Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
We are getting good feedback and reactions to our new youtube Video Channel! Created to house the (increasing) number of Wakefield Doctrine videos, (not just the Video Friday episodes but also the Saturday Night Drive vids).
Some are saying it’s just like you were riding in the car with those wacky DownSprings!
If you haven’t checked out the WakeDocVid Channel yet, do so now, please. No, we’ll wait…oh yeah! click here. … btw, we will be working on the ‘naming’ of each of the video Episodes, to make them a little more intuitive.
Speaking of intuitive, DS#1 wrote a rather lengthy Comment in the previous Post. As a result, she has managed to add even more depth to the conversation of this lastest Saturday Night Drive. In fact, the conversation that is recorded in the videos actually continued well after the regular Saturday Night Drive ended! Sort of an after-party affair.
Seeing how it is Summer (in our part of the world), lets take the easier, softer way and let DS#1 provide us with the rest of the content for today’s Post:
Yes, you should have been there and thanks to modern technology Ms. AKH, the Progenitor roger and myself extended the evening’s driving (pun intended) discussion a quarter of an hour AFTER our host left.
It began by Ms. AKH thanking yours truly for introducing her to the Wakefield Doctrine, the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers. She related how, in retrospect, she is able to identify a former boss as a scott. Aha! Now his behavior makes more sense whereas back then…..What were all the smiles (at inappropriate moments?) about? The outbursts? WTF! Not uncommon with scottian bosses. They often fly by the seat of their emotions. Take it personally? You shouldn’t, but most people do. Cry? No! Never! But some (mostly rogers) people do. If you know that scottian behavior is all about establishing dominance and ranking then you can lose the self consciousness of “is it really me he/she is angry with, etc?”. In truth sometimes it will be but more often than not scottian “outbursts” are for the benefit of all in screaming distance.
Then we moved onto job interviews. Proro (you don’t mind if I call you that today do you?) commented that in most interviews the prospective employee is not really seeing the person they will be working for. Everyone is just playing a part. First day on the job kablam! the real “boss” steps forward. The lament often is “wow, they didn’t seem like a crazy person when I interviewed with them” or “damn, they sure do go on and on and on”.
So how useful is this Doctrine thing? Extremely. Consider arriving for your next job interview and you are able to identify everyone in the office. First, the receptionist – (most likely a roger as they have the most “social, you are welcome here skills”). Let’s jump to the interview proper. The three of us realized what an amazing advantage it would be to be able, after only a few brief minutes, to identify your potentially future boss as either a clark, scott or roger. You’re gonna ace the interview right? Well, yeah, pretty much.
We got a little silly when AKH, harkening back to one of her own experiences, asked what to do when the person interviewing is simply smiling, has a funny look on their face when there wasn’t anything humorous said. What in the world do you do? I suggested you could simply ask “what’s so funny?” or as AKH suggested “what was it I said you find so amusing?”. Gasp! A clark would never in a million years call a scott out in that situation. Proro suggested that a roger would run and hide under a chair, but a scott? Who has the answer? You all know the answer. A scott would ask, not in these exact words but something akin to them, “what the fuck is so funny? want to share with me?”. Would they get the job? More often than not.
This eventually evolved into discussing the advantage of being able to bring forth the other 2 “lesser tendencies” we all have in order to deal with the immediate situation. Using the clark’s analogy it is getting to the point when learning a second language you no longer have to consciously translate in your head but rather you simply speak the other language. Your body “knows” the language and it becomes automatic. As AKH offered, wouldn’t it be great to get to the point where one’s “other sides” are more natural behavior as opposed to trying to “act” like a clark, scott or roger. (for you scotts out there no, there is no Berlitz school for the Wakefield Doctrine)
“IS THERE ANYONE STILL AWAKE OUT THERE?!” Hey, I am a clark so you should have expected this.
Unlike the roger who would have written this in armchair easy except he hasn’t… so I will try and conclude with one of his final contributions to our Saturday Drive Time Talks.
He posed the simple question of “how does one learn the Wakefield Doctrine?”. He concluded, that while it is a fairly simple thing to learn, the Doctrine is a practice thing. Small steps taken day after day. Practice if you will, until one day you suddenly realize you have just interacted with a scott as a scott or not acted as a clark when in the presence of rogers.
In conclusion, the 3 of us, a clark, scott and roger, were in consensus that the Wakefield Doctrine is a verifiable, useful and valuable tool that can without doubt make life a whole lot less stressful. It can in fact be used to accomplish, achieve and create.
Here we have yet another example of how the Wakefield Doctrine offers tools that anyone can pick up and use to improve their own damn lives.
So what are you waiting for? a DVD? A Seminar coming to a Marriott Hotel Ballroom in a city near you? Is it that?
Or is it that that you, Mr./Ms. Reader, really just want an opportunity to speak your mind and share with the entire blogosphere, your personal experiences with the Wakefield Doctrine?
welll…if thats all you want, that we can do.
You know those Video Friday Posts we do? the ones where we interview the Progenitors and DownSprings?
If you want to share your Wakefield Doctrine story with the world then let us know and it will happen. All you have to do is write a Comment and tell us. (As all Readers familiar with blogs and such know, when Comments are submitted, the ‘system’ requires an email address. You write and I will follow-up with an email. We work out the details….you(r voice) gets famous!) eeazy peezy
Don’t rely on just me, go ask the Progenitor roger or Ms AKH or DS#1
Hey!! Wait!!! ‘fore you go…all these words describing the fun we have?…just go here, you will see what we mean.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_5kv8QeBBc
About clarkscottroger
What? No Turn the Page? LOL OK. If I have to choose between these 2 then it’s Highway to Hell all the way….
Heads up readers – once upon a time, this clark’s head would have swelled up and my face fall upon reading today’s post and seeing it used the way it is. But it didn’t. Why not? Because of the Wakefield Doctrine, the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers.Yesterday, I attended an “Information Session” given by one of the local colleges. I dragged along my significant other (SO) (a roger) for company. We entered the student union building. Being the clark that I am, as soon as I stepped through the doorway I started scanning the entire room.
I was in the lead. Everyone was seated at the far end at little tables that seated 4. Rather nice, heavy wooden tables with chairs that had arms. At the front was a long folding table with paper and shit but no one there. As I approached the front I looked at the various tables to try and identify the “leader” and or/leaders of the session. As I did so I extended greetings to the 2 tables closest to the “front”.
(yes, I have a point) Let me interject that I was using yesterday as a “practice” exercise.
Anyway, a woman asked if I was there for the IS. I resisted a smart ass response (resisted a scottian response) and said yes. She gave me a card and asked if I would fill it out. (her expectation was that I would do it then at her table) As I turned to find a table the woman asked if I would return the card to her (like I wouldn’t?). I said “sure”.
Seating. My first instinct was to find an empty table (remember the tables seat 4). Instead I chose a table where a middle aged man was seated by himself. I walked up, asked if he minded and sat down. I was the first to ask “how are you today”. To make this painfully boring story short I began by “acting” less like a clark and more like one of the “other 2” By the end of the information session I was comfortable in skin stretched a little more courtesy of the Wakefield Doctrine.
ProRo? Where’s the armchair easy?
damn… very well put on both accounts. was gonna say dissertations but that would be redundant referring to a clark speaking.
to our readers, we will gladly hold your hand. but this is a relatable and should be by now (for our followers new and old) an understandable and insightful summary as to the validity of the Wakefield Doctrine at it’s best….
yeah! (what she said!)
hey ‘KH, you been hangin ’round clarks a little too much….I mean a parenthesis and (a) subjective clause or two…lets hear from the scottian section of the bleachers!!
HEY!! Read dis shit!!! HEY!!
Clarks (like) to (write) like (this). (I think). Sometimes they even (use) one of {these} or [these]. Then they like to spell things in a British fashioun. They should all be (pout) in gaol.
Rogers like to write like this: Hey, folks. How are YOU today. You really need to read this–for the sake of all of us–but especially the children..It’s for own good.
Scotts say “Hey, fucker! Look over here. Read this here thing! Fucking funny ain’t it? Yes it IS. Fuck you, anyway!”
If by (the) use of parentheticals, you would imply that (clarks) are ’roundabout* in their speech patterns, I would possibly, mayhaps reply… ‘ca ca’
*A roundabout is British word[1] for a road junction in which traffic moves in one direction around a central island.[2] The word dates from the early 20th century.[2] (wikipedia…bitch)
Huh. I’m disappointed. “Why?” Because my expectation(s) :-D was for something different. But how can there be something different if I come here viewing the world as a clark, with the hopes of a clark? That is the reason why I am “disappointed”. My clarklike nature looked forward to a potential, actual discussion of practical applications regarding the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers. Ya know, serious exchange does not have to involve dust….
Don’t get me wrong, and I write that NOT as a clark, the repartee is delightful but I was hoping for more. Think perhaps I’ll spend some time over at girlsonfire and see if maybe I can get something going over there….