Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine¹

Is it me, or is it totally paradoxical  that, as the Wakefield Doctrine begins to attract more and more Readers, the number of  rogerian (participants) appears to be declining?

…why do I say this?     “To begin with”…  ( hey!! lock the doors, the scotts are bolting for the door!) …  we should explain something about the ‘natural’ relationship between rogers and scotts…

rogers are to scotts as:

• prey are to predator
• diastolic is to systolic
• (the) drive to reproduce is to natural selection

In a very, very recent conversation with a roger (Phyllis), she mentioned that MJM had referred to a known clark as being ‘ a roger because she was so interested in (the) family history’. This is incorrect, but understandable, and as such provides an illustration of the differences and distinction among the three personality types of the  Wakefield Doctrine which, as we should all totally know by now, is predicated on the proposition that all people experience the world in one of three characteristic ways, that of a clark and how a scott perceives the world and the perception of the rogers.
(As the Doctrine provides), to be a clark is to live in the world as an outsider, to survive as a scott is to act appropriately to an inherently hostile world and to thrive as a roger is to know that the world is grounded in rules and order. MJM’s  mistaken identification ( of a clark as a roger because of interest in family history) is quite useful to illustrate the Doctrine, to wit  the distinction between personality types  when they appear to have identical interests.  It is axiomatic that a roger is totally interested in genealogy, the construction of family trees and delineation of  relationships through time…and it all starts (and ends) with the roger. A clark can also be interested in family history (…you know the one, the spinster aunt with the odd sense of humor (usually reserved for the children who always shows up at family reunions and funerals) and will gather information on the family and family history.
But whereas a roger will gather records of births and deaths and display them in a precise and almost scientific format ( …’clearly the Uncle Shaughnessy is 3 degrees removed from the primary Irish ancestors…), your typical clark² will not have charts and illustrations, they will have stories and memories and anecdotes about the people in the family.
The roger sees the study of family with themselves as the focal point,  a clark will simply gather stories, whether they play a role in these stories or not (most likely not). The roger lives in a world in which the people are connected and linked and can be proven to lead from one person to another over time. The clark lives in a world of people who are not connected directly to them, a world in which they know they have a place but it is not provable and it is only by possessing knowledge of the family and the history of the people that comprise the family, do clarks feel they belong.   Get it? …now back to the lesson:

• nails to the hammer
• roots to the tree
• memory to life

Got it?  So, where are the rogers?
Out there, waiting to see if ‘the room fills up’…only then can they/will they approach us. They will join immediately,  if a scott tells them to …(but they will not stay);  they will challenge the validity of the Wakefield Doctrine if a clark invites them to join…(and they will stay to become very valued members,  if they can see the Wakefield  Doctrine as comprising a herd).

Go figure

1)  the theory of clarks,  scotts, and rogers
2) yeah, as if