the Wakefield Doctrine, (the) best self-improvement system ever and one re-fried Post damn! what won’t these people do?

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

HEY!  For some reason the following Post keeps turning up, as the ‘Landing Page’ when a fair number of people come to the Wakefield Doctrine.
Originally titled:  “if you vote for me, all your wildest dreams will come true (Pedro)”  and published about a year ago, it seems to never go away. Now, the explanation might be that this be the Post that most people came to, the last time they visited the Doctrine !(….lol).
Or it might be the excellent video from Mr. Loaf and Ms. Foley. Whatever.
The Post Title is a reference to a movie, Napoleon Dynamite  that came out in 2004 and apparently became something of a cult classic… I have tried to watch it, sort of enjoyed it…never really became a fan. Doesn’t really matter.
In any event,2 presented in it’s entirety, the Post that made the whole world….

…..Readers!! and Lookers…an Encore Presentation1


“At the very real risk of compounding a series of bad (editorial) choices, I am leaving the following to “run” as today’s Post. There were a number of technical difficulties associated with it that normally would have had me throwing the whole thing on the ground and starting over, but I liked the video and couldn’t stand to part with it (Post-wise).
In any event, if you are a New Reader?  better get used to it. There is a universe full of entertaining, informative, well written blogs available at the mere click of a mouse, and there is the Wakefield Doctrine.

Now that I see the words in ‘print’ I just had another satoristic  moment, a new appreciation of this thing of ours!
I’ll bet you that on a good percentage of the Posts that get published, this place looks like a scott’s house/apt.  Bear with me here, I know what I mean to say, not sure how to put it. I’m talking about the ‘tone’ or style, maybe of these Posts; I am thinking that some of them will be kinda scottian. No one element that I can point to, a certain frenetic quality, impulsive un-orderly way of attempting to make a point. That is not to say that scotts are not good housekeepers, (they are not, rogers are the good housekeepers), and not that scotts aren’t the most likely to be taken by curiosity, (they do have a streak of curiosity but it is clarks that are the eclectic of the three). But if you were to go into a scott’s house/room/workshop/library, you would find a really odd bunch of things. Nothing that would betray a need to be orderly, a lot of broken instruments, tons of magazines and not a few half-eaten sandwiches on plates at work benches (… you know a scott was working and eating and then something else caught their attention and BAM out the door). This is the den of a scott, eclectic without a need to preserve, variety without the drive to catalogue.

But I was starting to say, it just struck me that taken as a collection, these Posts are beginning to reflect, at varying times a clarklike consideration, a scottian impulsiveness and a rogerian formality!

Damn, maybe this frickin Doctrine is starting to work!
In any event, below is the ‘original’ Post for today.  ……see ya

Everyone knows the story of how the theory of clarksscotts and rogers came to be known as the Wakefield Doctrine, right?  ( your monitor gets wavy, you come back into focus in…in  Hollywood?)


Clark and Glenn are in animated discussion, it is clear that the topic is one they are both very, very familiar with and they are covering old ground


Blah, blah blah…I know and you know and I know that the theory is valid and way, way more useful than most of the crap that you use for your trainings. When are you gonna incorporate it into one of your modules?


Hey, I know its useful I been in this car listening to you for the last 15 years, haven’t I?


So what’s it gonna take to do something with this thing…what do you need to take it on the road? Hell, I know you are already stealing parts of it in your presentations


Credibility. Thats what it needs…If I go out there in front of my Board of Directors and say, ‘this new module is based on ‘the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers’ they will laugh…


Yeah, but…it works… it is useful…


And it sounds like it came out of a dorm room…from the 70s. I work in a corporate environment…credibility, empirical…metrics…you hearin this?


I get it, I get it…fine! then I’ll change the name…you want credibility?…from now on the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers is…the…Doctrine, the Wakefield Doctrine!


Fuckin yeah!

Did you happen to notice that we had a (fairly un-common) pairing here of a scott/scott?  Ellen Foley is pretty obviously a scott, but Meatloaf not immediately so; but if you are not convinced watch the end (7:44) of the song.

1) Encore Presentation: too tired/lazy/busy to go to the effort to create something new, but one must never admit that!  How rogerian is that?

2) ‘in any event’  thats ‘old people‘ for ‘whatever’3

3) which is, in turn, ‘somewhat older people‘  for….


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