With a basic understanding of the characteristics of each group (clarks, scotts and rogers), anyone can understand everyone else!  You will know how those around you will  act in virtually any situation. Finally you can understand what has never made sense to you about the people you work with, live with and/or are friends with. You will have the answer to the question, ‘Why on earth would you do that/say that/feel that way?’

August 5  The First Topic:

To the statement that …’ as an effect of a social institution, dominance may accrue to an otherwise submissive individual, in the case (for instance)  where a rogerian prison guard would have a dominance relationship relative to a scottian prisoner.’

(Glenn) …I would posit that the Scott in prison is still dominant in an interpersonal context. The guard holds only institutional power. That is not dominance. The guard is most likely scared shitless of the prisoner. The prisoner effectively, still “owns” the guard. I have seen that dynamic repeatedly in correctional facilities where I have worked. The prisoner, upon being “punished” by the guard, smiles—because he knows the truth–”I own you you coward.” And he knows that the guard knows it too. Situational power is not recognized by scotts as meaningful or legitimate. In a thousand subtle ways the guard communicates his submission to the power of the scott every day–even though he has superior bureaucratic power. Both know that that is ultimately no power at all. By the way, Rogers in possession of institutional power are some of the most dangerous people in the world. The justification to torture one’s enemies so prevalent in the world today is a totally rogerian construct. “If someone is bad enough, or dangerous enough, it is OK to do anything you think necessary to them–or they’ll hurt you.” This is a coward’s construct—strictly rogerian. A roger does not perceive the evil inherent in this kind of rationalizing. They truly feel entitled to torture on the basis of their own “victimhood” . See the movie “Taken” for a sickening example of this concept. The movie’s message seems to be that torture is Ok and even useful when used against “bad guys”. Later I will expound upon victimhood, a most cherished status for a roger. Rogers LOVE to be seen as “victims”. It gives them a pretext for all kinds of emotional excess–rage, torture, righteousness, vengeance,etc…Rogers love their feelings.

(Clark) …I agree about the personal/visceral nature of dominance. It is an energy thing as much, (more in all likelihood), as an intellectual agreement between people. The extent to which it can be expressed, is constrained/limited by the social context.

I will, (with conditions), agree with the concept of victimhood and rogers. However I would add two perspectives that augment the core idea, a)for a roger the emotional content of ‘victim-hood’ is the whole point; b) the victim (in “victim-hood”) does not exist without a “victor”.
This is not of the nature of a counter claim, I am just making a point about how scotts are dependent on rogers.
(In a close, initimate, yet tasteful relationship).

August 7

(ed. note the 2 replies below showed up 1 minute apart, glenn’s getting in at 4:18, roger at 4:19, glenn tees off first.)

(Glenn)  ‘You are right about the curious dependency of scotts on rogers. It is the same dependency of lions on antelope. The lions do not respect or value the antelope in any intrinsic way—but, the lion starves without the antelope. Scotts need a steady supply of rogers as a food source. While the scotts outwardly and consciously feel a disdain for rogers, they are also uncomfortably aware of the dependency. Don’t ask us to talk much about it, though. It’s bad enough as an ill-formed thought. Giving it voice makes it all too real. So, we affect an indifference to them–or open hostility toward them. But (and it costs me plenty to say this), thank god for rogers. They sure are tasty.’

((the) clark)I would submit that it is not ‘a curious dependency’ it is a natural dependency. If rogers provide food/nourishment/life for scotts, then scotts are the direct cause of creating better rogers. The process of selection (as in ‘natural’) says that the rogers that comprise the large part of scotts diet are the old, weak and otherwise lesser examples of the rogerian race.

(Mr. Roger, if you please…)

From the Roger;
Glenn, I have got to say that that is some damn good stuff there. You put up your argument so effectively that I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly,and then going ” hey wait…I’m a Roger, WTF am I doing…” anyway, nice job! But of course I feel compelled to throw in a few cents worth. What if, just for contrast’s sake, we keep with the prison scenario ( that just works so well; the relationships are completely static, and the personalities stand out very starkly against that backdrop) and substitute clark/scott/roger for either the prisoner or the guard. You get a whole different dynamic, and each would be equally defensible from the POV of its progenitor. Of course, it should eventually lead to you MFs conceding finally that the Rogerian Way is the One True Way,and we could all relax and have some herbal tea in a big circle. So what would happen if you had Rogers for prisoners and Rogers for guards? Not much. The prison would be empty, because they’d all be out taking classes at the local community college. And what would a Clark/Clark look like? Try as I might, my brain just won’t go there….