simply not going to happen. In reality, the actual difference between a first-rate orchestra and the others is probably very slight; the margin for error is almost non-existent.
The largest grouping in this setting is comprised of the players themselves, and my analogy labels them as Rogers. Every damn one of them. They’re highly trained, highly skilled, supremely confident. They aren’t just great classical musicians ( a phenomenal accomplishment on its own), they’re the top percentile of those guys. They simply do not screw up. They are all machine operators. And, what amazes me the most about them; they do what they do, and manage to stay focused on the conductor. Who, BTW, in this analogy…
is a Scott. A perfect salesman, he has full knowledge and complete, utter control of everything before him. He embodies all the player’s capabilities. He knows every nuance of what they can do, and uses that knowledge to interpret the music; he does a lot more than just keep everyone in tempo. He is using the big machine to make known the wishes and intent of the composer. He sees all this at a glance, and simply needs all the Rogers to be perfectly precise on his command. And, in this last segment of analogy, the composer is…
the resident Clark. The guy who creates the entire thing in his head, and desperately needs a few good Scotts and a damn lot of Rogers to get the thing out to where the public at large can access it. He knows all of it. He has to consider the interpreters along with the machine operators; make sure that it gets out there the way he wants it to. Bach? Beethoven? Mozart? Just a tiny little bit eccentric, yes? No freaking wonder.
And if all that works just like it’s supposed to, then we get to hear …the BSO. Or put in WD terms; if all the Clarks, Scotts and Rogers all read one another correctly and fairly, then the world should be just ever so slightly a better place than it was before.
And since I’m in the mood, may I recommend ; Henry Gorecki’s Third Symphony. It starts with a repeating figure on bowed double bass ( one of my favorite instruments) and develops it into a hypnotic theme. It doesn’t really have a sense of time or tempo to it, it just hangs in space like the soundtrack to a prophetic dream. Gorgeous. Give it a shot, binyons. A little high culture won’t kill your asses. And someone wake Janie up, it’s time to shut the lights off.
So I am talking to my SR* and the question of the future somehow arises. This is note-worthy as most rogers maintain this ‘ Hey, I’m not a morning person, I need my coffee first, don’t bother me in the morning’ affectation. Fine. One learns to adjust and/or to accommodate doesn’t one? (If that one is a clark, accommodation is as knee-jerk reflexive as is the ‘pressed-lip, half-smile thing’ that all clarks do). So the conversation veered off the main track, swerved to avoid the large trees labeled “get pissed off” and safely rolled to a stop in the middle of a flat field.
But the original question of ‘the future of…(fill in the blank: healthcare/the economy/war and peace/Will Clint Eastwood still cast girls 1/3 of his age as co-stars, even when wardrobe has to figure how to hide the colostomy bag?)’. You know, your normal questions about the future that arise when you make the mistake/look forward to/otherwise expose yourself to Morning Television News. And so this particular morning, the truncated conversation was about, “don’t they all know they are being tricked?”
Now what the heck would make that a topic for a Post in the Wakefield Doctrine? (and where are the cleverly related videos?). Well, the reason it is a topic is that I was half of the ‘half-conversation’, and it occurred to me to ask the question: “What do clarks, scotts and rogers do with a situation like this”?
(…yes, you are correct…I never stop thinking about the Wakefield Doctrine…)
Anyway, to the question at hand.
Television on in the morning… (…’the newsman sang his same song1…) who is really watching the TV and what are they ‘getting’ from the experience?
clarks are watching if they are not enlightened, and even then they are watching in the same manner they will watch the couple getting into some heavy PDAs in the public park on a warm summer evening…Surreptitiously. Watching (TV or the couple or the goddamn world) out of the corner of the eye. Not because the clark does not have the time or the interest to pay full attention, nooo! nothing as reasonable as that. The clark (the unenlightened one anyway) is watching from the sidelines because he/she is not certain if they are entitled to get involved. The news is something that is happening out ‘in the world’. The problem (for the clark) is that he/she may spend the rest of the day trying to figure out: a)why don’t those voters see they are being tricked and lied to; b)why doesn’t the government simply send aid and stop posturing; and/or: c) who wants to watch the father of the tragically dead young person emote for the cameras.
(The enlightened clarks avoid Morning News Television like it was a clown in a car at a drive-through).
scotts are watching the Morning Television News only if they are awake and not yet on the hunt. For them, (the scotts), the news would be sort of what the lion sitting in the tree in the savannah might see; a representation of the place where the hunt will take place. It will be an item of interest for the scott only in the most marginal of ways…(if the lioness could think it might be…’antelopes by the watering hole…sick wildebeasts by the gully…’ not a literal plan but a reminder of why the hunt will be fruitful).
rogers…Morning Television News…rogers…what more needs to be said. At a certain point in the lifespan of a culture all media is directed at the rogerian population. The herd. Currently we are seeing the point where the popular culture is meant for the rogerian mindset.
Much more can be said about what rogers are hearing on the Morning Television News…but let’s tie this thing back to the original starting point…
…so I am talking (ever so briefly) to my SR and I made the simple statement: “I don’t expose myself to the Morning Television News because I would spend the rest of the day trying to figure out how people can be so fuckin stupid/gullible/easily fooled.”
And the rogerian answer was simple” “I will think about it for 5 minutes and then get back to the important things.”
Huh
(Lets wrap this up on a positive note. You younger Slovinianss might not know about the Captain. But then again you are probably not watching Morning Television News having spent the night in the park making the clarks uncomfortable with your sexual hi jinks)
*SR: significant roger
1) free hat for the person to identify the song this line is from
Attention…Company! Order…Arms! Dress…Left! In Place…Rest!
Just my quirky little way of bringing the class to order. And seeing as how Janie is coherent once more, we’ll move on.
First off; sorry about the scrunched-up chart in the last post. It is indicative of my sadly semi-autistic capabilities with the WordPress Dashboard. ( Actually, being autistic might serve as an asset in this forum… hmmm….) And that, even sadder ( sadlier?) is the best I can manage for a lead-in to today’s topic; Self- improvement.
Over the last few days, Your Eminent Instructor found himself listening in on a radio program from the legendary Dr. Laura. She is a fully licensed counselor? chiropractor? criminologist? crustacean? I swear on your mother’s eyes that she claims all that and more, so if that were a test question, the correct answer would be E), all of the above.
In my typical semi-autistic habit of not really paying attention, I just sort of listen for the buzz words that seem to jump out, and if something interesting goes by, then I’ll swing around and try to actually focus on the damned thing. And on this program, I noticed the word ” manifest ” being bandied about quite freely.
” Manifest” seems to have become the ” word du jour” in the wonderful world of self-improvement. Apparently, you don’t just endeavor to improve yourself any more. We must now ” manifest” ourselves. Or was that “manifest ” other people? Not sure. Might be a critical detail, though. I would hate to just go ahead and blindly manifest something that did not really require manifestation.
Anyway…all that manifesting led to Dr Laura’s plug for SelfGrowth.com ( I would provide a link here for your convenience, but being semi-autistic and all, I had better not try it ). And it turns out that SelfGrowth.com is a veritable fountain of the touchiest/feeliest stuff you ever did see. If you read down the entire list of links, you’ll realize that the human psyche can be endlessly compartmentalized, and you’ll discover whole vistas of problems that you, binyon, never even knew you had. So you had best get to manifesting some of the big ones right away, and save the little ones for later. ( Note to Acolytes- the Progenitors will clue you in to all the cryptic ” Lady” references as soon as we can find a way to do it without scaring you all to death). ( Note to Clark- can we link the Lady to Dr. Laura? Woo-#%^*#-Hoo!!)
And so; after you’ve all had a bit of fun with ” manifesting” stuff, I would like to pique your interest with a predominantly philosophical and yet pointedly perplexing puzzler; ( this might be used as an essay question on the mid-term; and please try to visualize Rod Serling reading this )
If you, as a textbook Clark, Scott, or Roger, were to engage freely and wholeheartedly in the vast self- improvement arena, would the experience simply re-inforce your primary characteristics as outlined in the Doctrine; or might it cause you to venture forth into the pristine wilderness of …those Other Two? ( there’s a signpost up ahead… you’ve just crossed into… The Doctrine Zone…)
All right, that did it…Janie’s eyes have rolled back in her head, indicating lights out. Responses in comment form are quite acceptable, but a full-blown Post on the subject garnishes an automatic ” A” for the course ,in my book. And, maybe even a hat.
Attention…Company! Prepare to Break Ranks… Break Ranks! ( Hardee,1862)
The source of the knowledge and information contained in this blog. By definition, three sources: clarks, scotts and rogers. Make sense? (If not, then keep reading.)
Shut up, shut up, I already said that I was the best of all you sorry excuses for persoinality types!!!! Just let me at those readers, I ‘ll make ‘em understand, you’ll see. Just watch me.
Please, people, can’t we all just get along. I feel that you have upset scott, it reminds me of a story…
Please?! Gentleman! We are in a public forum. We must conduct ourselves in a more congenial, and therefore more productive (in terms of the conveying of knowledge to our hypothetical…)…
You make me laugh! Ah, so you adhere to the constraints put on you by “all that Rogerian shit”. Are you sure you are a scott? Well, are ya punk?