Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers ).
(Ed Note: see the following words all spread out on the preview?… it will make sense when you open to the full Post… formatting is not our strong suit ’round here)
Friday (?) (check!)
Wakefield Doctrine (?) (check!)
Youtube video (?) (check!)
10 more couples (?) (che….)
What?! 10 more couples? What 10 more couples?…. oh yeah, the last Post. We made the claim that if you had 50 couples in a room, told them, “If you had one wish that would improve some aspect of your relationship, what would it be?” …most of the people would look at their partner first. Alright, now I remember. But…but… today is Video Friday!
Today is the one day of the week where all we have to do is watch a Video…no work at reading and thinking and such! Sorry folks today is a work day, so watch the Video, read about the couples under that and we will see you at the bottom of this Post.
10 more Couples:
Martin and Lewis1 (Comedy Act in the 1940’s and 1950’s)
Scully and Muldar ( The X Files TV series ‘couple’)
Siegfried and Roy (Las Vegas animal act)
Brennan and Booth ( ‘Bones’ TV series ‘couple’)
Romeo and Juliet ( the DiCaprio and Danes version)
George and Barbara Bush (the first set of Bushes in the White house)
Sarah Jessica Parker and Mathew Broderick ( celebrity couple)
Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings ( totally cool couple)
Hilary and Bill Clinton (another political couple)
Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin (celebrity couple)
There you go. Take notes, make assumptions, advance theories, forward your suppositions there are three personality types and (usually) two people in a couple2 so you have a 87% chance of being right!
But we know you can do better than that! And besides, this is not a test nor is it strictly a game (although this is supposed to be fun!), this is about learning to identify the three personality types. The quicker you are at picking the (dominant) personality type, the more time you will have to observe their behavior.3
1) old person reference…but hey that’s why god invented ‘the google’ but even when you have it explained, there will be chrono-cultural gaps that will not be bridgeable so anyone under the age of 25 can get free credit on this one.
2) not counting the Three Stooges or the Marx Brothers or Ben Affleck
3) remember! the Wakefield Doctrine maintains that all people have one dominant personality type/worldview and still have the qualities of the remaining two personality types in the background. The ‘second runner-up’ or ‘secondary aspect’ is nearly as important to determine as is the primary. But don’t worry about that for now. Have fun figuring out these couples!
About clarkscottroger
I don’t know, maybe it was the bowl of crazy flakes this am….I read somewhere recently at the Doctrine a comment @ the hierarchy of rogers. Was that you ProRo? (Yeah, think it was you.)
Let’s talk more about that. Sure you can…work it into the couples therapy if you like. All I know is that I have witnessed recently some weirdass shit with rogers. Yes, I know rogers don’t really like each other. But there does seem to be a scottian type “hey, who do you think you are?!
And what happens when a roger goes on a rampage? How do 2 rogers duke it out? (no,not literally)
Re: clark/roger couple. Best way for the clark to get right to the heart of the matter. What is the most effective “slap upside the head” to the roger?
Yes, there is absolutely something in the air today. I’m not going to play with this one at all, it’s not a good day for that. Let’s go straight up.
Correct. Rogers generally don’t like each other, but it’s usually because they’re from different or maybe even opposing belief systems or subsystems of some kind. It’s never personal, at least in the initial stages. Keep in mind that ” belief system” could incorporate almost anything imaginable; what makes it a belief system or not is how deeply it has been infused with emotional content.
Rogers in direct conflict? Hopefully, that would be a lot of hot air and feather-fluffing. Put up a decent display, allow everyone involved to save face, and no one has to get hurt.
Rogers on a rampage? That is very tragic. These are people who have been so stressed from within their belief system that they literally see no possible recourse except to consciously remove themselves from the system altogether. If they place themselves completely outside of their own parameters, then there are simply no rules left to have to refer to. They are in a state of absolute anarchy. Nothing at all matters. Latest example? The staff sergeant in Afghanistan who walked a mile down the road, slaughtered half a village, walked back and turned himself in. And why did he bother with that detail? Wife and two kids…if they at least can somehow find out why, then they might have a chance to live their own lives; otherwise, he would have kept right on going.
Suicide bombers, school shootings, attacks on abortion clinics…all rogers that see themselves as having no other choice. It can also be quite heroic, too. Rogers are the ones who will actually sacrifice themselves for the greater good. It all depends on emotional content.
“…It’s never personal…”
I thought a roger’s theme in life was ‘everything is personal’. Mind explaining this?
Thanks.
Rogers generally don’t like each other, but it’s usually because they’re from different or maybe even opposing belief systems or subsystems of some kind. It’s never personal,
As insight into how a roger will perceive their world, this is an interesting statement and I too and not sure how the Progenitor roger intends the use of the term ‘personal’.
The Wakefield Doctrine does, of course, describe rogers as people for whom everything is personal. And the Doctrine means that in the sense that the individual (roger) believes that everything that happens around them is meant to be directed at them by people who have an emotional connection (to the action) that the roger sees as affecting them.
Being the ultimate social person, the roger sees everything in terms of people and (therefore) all actions that impinge on their lives are always the result of (other) people’s actions that are founded in that person focusing on the roger, in personal terms. As opposed to a person who may act against another, just because it may advance the first person’s interests.
As an example:
Lets say a roger works at a large engineering company. The company gets bought out by another company and the first thing the new owners do is fire half of the engineers from the original company, for cost-savings purposes. There is no doubt that, upon getting his/her layoff notice, the roger’s totally initial reaction would be, “how can they do this to me?“.
(a clark’s initial reaction will be, ‘god, how will I ever get another job…I have totally let down my husband/wife‘)
(a scott’s initial reaction will be, ‘Shit! bastards…oh well…next!’)
…like that
Hello all, Steve reporting from the Dirty Boulevard. Romeo had Juliet. Excellent, love it, it fits right in – I’m going into the recording studio in the AM, 930 am CST till about 2:00pm tomorrow, Sat. Nice segue. Lou Reed, where the hell is Niko? PLAYBACK recording 30 sec clips for website. Stay tuned. Let’s talk about these couples. I’m going with my first gut feeling on each as it applies to the WD. 40
Martin and Lewis1 (Comedy Act in the 1940′s and 1950′s)
Dean was a Clark, Jerry was a Roger. Dean the straight man, not demanding, but Jerry was Type A Personality, very stand off-ish, went thru several changes in his demeanor in real life. His kid, the Justin B of that time period, was not good. Tho, the songs were OK, “I’m Mr Blue” was his best song to me. Or maybe, “This Diamond Ring” by Gary Lewis & The Playboys (sheesh) was probably recorded by the Wrecking Crew, a group of studio musicians who did The Monkees and the Beach Boys on LP. Hal Blaine, a great drummer, was one of the Crew. Gary could barely stay on pitch, his voice THIN. Jerry, on the other hand, had connections and was a Rat Pack Roger. Dean, follwed the crowd, glad to play the Clark.
Scully and Muldar ( The X Files TV series ‘couple’) I do not care about this show or these people. N/A for me.
Siegfried and Roy (Las Vegas animal act)
I saw them at the Frontier, had the best seats in the house, compliments of the ‘seater’ who I handed a HONEYBEE to and we got the best seats, I could seriously touch them, we were that close. Glad the tiger was bored that evening. At the end, they took off in what appeared to be a space ship. Fitting. Those two guys, man, talk about EGO MANIACAL! When you would clap your ass off, they would cue the band (DA DA!) “Vat iz it, you don’t like it?” More applause. On and On. I could drink three martini’s after each trick, they bathed in the applause. I did drink several martini’s, gaydar went beserko, but the women dancing first, right near our table by the stage, was titillating. Literally. Both are probably, since they perform, Rogers, with Roy being more laid back with a little bit of Clark, and light in the loafers, Gucci I’m sure. Tho, I couldn’t really tell thru all the spandex with sequins. Rogers, with Roy a slight chance of some Clark.
Brennan and Booth ( ‘Bones’ TV series ‘couple’) Huh? Got a life.
Romeo and Juliet ( the DiCaprio and Danes version) I’m king of the world and Juliet is not a real woman. No woman I know would just LIVE for the time they spend with their OTHER. She couldn’t even pee without thinking of him. Fiction. Danes, a Clark, Cap a Scottish/Roger, because he was demanding and annoying as well as being P whipped. IMHO.
George and Barbara Bush (the first set of Bushes in the White house) Yee and Haw. Live in the same area as I do. No, their son does, elder lives in Saudi Arabia. Barbara was a Scott and George was a semi-Scottish Roger. He would pound his fists when people said Barbara looked like George Washington. Check your dollar bill. Similarity is amazing.
Sarah Jessica Parker and Mathew Broderick ( celebrity couple) Oh boy! THIS is my fav twosome. Matt is so Clarksian it hurts my sack, and Sarah is a total Scott. Throws fits over shoes and isn’t that good-looking to me. Ferris YES. Music Man? ha ha ha! 76 trombones in the closet with Sarah’s 76 pairs of Manalo Blanik shoes. Clark man and Scott woman = I told Clark I wanted a topic on this combo. Sarandon+Robbins.
Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings ( totally cool couple) Louie Louie Loo-aahhhhh, Louie Louie Wee . . . When it came to Brown Sugar, Tom had his way. Thomas a total perfect ROGER. Sally, a Clark, maybe. That was an interesting couple for sure. But, not to Tom’s wife. Or Sally’s shine man. (using old rhetoric for establishing the time period in correct fashion and those were actual descriptions). Thomas is one of the guys I would love to have dinner with – he and Ben Franklin are in my top 5 on that deal. Real thinkers, real men. What can brown do for you, Tom?
Hilary and Bill Clinton (another political couple) Oh man. SCOTT just SCREAMS at me with Billary. That woman is supposed to be SO smart, but she must not ‘go down’ when she needs to. She is TOO GOOD for THAT activity! And man, what an offspring. I go limp looking at that (is she a female?) thing. Bill is too cool for words. A womanizer, smooth talking man, knows his topics backward and forwards, I think he should be President again. He would just LOVE the new interns. So I’ve heard from Barney Fwank. Actually, Bill is as hetero as they come, a complete ROGER with some (smooth-fake) Clarksian moves in his speech delivery. Smooth talking guy. Got to give it up to a man who can have a flight attendant give him a BJ in the bathroom.
And, really now. Look at Hillary. Smart is one thing, a ever-growing big ass is another. The pants suit that stretches is her type attire. Especially in dealing with world leaders. Bill, you are a ROGER with Clarksian speeches when it suits you. 2 thumbs up for Bill. Hillary? Probably a shrew.
Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin (celebrity couple) oh geez. Daugher of a real actress marries a muscian, who’s band sounds the same on every song. Angst riddled songs about how hard life is a 40,000 feet in your Lear Jet with 5 double Platinum releases and every song is in a TV show. Both are Clarks. IMHO. No, hell now – IN MY OPINION, they are made for each other- SPOILED POOR ME people who, when interviewed, speak of how hellish life is being ‘a star’. Chris? Your teeth, man, dude, do something – Bela Lugosi is flopping around underground and Gwyn = stop bringing up YOUR MOM all the time. OK OK OK, we get that she is/was an actress. You, on the other hand, well . . . I have a recording session tomorrow. Hitting the Ambien and crashing like Newt Gingrich in an all-you-can-eat political fund-raiser. Speaker of the House of Pancakes. Speaker of the Waffle House. Not Presidential material. . . .
Steve the Roger in Big D – wish me luck for tomorrow – rocking at 900am? whew. That’s it, thanks for the mention of my name in the car video. I got a little seasick . . . eVeryone HaVe a greAt WeekEnD. Ambien has kicked innnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
interesting Comment…almost haiku-like (“…no grasshopper, 17 syllables not pages, syllables…lol)
good to hear from you Steve…I will weigh in first by virtue of being awake at the un-godly hour of 3:222am
First thought…while most of us do not watch TV anymore (this write-the-story-as-you-go virtual reality is way more fun) however, I like ‘TV series couples’ because they are written to a style and often are a reflection of the culture/zeitgeist when they were popular… i.e. Muldar/Scully and Brennan/Booth
Now I assume Chris Carter (X Files creator) did not have the Wakefield Doctrine in mind when he created Muldar and Scully but damn! how much better an illustration of the clarklike male and the rogerian female*?
And Duchovny is also a good example of a clark who is not the characteristic geek, introvert… I suppose I could have put up Duchovny/Leoni and then we would have had a clear case of clarklike male/scottian female
Good gut on most of the others, though there will be disagreement/discussion on some of your picks (pretty much just the Martin Lewis nexus… I would tend to go more with scott on Lewis…. the mugging, the ‘HEY! HEY! HEY! quality. Surely the Jim Carrey of the 40s)
(…and as always, we look to see if we can sense how these people are relating themselves to the world)
Good Luck on the thing in the am… thats Dinner Time in the Marshall Islands, dude (hey! tape a couple of reds to your arm and have them for dinner….then call us at 8pm EST which I do believe it 6 pm TeXcess Time…)
*rogerian females being way under-studied and all
Aha! I think I am back from crazyland…..I more or less had part of the answer my own damn self!
The roger with a secondary clarklike nature and the roger with the secondary scottian nature are certainly the same beast. They experience the same reality (a reality that revolves around them). Until certain situations elicit a reaction that may on face value appear scottian, for example. (overtly aggressive/spontaneous/without forethought (somewhat sociopathic? lol) The Progenitor roger says it this way:
“Rogers generally don’t like each other, but it’s usually because they’re from different or maybe even opposing belief systems or subsystems of some kind”.
The subsystem(s) being the secondary characteristic(s) conflicting? (“I am going with that answer Alex”).
“Hierarchy” is self-explanatory.
The sense of “difference” among rogers from my point of view is pretty obvious but thanks for clarification on the subsystem thing.
As to the not being personal “at least in the initial stages“. That makes perfect sense. Different from the scottian “not personal”. scotts don’t have the memory, don’t have the desire to hold onto a thing. “Here today, gone tomorrow” surely was spoken by a scott. Surely I wander from my original thought….lol
rogers are very much emotional. Heck, they are all emotion and everything emanates from them therefore they can say that things are not personal until they make it personal. Which, on face value, might not make sense to a new reader. (All I can say is keep reading and learning)
(Re-reading the preceding babble), I appreciate clarkscottroger’s succinct statements in explanation of rogers and their way at viewing the world. Especially via his end-of-comment example offering the counterpoint view of a clark and scott respectively.
It has been my experience, as a clark (when dealing with a roger), that when the kid gloves are not being worn, it is best to approach a roger sideways. Except now that I am grooming my scottian aspect, I am feeling a sense of “wtf do I care if I am wearing gloves or not” (geez, fingerless or the ones that reach my elbows?)
Yo Steve! a roger from Tex-ass. This last one’s for you buddy!! Let me say welcome aboard once again!
” It’s never personal.”
Yes, I’ll explain that.
Rogers start off their life’s journey as sheep in sheep’s clothing. I’m convinced that we all do, really. And by the time we’ve all gotten to that crux point at age 5-6, the influences that we’ve all been subjected to up until that point will begin to take root.
So we all slowly begin to split off, and we begin to use the coping tools that have been picked up along the way. Scotts begin to learn the pack rules, clarks start working on their camoflage skills…and rogers continue to be sheep in sheep’s clothing. They don’t really have anything to protect themselves. Ultimately, they’ll become part of a larger social structure of some sort; civilized society as a defense against scotts in hunt mode, or clarks in… undermine mode?
Regardless of how that may all develop, a roger will likely amass several years of being chased down, bitten, and chewed on. Some will develop a defensive skill set pretty quickly( the girls, mostly ) others not so much.
So when you hear a roger saying ‘ how can they do this to me,’ they are actually asking an honest question, one born of hurt and confusion. They don’t yet understand all that is occurring, or why. With some luck, they’ll sort it out for themselves.
So, it’s never personal. Not initially. But the odds are it will get personal soon enough.
…so is it the attacks, bites, nipples and saute(ing) that you (as a roger) recognize as not ‘being personal’ or are you maintaining that (a) roger does not view the infringement (of the world) as a personal event, i.e. ‘I am running you down with my car because of who you are (a roger)… not just because you happened to have picked the middle lane of Route 95 as the place to spread your red and white checked table cloth because it would be such a nice spot, and there don’t seem to be any ants at all!
lol
No. Not at all.
I ( as a roger) recognize the attacks, bites, nipples? and sauteing as quite personal in nature. It would seem more a case of ” I am running you down because of who you are ( personal ) and also on behalf of your entire species” ( genocidal.)
lol ok as long as our efforts do not go un-appreciated
Un-appreciated – never. Under appreciated, that’s another story!