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.)
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...
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
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!!!
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).
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.
…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.)
(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?)
(“…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).
“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.
…(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.
(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.)
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.
(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!!!!!!!!!!
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…)
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.)
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!
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.
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!”)
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.’
[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.
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.
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 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.)
RSS - Posts
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…)…
