Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers )
As our regular Readers know, the Wakefield Doctrine is not just about learning to understand the inner drives and personalities of the people of our lives, it is also not limited to having access to techniques and tools that make the intractable problems and the most obdurate of bad habits in our personal lives seem like passing fancies, (the Doctrine) is not even just about knowing more about how the ‘other person’ is perceiving a situation than they, themselves know…no! the Wakefield Doctrine is about community, frate-sorority, and…hats!
So! May we present newest FOTD and DownSpring-in-Waiting… Claire Peek! (We ‘met’ Claire through):
- ‘the Facebook’ a ‘place’ that we all know is primarily roger-ville! ‘the Facebook’ is a happy, happy place where ppl tlk and shr thghts and use little icons of elevated digits to signify acceptance of common interests!! And while it is home and primary pastureland to most rogers over the age of 13, and is also a combination of Applebys, Benihana and I-Hop (of the virtual world) for those scotts who made the evolutionary leap out of the corner bar into the digital world.
- Hub Pages, where Claire has mad Posts… this is a blog-like environment where people can write ‘Hubs’ (what we call Posts) about any topic they can imagine…the people who run Hub Pages provide the set up and maintenance of this space and all (we) authors need do is create new content!
- her own blog, which was originally on blogspot but is now on wordpress.
In any event, being a clarklike personette, Claire took to the Wakefield Doctrine like….like a
- a scott to anything that is shiny and reflective, moves fast, emits a high pitched noise and seems to be in distress?
- a roger to a magazine rack full of photo illustrated periodicals on the topic of the history of the genealogy of the sect of northern europeans who invented the metric system?
- a clark to the idea that there is a system to organise beliefs in a way that will replicate genuine enthusiasm in a manner indistinguishable from the simple-joy-of-life laughter of a scott or the easy-comforting-welcoming embrace of a roger?
Since she started hangin out at this Doctrine of ours, Claire has not only provided a fresh perspective that is stimulating the rest of us here to look farther, but she has us finding new ways to present this Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers ) …to the rest of the population of the world. And, of course, Claire has a hat!
Claire has the hat and she is wearing it in the middle of Scandinavia…(you know: “Wait a minute, honey! I have to go and feed the reindeer before we go the party“!)
Having a Wakefield Doctrine hat, (she) therefore has the Right of Hat to claim anything she cares to photograph (provided the hat is in the photo), yes, that is awesome power but we know she can handle it.
Speaking of last night, it was Saturday Night and we all know what that means! Saturday Night Drive!! In attendance was DS#1 (in the dashboard), (in the car) DownSpring glenn and Ms AKH riding shotgun. We had fun as usual…we all agreed that in the future most of the Video Friday tapes should be under 4 minutes long. In the course of this drive we tried to tape some group discussion, however after 5 takes, it remains to be seen if there is any usable footage!
Check back later today, and if I can find some usable footage I will Post it up.
Today’s video? (a clarklike female, of course) (I think it might be a Christmas song, what the hell I don’t understand a word she is singing…good tune though)
By popular demand, last Nights Drive
About clarkscottroger
The reindeer are a bit more north than where I am but hey, who cares… so as I told you on the BookFace I am trying to ping back link here but does not seem to work… ah well…
This indeed a great post and I have to say that I wear my hat on my (damned) head very proudly, and not later than today as I had a real nice walk with my husband (who’s a roger btw, yes! I figured it out ^_^)
Shoot, I will cut this short because the food is ready…
Talk later
– lol –
Now I have to butt in again…
“The BookFace” is not primarily “roger-ville”… it could be it is not. Here’s why: as a Clark I think a lot, always and without any interruption… my brain is a flow of thoughts that I NEED to share… no wrong phrasing, I need to display it to make sure that I am extending my comfort zone: yes that is what I said! My comfort zone being in solitary reveries and such; the feedback of others is thus very important for taking me out of my cozy & very much sought out solitude. That is when BookFace comes into the picture… it is a social tool and is very user friendly so I do not need to over-think its uses… I just use it with all the options that can bring me readers and therefore feedback… I think I need to belong… as a proud outcast – hmm, now that I am down with this, my husband is a sort of outcast too… could he be a clark?… more observations are needed – I need to show to the other outcasts that I exist (that might be a mix of the three personalities: typical human behavior)… acknowledged by the outcasts – and most likely by many clarks (or only clarks… remains to be proven) – I feel complete. The circle is closed and I have integrated all my personalities to show that BookFace is no “roger-ville” but “wakefield-ville”.
Hubville having the same advantages as bookface… I will not elaborate.
The blog however is where I have absolute freedom. Nobody censors me, or tell me that I cannot post this or that because I used it somewhere else – or published it.
So… no matter what… I have my hat and it is just perfect. I wear it proudly – did I not say that already? – and I do hope that someone will stare at it long enough to come and ask me what it is all about ^_^
Have a great Sunday,
Cheerios
Claire
ah! just as mentioned in today’s Post, the addition of new minds to this Doctrine thing, while not always comfortable*, is vital to it’s ultimate sucess.
I will agree with part of what I think you are saying, Claire. To backup my contention, I will remind Readers that: A) not only does the Wakefield Doctrine hold that while people will become pre-dominately one of the three types (clarks, scotts and rogers) but we all retain the potential, the latent capacity, to see/experience the world as the other two would experience it , (but) also 2) when we talk about ‘seeing the world’, experiencing the world’ we are getting into a potentially metaphysical discussion, the nature of personal reality and such.
So we are totally comfortable saying that ‘the Facebook’ is roger-ville in the sense that the most obvious/surface/primary tone of the place is a social-sharing-networking-interacting-tell us all about it kind of place….which is so rogerian.
Having said that, that does not make this very same place a ‘OK-I-promised-my-folks-I-would-try-out-for-the-class-play, do-I-really-have-to-stand-in-front-of-all-those-people and-say-my-lines-outloud?? which, (if I read Claire’s Comment correctly), is the utitlity that FB offers to clarks. …and scotts? will they just like to play scrabble and shout stuff loud from the back of the class.
In the broader sense, the Wakefield Doctrine, says: “hey pretend for a minute that the person next to you on the is one of the other two personality types. Now as you ride along, the bus passes a restaurant where there are 2 firetrucks, 1 police car and an ambulance in front of the building….tell me that both of you ( you and the person next to you on the bus) will respond to that scene the same way?**
Thats what the Wakefield Doctrine offers: seeing the world through the eyes of another person.
* ‘comfortable’, as in getting used to the same old routines, settling for mere re-hashing of concepts, as opposed to constantly pushing the edges of what is…
** we actually had the experience last night on the drive, 2 scotts and one clark
Yes you understood my meaning although it does not appear as clear as I had set it up in my head… it is very knotty I fear… I will need to take your words on the car thing because when I am in the car with my husband, we never focus on the same things… he likes to check out other cars or the way people are driving, me I am contemplating nature – lol –
Somehow, my previous comment – I think – was meant to start some kind of babbling… all I will say (about the bookface) is that it is what it is, it offers a multitude of opportunities and depending on your personality type you will notice the side (of the opportunity) that suits you best. Seriously, why could I not say that from the start! Jeez, I’m hopeless.
Hi Claire!
Welcome to the Doctrine. Now that you have a hat (for your damn head) you are a true Doctrine-ette!
Wanted to let you know that I did get your pingback on my latest post over at The Theory of Three Personality Types. You had mentioned that it wasn’t working but it is. There is also the one from today on the Doctrine.
Hi AKH!
You have no idea how proud I am to have that hat on my damned head ^_^… the trackbacks I was referring to were in fact my freaking browser that was not working properly… it did after I restarted it -lol. The video you posted made me almost spill my coffee; even though it was that short (or maybe because it was a nice short piece with a funny yet whoops moment)
About that video…
HELLO EVERYONE! I AM DOING FANTASTIC. THANK YOU FOR THAT AMAZING WELCOME.
Waiting for the next part, this was real fun (as always) and I need to see and listen to more.
Sorry, I am back yet again… for some reasons, my stupid browser (yes again) has not changed my email and url as per requested and I have just noticed as I pressed the comment button. With this comment, there are the right email and url… so annoying!
Cheerios ^_^
Hallå!
So my better half noticed something I did not… who mentioned Catscious because now he is uncontrollable, jumping up and down, he wants the floor ^_^.
Thanks for that and next time, just a hallå to Hope (the other me but better)…
Bye for now
Hey Claire! Why did the video make you almost fall off of your seat? “Cause you’ve never seen Ian Anderson other than way back when he looked crazy and would play his flute with one leg up? lol I used to play the flute. In fact I was drawn to it after hearing Bourree for the first time and that was the first Tull song I taught myself. 90% of what I played was Jethro Tull music.
Oh…. I just realized (I think) that Claire you were referring to the Doctrine video! Not the video on my latest post. Mine didn’t have any “whoops” moments. lol (Hey, I’m a scott so of course you must’ve been referring to mine….lol)
Woo-hee! (Hopefully, the feeling will convey.) I thoroughly enjoyed your comments Claire as it prompts my brain cells to contemplate some of the familiar (as it pertains to the Doctrine) from a slightly different vantage point…
I love that you consider “The BookFace” more “wakefield-ville” than anything else! But you must admit that most folks are of the rogerian slant. Speaking of rogers. Is your husband interested in history? Does he enjoy watching historical documentaries? When he speaks is there an abundance of usage of personal pronouns? What kind of sports does he like? If you feel strongly he is a roger then you are most likely correct. (there are quite a lot of male roger/female clark couples around)
He focuses on other cars and the way other people drive, his attention is given to the “herd”. In other words, his focus is on people. You on the other hand can sit right next to him in your own world reveling in the scenery and not even notice other cars. He probably can’t believe it when he says “Hey, honey, did you just see what that $#%^ just did! pulled right out in front of….” and you answer, “Aah, ‘fraid I didn’t see it”. “How could you not see it?!”
Good pic btw! Great looking hat:) And kudos for not wearing those sunglasses for the picture!! clarks are not overly fond of having their pictures taken, least not the ones you have to “pose” for.
Yo! Mr. Progenitor clark. There are some people who may not immediately identify the female in the first video as a clark. Would you care to explain it? One can not narrow it down to a combination of headdressing and footwear or oddly paired/ androgenous clothing as she appears “appropriately” attired for the occasion.
Could it have anything to do with how she looks out and over the audience? (Her gaze never lingers in any one direction. Could it have something to do with “hey, there’s a little instrumental break, better turn my back to the audience so I can pretend no one is really looking/staring at me”?
With a clarklike female you have “a girl with faraway eyes”…
my mistake…
in the process of listening to other videos of Sofia, I came upon some footage….wait a minute let me get the vid and will show you and let you people decide…
Lots of conversation at this post. Seems like as good a place as any….
Progenitor clark and I were conversing briefly this morning about the Wakefield Doctrine Saturday Night Drive(About). Physically in the car were 2 scotts and a clark. (Yee-ikes! ) In the dashboard riding digital shotgun for the other clark was yours truly. Was there counterbalance? Could have been. But there was not. Which raised the question: was my “withdrawal” deliberate or was I succombing to overwhelming “rank-o-felia” by scotts. Excellent question. In this particular instance, my withdrawal was intentional. I decided to sit and let the scottian energy swirl and twirl without me. clarks are like this. We can as just as simply “sit one out” as deflect and inflict twofold that which a scott may hurl in our direction. clarks and scotts often enjoy/engage in this type of sparring but damn if it isn’t rather tiring at times. lol And yet, it can have a decidedly positive effect on the clark. What is that “positive” effect? In part it calls out our own “scottian” tendencies, ripping us away from the “internal” dialogue that is a constant with we like people and puts us on a playground of the present. Simple energy. Energy begets energy. Speaking of….my brain is so very tired. (where are the scotts when ya need them?)
Alright then! Thank you for posting an “easy” one (vid demonstrating clarklike female).
Everyone, (you too Molly, as per our previous conversations on how to identify clarklike females) take note of Sofia’s clothing. The first thing that should “jump out” at you is the pairing of the boots (style) with her dress. Some of you, the males will be in the majority, and rogerian women ev-erywhere, are saying “wtf?! is she wearing on her feet?” But as the video shows the close ups….look! Look at what Sofia is wearing on her arms? I call them “Keaton (as in Diane, Paroness of clarklike females of the werld ) arm covers”. I have seen her somewhere at some point wearing such things only they were black. (clarks of the female persuasion love everything black – clothing/shoes/boots, especially boots. Hell I once thought my wedding dress, should I ever marry, might be black. But that’s another story to tell….)
Bottom line? There is no mistaking that Sofia with the faraway eyes and voice is a clark. How difficult was that?
Well. I’m thinking this Sofia person is a roger. I know about the shoes and clothing thing, but more importantly, there is an attention to detail that is very telling. Her primary attention is to the guitar ( she’s actually playing it! ) and when she’s not doing anything at the moment, she is monitoring the backup guys and the orchestra. Because it matters very much. I think the accoutrements are pretty far down her list of priorities.
“No-o-o mutha-fkr” (the lady)** You did not hear the sentence that was made…..(the lady again) I am telling you you are incorrect on this one. Look at the second video. I should know as I am a clarklike female. My “sistas” will tell you the same. Yo Molly! Claire! Explain to RCoyne why Sofia is a clark. Not only that but also why she not a roger. (better “sit yor ass down” for this one buddy – damn! the lady again**)
** Long story but if you want to know ask RCoyne
P.S. Mr. Coyne, the second vid is in clarkscottroger’s the 3rd comment prior to yours. In case you want to change your mind….
P.S.S. A rogerian woman would not be caught dead wearing that outfit on stage in front of her peers and all “the werld” (the lady**)
**Yes, you can ask RCoyne about the lady.
I guess my first question related to Sofia and whether she is a clark or a roger is ‘At the time that was recorded, how trendy was that look?’ A few years ago, those arm warmers were being worn by ‘everyone’ and I couldn’t go to Jackson without seeing dozens of women pairing boots with dresses… but then, they were the tourists and probably thought they were dressing for the area.
I’m still new to this, and haven’t quite figured out the whole dress code thing when identifying people.
My goodness!
That is a long discussion about Sofia outfit… look, I should be of help but I have a huge confession to make: most of the time I am wearing sportswear and simple tee-shirt; I do not give a damn about dress-code… hell, I don’t even understand them (the dress-codes) + I despise fashion, although I am following it every day despite me (would say Meryl Streep in “The Devil Wears Prada”). Anyhow, my question is: what’s wrong with pairing boots with a skirt or a dress? The… what was it? ah yes, arm warmers, I have seen them in one of my favorite series (please don’t boo me, “Charmed”) but here in Sweden, nada… well except for Sofia obviously! Yet, I live in the central Sweden which means the countryside, so I might be the last person to ask anything about that kind of stuff… Did it help at all? LOL
coming back to Sofia… the outfit Yuck! the make up, double Yuck! and the song… well matches the singer. Now, why would I want her to be a Clark – even if she is – seriously. Unfortunately, she might be a Clark because she kind of over thought that outfit big time…
Edit to Comment below:…was written during time in which Claire submitted her Comment…(one advantage of editorial control) I can say, “yes, I still mean what I am about to say about clarks and clothing…” I guess the ‘serious’ point of my Comment is: the goal for us is to figure out what the other person is seeing, in terms of their reality. The bad news is that some are more difficult to figure than others, the good news is that you have time (to figure it out) the person you are trying to understand is not going to change their type. They will keep acting like a clark or a scott or a roger* until you get it right
Molly,
good point (about establishing an established trend in terms of fashion being useful indicator of personality type), in order to establish the context of the (choice of clothing)…as DS#1 points out, if she is a roger then she would not wear clothing that was not very clearly ‘fashionable’ yet if she is a clark then the opposite is true.
clarks are the creative ones, so the time factor is important, what becomes fashionable will be seen on clarks prior to it becoming popular…
Keep in mind, this Doctrine thing of ours, it is a set of guidelines to let (you) see the world as the other person is seeing in…no, make that ‘how the other person is experiencing it’. This distinction is critical, experiencing v seeing the world.
So look for all of the above in any person, it is just that there are some characteristics that show stronger for one type than the other, but you still need to check one against the other, example is the clothing the clothing of a clarklike female?…does she have bad posture?…shoes?…does she use a lot of personal pronouns? is she directly seductive, does she have those neck tendon thingies…
then she is…
* don’t forget, you will see rogerian tendancies in a clark and scottian characteristics in rogers…those two are in there…but it is always about predominance of type
btw: the excessive use of personal pronouns = roger, the directly seductive = scottian female, neck tendons = scott
Excellent point Molly. How to decipher….Take the boot/dress issue. Certainly, there are “appropriate” and very stylish pairings of boots and dresses that are worn, more so probably where you live.
How to differentiate between a rogerian woman wearing boots and a dress vs a clarklike female wearing same? The rogerian women will be currently “stylish”. That is to say her outfit will be “matching”, it will reflect a current, contemporary look. With the clarklike female there will be an “incongruity”, a unique take on fashion that does not necessarily adhere to any particular “trend” or “look”.
You must have an example of your own self where someone, could be husband or sister or friend asks you something like “you are wearing (insert article of clothing or accessory) with that?
ok so lets keep in mind….fashion choice is only one of number of admittedly subjective tools that the Wakefield Doctrine offers us… trying one ‘test’ against another with a person is how these things usually work.
It is an art (more) than science, at least at this stage of the game.
Fortunately, by definition and the (early) prediction of the Doctrine itself, the ‘pioneers’ of this thing of ours are people with very flexible intelligence, highly developed ‘non-dominant’ aspects and by most accoutns….mutants! lol
LOL. well, as the risk of my rogerian hypersensitivity…
As a roger, all she would require would be that something matched something else.
For some this “extended” conversation about Sofia may seem trivial but it has “opened” my brain box a bit wider. The Progenitor roger’s one comment (where was your follow up?) made me stop and consider how a person may approach “identifying” an individual – from their own perspective of course! Using criteria that pertains to their own selves first makes sense. Do we not first “look” to see if we identify with an individual, for example. Can we relate to anything about them? How they act in a group, alone – how they speak, big words, loud words, as we have been discussing, the way they dress etc. What are the “true identifiers” that tell me how a person is “experiencing” the world. RCoyne zeroed in on aspects he perceived through the lens of….a roger. He acknowledged the clarklike “characteristics” about Sofia and yet still perceived a roger. I find that quite interesting.
Just as interesting and rather enlightening for my own self is Molly M.’s uncertainty in comfortably identifying another clarklike female. In what manner first does someone new to this thing, the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers, begin the figuring thing (are they clark, scott or roger). Then there is Clairepeek. Self-identified clark and new FOTD who couldn’t care less about what Sofia is wearing. Would anyone other than a clark (scott or roger) make the statement: ” I do not give a damn about dress-code”? Of course not!
Thanks RCoyne for stimulating the conversation at the Doctrine. It would be helpful to have more input from you. Do not be a stranger here. Consider this place as a HUGE dinner table and it’s the holidays.**
**Dinnertime at my house in ancient times, especially at the holidays (being so very festive and all, uh-huh) often involved loud, controversial, opinionated, colorful and otherwise stimulating conversation. Yo! Pass me some smashed potatoes!