Old Blue’s feet was big and round

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

So what good is a ‘theory of personality’ if it don’t tell you what job you ought to get? or the kind of person you should try to go out with? or at the very least, give you reasons why your family and friends, “just don’t get you”? huh? what good would that kind of theory be?  Kinda worthless don’t you think? I mean, we know that you are an intelligent and curious person and that you really got a lot more on the ball than your parents/teachers/friends/family give you credit for…what the hell! you:

  • work hard
  • mean well
  • would do a lot better but there are so many other factors to consider
  • don’t mean to come off so snooty
  • really? how can they say such mean things
  • will do much better once you get some breathing room
  • fuck them,  I like the way I am
  • get them to understand what you are going through

To you we will say, “hey!  the Wakefield Doctrine is your answer”! Not only does the Wakefield Doctrine understand (all of the above) but the Wakefield Doctrine can tell you which job would be such a natural fit for your unique and totally special talents. And…and… when it comes to ‘the perfect relationship’? we got your back, big time. We wouldn’t let you down. So today we will layout which jobs you should get and who it is that will most appreciate you, forever and ever.

There are three categories into which all jobs and occupations, life-callings and careers fall into: teacher, salesman and machine operator. And these three categories correspond to the three types of personality; clarks, scotts and rogers. Now let’s combine this ‘easy guide to a fulfilling career’ with a Wakefield Doctrine Lesson of the Day by considering why each of the three are particularly suited to the three job classifications.

clark  teacher   examples: teacher….er  professor…counselor….( goddamn, there’s got to more examples….) actor!  (yeah them!)… nurse, lighthouse keeper (…wtf?!) veterinarian…locksmith (but not a clockmaker)…artist…(…better make that “unsuccessful/appreciated after death”  only…lol) …damn not a lot of choices…homemaker  (…homemaker!!?! you’re gonna sell a lot of books with that career advice), shit ….better move on…

scott  salesman   examples:  salesman, military leader, policeman/woman, bank robber (unsuccessful), owner of a diner (only a diner, it takes a roger to own a restaurant), handyman, (successful) builder/contractor, electrician (but not plumber), surgeon, stripper/exotic dancer (but not a hooker), TV newscaster (female scotts only), TV pitchman (male only), muscian (frontman only), junior and senior high school gym teacher

roger  machine operator   examples: lawyer (all but criminal defense), engineer, accountant, chemist, restauranteur (but not a diner), judge, teacher (7th grade and up only but not gym), carpenter (but not general contractor), firefighter, politician, muscian (technically astounding, but not the frontman),  owner of a bed and breakfast, physician (but not a surgeon),ballerina, plumber (but not an electrician)

Alright,  that gets us started with the careers best suited to the three types of people in the world. Now to the question: Why are those the proper occupations?

clarks: need to accommodate others in the world, need to share beyond means, need to place own requirements second to another, clarks believe that knowledge has a value in and of itself, clarks are the ultimate in ‘behind the scenes/limelight aversive/unselfish to a fault’  people.
scotts: need to act, to do, to change things for the sake of change, does not simply place own needs before others, rather does not particularly perceive any other person as having needs (not counting immediate dominant scott) scotts as predators will simply act with or without support or reinforcement of others, they make ideal leaders in that they are always certain in their plans to act
rogers: need to maintain and preserve the status quo, make excellent technicians, engineers, they consider the herd as support for themselves without there being an issue of dominance/submission, have very little curiosity and as such will be the most likely to succeed

There. Career Counseling, Wakefield style!  (yes and we are serious).

At this point, if there is anyone still reading and/or not yet muttering, “who the fuck do these people think they are? I am not selfish…! I do think about others!!!they have no right to say such untrue things!!’  then in our next section we will be happy to tell you the outcome of any effort at having a relationship with another person… on the other hand….let’s save that for the next Post!

Mr. B!! Mr.B  get us out of here,  you old, rogerian, sellout-your-best-friend-for-chance-to-be-hazel’s-bitch, janitor!  Tell these fine folks how you would rather give up being a…never mind…screw it…  get us some traveling music, yo.

alright, very amusing, but some of these folks are immune to an emotional appeal, so let’s move dem feets

 

Share

clarkscottroger About clarkscottroger
Well, what exactly do you want to know? Whether I am a clark or a scott or roger? If you have to ask, then you need to keep reading the Posts for two reasons: a)to get a clear enough understanding to be able to make the determination of which type I am and 2) to realize that by definition I am all three.* *which is true for you as well, all three...but mostly one

Comments

  1. Downspring#1 says:

    Very specific this application of the Doctrine to occupation(s)/career(s). The above examples are fine indeed. May I add just a few more? I want to reference three different “jobs” within the field of writing and qualify which of the 3, clarks, scotts, or rogers would be best at each of these tasks.
    They are:

    Proofreader – clark
    Editor – scott
    Reporter – roger

    (I must admit that this is a tricky question as the proofreader and editor jobs may be interchangeable with a roger and clark depending on the type of editorial function but for simplicity’s sake we’ll stick with the basics )

    Proofreader (clark): A good proofreader must organize words,etc into proper paragraph and sentence formation. He/she must adhere to the “rules of grammar”. A good proofreader must pay great attention to detail, must know how to communicate effectively in order to reach the audience successfully.

    Editor (scott): Hey!! Hey!! Hey!!

    Reporter (roger): “What? A robbery at the biggest bank in town?! Who is to blame? Come on, you can tell me, I won’t tell anyone what you told me”…

    More? You want more!? I’ll give you 3 more but then SOMEONE ELSE needs to participate here as I have my own “deconstruction” goin’ on.
    Actually, this is more a test for readers old and new alike (uh huh).

    Why, what is it about rogerian worldview that qualifies them as the best chefs?
    No doubt everyone knows that between chef and cook scotts are the cooks (Mel in that old sitcom ‘Alice doesn’t live here anymore’ or something)
    Would anyone venture to guess that there was not at least one scott working within the tin box that is (maybe gone now) the Haven Brothers Diner?(benefit of people residing in a small eastern seaboard state)

    That leaves us with the lowly, underachieving yet funny clarklike dishwashers. “No, no! Please don’t make me a waiter for the day!!!!!!!!! I couldn’t do that”. (No, the clark did not immediately jump to “No, no, please don’t make me a chef for the day because after all I didn’t go to school for that, I have no training to do that. Blah, blah,blah.
    Get the drift here people?
    The clarks are the creative, underachieving, self-deprecating forever-trying-to-improve-themselves and their lives.
    The scotts are simply(no pun intended) scotts. Happy as pigs in shit.(scotts will like that phrase)
    The rogers, well dammit, they have to keep everything, everyone in proper place. There is a place for everyone and everything that is universal. History is at stake here. Honest. Let’s just all keep it copacetic.
    Got to leave. The bricks are disintegrating as we speak…….

  2. clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

    don’t feel like generating a whole Post on the subject, so here is the lowdown on those three jobs:

    Teacher: a person who would change the world third hand, they want to have an effect, but for various reasons (and those are a whole Post), do not wish to take a stand and tell a person to be different, ‘just because they say so’. The person who would be a Teacher would rather cause an effect using an intervening media. Knowledge (in the case of the actual teacher) or art or locksmith or any of these clarklike jobs. Heres a way to tell: ask the person the question, ‘how would you change the world for the better?‘ if the answer is anything along the lines of, “well, because with this knowledge/information/experience everyone would have better lives”…then you gots yourself a clark (…but you knew that without being told).

    Salesman: the direct approach, not even a “because I told you to“…more direct. More along the lines of: you lack this/you have broken this law/this is how to build that/do you like these…a Salesman efforts to change the person…just because (the just because is, of course, directly related to the needs of the salesman, but not necessarily the need being presented, could be (and often is) simply doing it for the money).

    Machine Operator: probably the most interesting of all the three jobs. To work with a device/function/rule/custom/tradition to affect others lives. A Machine Operator deals with totally pre-defined variables, so an engineer engineers, an accountant counts, a judge simply judges (within the prescribed limits of the inherited laws) and, as a muscian, plays the instrument impeccably, with precision getting the most from the design and nature of the particular instrument….but it would never, ever occur to a Machine Operator/guitar player to play the guitar with their teeth (or behind their head),,,that is nowhere to be found in the guitar manual.

    So clearly the three jobs are externalized representations of the predelictions of the clarks, and the scotts and the rogers as to how to ‘manipulate their environments’

    (…hope I have made this very clear….questions!! why would you have questions!!!…as you can see it has always been thus…)

  3. phyllis says:

    liked the old blue song – probably played it 1000 times today at work.
    maybe I’m a roger

  4. Downspring#1 says:

    It seems to me that the Wakefield Doctrine, the theory of clarks,scotts and rogers would be an invaluable tool to our educational system/educators.
    Dr Spock’s baby book? Nah- all you need is the Wakefield Doctrine.

  5. AKH says:

    wtf…where the hell is that background music coming from? TURN IT OFF. it’s interfering with the jethro tull video i’m trying to watch. not so much with the other videos because i don’t listen to them in their entirety. i skip ahead. but i play the flute (inspired by ian anderson). he’s the flutist and no, his name is not jethro.

  6. AKH says:

    never mind. i found it. ok, i’ll admit it. my bad (cringe)

  7. clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

    background music? who has background music?…the question we all have is:

    whats up with the ‘one foot’ thing?

    btw I saw Mr Jethro in college back in the day…pretty good live show…

  8. AKH says:

    there was an article that was written incorrectly saying that was his trademark pose. So he decided to live up to it.
    yeah, i saw ’em too. excellent.
    way back in the day when i first heard Bourree from the “Stand Up” album i said to myself “i’m gonna learn that song.” so i started taking flute lessons and never looked back. and being a scott and all, i have to toot my own horn. i was pretty fuckin’good. 85% of what i played was from him.

  9. clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

    so are you thinkin Ian, he be a scott? what I can see in the vidoes he has the eyes…