Hump Day1 the Wakefield Doctrine ( “…dentists are to surgeons as firefighters are to cops …”) | the Wakefield Doctrine Hump Day1 the Wakefield Doctrine ( “…dentists are to surgeons as firefighters are to cops …”) | the Wakefield Doctrine

Hump Day1 the Wakefield Doctrine ( “…dentists are to surgeons as firefighters are to cops …”)

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

Firemen mourn the closure of Clerkenwell fire station, after finishing their last-ever shift there.

 

(Today we will take a break from the Write-a-Post-write-a-Book Series, and address a couple of Reader questions and concerns and such.)

The primary attractiveness vectors* when interacting with the opposite (or near-opposite) sex and the three personality types:

  • clarklike female: head<>feet<>face                         easy target: rogers then scotts
  • scottian female: body<>eyes<>personality           easy target: rogers and other scotts
  • rogerian woman: clothing<>hair<>friends          easy target: …er, not easy, you know, there’s like so many guys who don’t appreciate how much work goes into what she does and keeping up with the trends and…

So that we have equal time, genderistically-speaking:

  • clarklike male: shoes<>clothes<>(secret)personality  easy target: yeah, right
  • scottian male: body<>lack of escape route<>body         easy target: roger then clark, if no else around and has the first aid kit handy then a scott
  • rogerian male: fashion affectation<>talent<>friends  easy target: clark is easiest and will do if there are no scotts in the vicinity, and if the drugs or the inspiration are too strong, then a roger

 

So lets look at the eyes of a roger (and a scott):

Jack’s  a scott… (yeah, no kidding!) You see the eyes. It is not just that he is staring at Stewart (James Spader), but the intent/intensity is quite marked. That is the gaze of a scott. Go out today and watch the people you associate with, hang out with, are married to… if you see eyes like this, then you have arrived at the the first step (of) the process of identifying a person as a clarkscott or roger. The second step is to watch this person further, and decide if their behavior is consistent with what we know the behavior of a scott to be. (Are they a little, overly-exuberant? Are they fun to be with? Are they constantly joking/telling jokes, do they appear to have difficulty sitting still?) What you are doing, in this phase of personality type identification,  is inferring the (actual) reality that they are experiencing.* Once you have decided which of the three they are, the Doctrine will take care of the rest!**

James is so a roger… and his character Stewart’s eyes? they’re are all over the damn place! Watch him, watch his eyes (particularly in the context of what he is saying)! He looks to the left, he looks to the right, he looks directly at Jack, without flinching and with equal ease, he looks out the window!! Remind you of something??  (You younger Readers may miss this reference)…. ever watch those old fashioned ‘lion tamers’?  (No! not Siegfried and Roy, I mean the real old timer,  big round cage, with these like ‘stands arrayed around the interior and the Lion Tamer would go in with a whip and a chair ( yeah, scott  just like your date last night…) And this person would make the lions (and sometimes tigers) sit and stay (and a number of other ‘tricks’ that now, seem just plain cruel and childish, but that was in the last Century and humans were remarkably un-sophisticated).
In any event, the point I am trying to make here is that at the climax of the act, the Lion Tamer would do something like get close to the lions and turn his back on them. To show us how brave a man he must be and (show) the lions how dominant he feels he is.
James Spader, with his eyes is trying to do that with Jack.

Didn’t we tell you how much fun and how constantly fascinating this Wakefield Doctrine is?  And we have not even delved into what is about the reality of the scottian personality it is that makes this behavior permissible!! For that you need to call us next Saturday!

1) you want a quick id of a personality type?  at work or at school, the person who goes around announcing it’s ‘Hump Day’ and makes like it’s something to get all up about?  total  roger!

* come on!  you know what this means!!  you look in the mirror and you make the decisions to enhance your strong points (ha ha scott!) and downplay your weakness with the aid of clothes and fashion and prayer… you know! dressing for succeeding!

Share

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

Comments

  1. jny_jeanpretty says:

    I want to know, if I am such a scott … and if there were many in my family before me who also exhibited these traits.. .Can we be nice, and ethical, as well?
    Because I understand power, and the use of it and the abuse of it.
    I prefer and choose ethical and loyal behavior and I live by the golden rule.
    So did my forebears. (forebears???) !!! What the hell???
    Anyway,
    I don’t get it.
    Yes, I have never done anything I didn’t want to do, and yet these choices when I choose to go against what seems to be the flow are harmless and only important to me.
    They all have to do with a form of competition run by and for myself. Nobody else.
    I don’t want to beat anyone, although many in my family were quite famous for that in sports situations and in business and in the arts as well. It’s not my game and in fact I really dislike it. It isn’t why I do what I do and it isn’t why I am hanging out here.
    So what is that all about?
    And here is a conjecture: I think rogers have it the hardest. Do they seem to need to “go around” a few more times? I imagine it would be very painful to be a roger. Is it?
    jby

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      Jean

      the thing about scotts (and clarks and rogers, for that matter) is that, when the Doctrine ‘indicates’ a person is one of the three types, what it is saying is that: this person lives in the (personal) reality that is characterized as that of the predator…and (we go further) and say that this person relates themselves to the world around them as would a predator. (or an Outsider or a Herd Member).
      Observation (Page on scotts and on rogers and on clarks) bears out this characterization. This does not really say anything about how a given individual might choose to act, other than to say, (the scottian)individual is given to quick response, aggressiveness, certainty/confidence, dis-inclined to spend much time in abstract thought and reflection, in temperament mercurial and passionate, comfortable with the physical side of life, indiscriminate appetites, drawn to the spotlight, hasty decisions, limited attention span, open with others, friendly sexually and socially adept… scotts act (as: clarks think and rogers feel)

      Needless to say, the primary personality types (Initial Behavioral Metaphors) are (meant) to be fun, useful, accurate and provocative…

      It isn’t what you, as an individual chooses to do in a given situation (“Because I understand power, and the use of it and the abuse of it.
      I prefer and choose ethical and loyal behavior and I live by the golden rule.”), precisely… you understand Power… in a way that the other two simply do not…

      …and there are secondary and tertiary aspects (which modify, often to the extent of allowing behavior typical of the other two worldviews, but do not change the predominant worldview). I would suggest you look for a significant secondary clarklike aspect.

      good question/discussion

      • jny_jeanpretty says:

        I wrote a bunch more and it all got erased but thanks for your thoughtful explanation!
        jeanby xox

        • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

          damn meta-frickin-physcial medium… moving finger my ass!*

          Khayyám!! yo… you better back me up, that’s one strange looking Reply to a Comment…even given that this is the Wakefield Doctrine

          • jny_jeanpretty says:

            mene mene teckle eupharsen ? or is it more recent, like the Great Karnac???

            • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

              damn! ‘cellent Commentationing*

              no, alas my own Comment was way more mundane… an effort to reference the tendency for good Comments to evaporate after typed, but before made real (on the target blog)…

              * not only (initially) unknown reference, but yielded to a google and reward for (my) effort received.

              • jny_jeanpretty says:

                Hello, you have brighted a tough day up. thanks again!
                welcome to my collection of misspelled yet semi-interesting phrases.
                I cannot picture my family sitting around studying the Old Testament.They were too busy crushing their opponents on the playing fields of whatever.You name the sport, they were steamrolling everyone.
                Yet, I did study. But it was all for the illustrations in the book which I had when I was very little. They were so cool AND HAD GOLD on them. Great book!
                When I wasn’t doing that, I was listening to Broadway show songs and learning to imitate Maurice Chevalier.You know, the usual stuff kids do.
                ….”May I have the envelope please? ….”–Karnac

                • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

                  funny about sports and sports competition. while scotts are the (obviously) aggressive ones, that does not mean that they have exclusive rights to the characteristic of competitiveness

                  (reminder: in the Doctrine ‘everyone does everything at one time or another’ which simply means that for everything there is, how it manifests is different in each of the three worldviews and so competitiveness takes a certain form in scotts and a slightly different one in rogers and is also found in clarks… when there is confusing on how something is manifested in a specific worldview, it sometimes help to ‘go up a level’ to the higher more fundamental characteristics in order to see a distinction. for example: while scotts are unabashedly competitive, they do not tend to take (a competition very personally), with rogers it is the opposite, not as openly competitive but totally take it personally. rogers, naturally prefer the team competition over singular…don’t be mislead here lots of sports and activities are organized into teams but some are more rogerian than others… basketball scottian, baseball rogerian football scottian, tennis rogerian…and so on…

                  • jny_jeanpretty says:

                    How about having a carlload of trophies for tennis and squash–both the men and the women (my mom was killer, but a very shy woman…however she had no compunction about slaughtering her opponents). Also having 2 wrestlers in the family (one was professional back when there were traveling circuses), and having 2 captains of Yale teams–onewas the football captain (he was a tackle) and one was the hockey captain (he played on even once with gangrene!) . And a nationally ranked rodeo rider who is now in the Cowboy Hall of fame? He died in a freak accident practicing for a rodeo. He was team roper. That is roper, not roger.
                    They knew how to win in all sorts of ways…particularly one side of the family…they were like sports/chess players and because they were always thinking so far ahead and practiced so hard as well, they never lost. My own grandmother was a championship squash player and taught me how to return a serve in tennis so that it was impossible to get to. She forced me to learn this, just as she forced me to swim laps in our pool we belonged to. I don’t know why she chose me–there were lots of grandkids@!!!
                    No basketball except my cousin who happens to be over 7 feet tall and went to Harvard. He is a sweet guy. Very hard to get a car when you are that tall–I think he is around 7’3″. He is married now and has 5 kids.
                    ny

                    • jny_jeanpretty says:

                      yay one more erased one! boy are you lucky! This is so boring!!! I apologize!
                      It makes me happy to remember though.

  2. jny_jeanpretty says:

    Yeah I hate the term hump day and never use it, I used Woden’s day and have a little song I made up about Woden’s day which I have been singing since I was eight. It is very cheery

  3. zoe says:

    “Clarklike” new term?
    Does this mean Clarklike males are unapproachable??? Now that I think about it maybe just too well hidden….almost overlooked mine til he went all Scott for a few minutes and thats how we met.

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      actually ‘clarklike’ has been the accepted, if not not slightly awkward, adj-adverb form of ‘clark’… (no grammar skills at the moment)… you know! scottian, rogerian and clarklike…. she was a clarklike girl, he was a scottian dog….like that

  4. zoe says:

    I was remembering a recent chat in which someone said there wasnt a comparable term to Scottish or rogerian….dont recall clarklike….so what about the clarklike male as target? Do we have to wait for a secondary aspect to show up???? Too well hidden otherwise….

  5. Denise says:

    Yes, Clark. Please do elaborate on the “target” stuff.* It does make for good brain fodder as it would broaden the understanding of “dynamics” among the 3 world views. scotts are easy (no, not in that way, although…..:) ).*

    It’s those clarks and rogers. Damn, if there isn’t always a bickering couple thing always present LOL
    Why? We clarks always need to know the “why” of things. In a way different from rogers needing to know the “why” of things.

    *See Christine, Dyanne and NewJean….that’s my secondary scottian aspect!I know you guys understand the Doctrine sufficiently to identify the personalities by a person’s writing. Isn’t it fun?:)