(…Hello.)

Welcome. (again…)

In the pages of this blog is the Wakefield Doctrine.

The Wakefield Doctrine is nothing less than the categorization of all people into 3 groups: clarks, scotts and rogers. As you read this blog you will see that while we all possess the qualities of all three groups, you are most predominantly one or the other or the other.

The special value of the Wakefield Doctrine is (that it is)based on characteristic way(s) of perceiving the world. Most other personality systems attempt to catalog behavior; we do not. Our system describes how a person perceives the world and therefore all subsequent behavior is extrapolated from this.

And it seems to work.

So read, contribute, whatever.

(You are somewhere in this blog.)

 

(Until a better format is found, I will use this most prominent of spots to address you binyons…)

Thanks for the (initial) contributions. While the Progenitors among us see in what we have done so far, a familiar dynamic. Let me say here that this shit is so totally correct.

The big question: can we (collectively and individually) see a return for our effort, a benefit to offset the cost? This first part is both easy and fun, but if the intent is what it is, there is much more work to be done. But I can’t imagine that any of you do not sense a direct benefit to yourselves in learning about this thing of ours. And the only way to learn about it all is to add from your experiences to the body of knowledge that (will be) the Wakefield Doctrine.

And besides, if you are still reading this, you have got to have a clarklike streak a fuckin mile wide.

This will be the place to learn about, express, correct and add to the Wakefield Doctrine (aka theory of Clarks, Scotts and Rogers.)
This theory proposes that all people have (from the start of life) three distinct ways of relating to the world.  

It is a given that we are all  born with the qualities (of each form) as potential.  At some point a predominance/predilection for one (of the three) forms expresses itself. A clark or a scott or a roger is born. No one is simply a clark or a scott or a roger. Just mostly. As a clark, as a scott or as a roger.

(June 30 2009) There are additional pages  listed in the column to the right of this text  will be specific to each form. Form-specific descriptions, information, metaphor etc, should be added there.

(June 27 2009)  Until a better structure is devised, this page will be pretty much free form, notes, entries that sort of thing. But for now the next section will be devoted to a ‘definition’ of the three forms. The definitions will be, perforce, brief characterizations of the form. Since there exists at this point no established system or ‘profile requirements’  we will simply have to wing it.

By ‘wing it’, I mean that we will approach this as a conversation to an unknown and somewhat willing audience.

(June 27, 2009)     One Rule: anyone who contributes must, as a part of their first entry, contribute, to the Wakefield Doctrine, new information/original insight as it relates to whichever form  they are, (if the contributor is a roger, the first entry must contain something to add to our knowledge of rogers, if a scott etc). After the first entry anything goes in terms of adding information or structure (to this effort) etc.

So to comply with this Rule,  lets start with a description of clarks.

Clarks are the people who live inside their heads, the world of the un-real is more real than the ‘real’ world.  (Thats my proof of being a clark; the quotes around the word real.)

So now that I have presented my qualifications, here is a quick characterizaton of clarks, scotts and rogers.

If clarks live inside their own heads, then scotts live outside. Scotts act. In the here and now, in a world of direct action. If clarks think and scotts act, then rogers feel. Rogers exist in a world of social context.

(June 28 2009)   (While we wait for the scotts out there to pick up the scent of possible prey, and the rogers to detect the soft lowing of a distant herd), allow me to relate the beginning of (this) concept of clarks, scotts and rogers.

At one time in the past, Scott (the progenitor scott) worked at a music store doing, among other things, repair on equipment. Visiting him one day I witnessed an interaction with a customer that was to be my eureka moment.

A customer came into the store and presented to scott a ‘double cassette recorder’  This machine had dual volume tone controls (for each cassette) and it had one master volume control.   The customer said to  Scott, “this thing is brand new, it worked for a couple of days, then it stopped working entirely, I can’t figure out what is wrong”.

Scott looked at the recorder briefly, took some electrical tape from under the counter, carefully put the tape over the master control volume (which he turned back up), slid the recorder over the counter and said to the customer, “there its all right now”.

The customer  tried the recorder, ran it through it’s paces, saw that it worked like new and walked out of the store without another word; totally satisfied that his cassette recorded had been fixed.

I stood there, seeing the world differently.

That is part of what the Wakefield Doctrine  (clark, scott and roger thing) is all about. It is not just about personality types/characteristics or tendencies that all as individuals might have, it is about how we percieve the world, how we then relate to the world and in the end how we  interact with the world.

Subsequent to the above moment of clarity, I tried to reduce the event to a kind of test for the telling which of the three a person might be. (Now if you dear Reader have any right to contribute to this blog, you should now be saying to yourself, ‘of course you did, clark) Anyway it worked for a while. I would write on 3 slips of paper folded and marked ‘a’, ‘b’ and’c’. On the inside of these slips was written the following:

a) put a piece of electrical tape over the master control volume and say no more;  b) explain at length the problem, the solutions and present a number of different options to deal with this in the future, all while being careful not to hurt the customers feelings and c)  tell the customers that the best thing to do was to buy a new one with different features and explain how he can use it better than the one he had.

(Each statement corresponding to the appropriate letter, of course.)

I would then tell the ‘repair story’, leaving out the ending.  At the end of the story I would tell the (clark, scott or roger) that the slips represented 3 likely solutions that Scott came up with; and depending and who I was doing this with, I was say after they have read all three the answer is you would pick: “x”.

It works everytime with scotts, less with rogers and finally with clarks. 

(June 29, 2009)  Until we attract a clark with blog layout skills to make (better) sense of this effort, we will continue with this ‘front’ page being general comments and the individual pages to the right  as comments directed to the individual forms.