Month: January 2010 | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 3 Month: January 2010 | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 3

You may find yourself in another part of the world, You may find yourself behind the wheel of a large automobile

January 11, 2010 By

Lets talk about COUPLES!   Yes, I’m talking about: two of a pair, walkin’ hand in hand, complete each other sentence(s)… let’s hear it for the destroyer of all (non-sexual) friendships the one, the only because we are so close we are a….can you hear it? …the world is saying it, as one, out of two….   the   Couple!

I know that (the) roger has you on CSR 101 (clarks, scotts and rogers) and this is the most correct approach to learning this thing.  Get the basics of the Doctrine down, look around at the people in your life, match description of each of the three types and your world will soon be populated with clarks, scotts and rogers; all acting and re-acting,  interacting and detracting…to your benefit and improvement.  …But is there more…? (Go ahead,  you know what’s behind this link.)

Of course there is more, how can there not be more?

There are/is/am the couple, the friendship that has sexual contrast as the primary feature/dynamic.  (Hey this is the 21st-damn-Century!)  Yes, we are talking about when 2 people are linked by sexual difference.  Male-female/male-male/female-female, does not matter.  The  sexual component does.  Make(s) the difference.  All of the difference.) (All) (OF) (IT).

They are not friends…they are a Couple!  (Here is a little mood music, courtesy of Joe Jackson.  Sorry, no video).

OK, fine.  What good does that do us?

I’ll tell you.  It gives us a very, very useful (teaching) tool for the Wakefield Doctrine.  Because the best way to understand the Doctrine is to see examples of the 3 types (of people) in your life.  And, as everyone past puberty knows, being a Couple brings out the best in us! (And so, totally the worst in us).

So, let’s begin (our little lesson) with the easiest of the Couples to identify: rogerian male/scottian female.

This is the most ‘attractive’ of Couples.  They are both attractive, in every sense of the word.  Although if you want to get technical about it, she has the ‘sex appeal’ and he has the ‘socialibility skills’.
She is hot and he is charming.  They look great together.  (Now, think about what you know about each respective type: rogers are social, herd based and will identify with the group, scotts are individualistic and will hunt alone, but will focus all attention on one person at a time.)

But how do you really know that you are meeting a scottian/rogerian Couple?  The interaction, what they do with each other and to each other.  She will be the more aggressive one, he will seem to be more relaxed.  One of the ‘primary characteristics of the scottian female/rogerian male couple is how they talk about themselves.  She will talk to and about her partner in a very noticeable style.  A style that everyone that is listening wants to believe is affectionate ‘criticisms’.
“Hey! You know what roger here did the other day?”  “You should have heard roger at the party the other night”…all of these comments and remarks are presented with an overall  ‘I really love this guy’ kind of vibe.  ‘Jokingly’ critical but still on a fairly personal level.  And all for the benefit of the crowd standing around our  Couple.
(btw.  And he does give every impression of enjoying this kind of exchange, the repartee. (The rogerian male), he laughs at her as much as she appears to be laughing at him.)

There is a clear dynamic tension with this couple.  As a Couple they both make an impression, they are not to be ignored.

(Damn this topic is way bigger than I thought…. Let’s find some music to close and we will come back in the next Post to finish (this) discussion of scottian females/rogerian males.) …And if we can through that onwards to other ‘couple combinations’.

But since Joe Jackson is the man today, let’s have him take us out….(ya gotta love the host of whatever British TV show this clip originated on).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SPogGqCgeM

Just a thought…

You know that this Doctrine is ‘gender neutral’, right? (You should know it is the first item in the column to the right).  I just had a conversation with an associate (at work) about the whole clark, scott, roger thing.  And she said, “I’ll only go to the blog if you add a name for a female scott”.  To which I replied, “No”

(Quick quiz: which of the three was this person and why is the only possible answer no?)**
(Answers at the bottom of the blog.)*

But to re-state the Doctrine on distinctions between male and female: there is none.  It is very simply a matter of using the terms properly, ie. a person is not a female scott, she is a scottian female; he is not a male roger he is a rogerian guy, she a rogerian female. (clarks…does it really matter?)

Hope that clears up any lingering confusion about the differences between the male/female versions of clarks, scotts and rogers.

 

You know….the more I read this (oh, I so read my own Posts)…the more I am thinking that Joe (Jackson) is only giving us a limited musical view of our topic.

* Hi clark.  Of the three you are the most likely to jump to the bottom before reading the actual Post

** Answers: she is  a scott and  ‘there is no need for a special name for female scotts because they are not ‘female scotts, they are scottian females’  see above

Share
Filed Under: clarkscottroger, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , , ,

CSR 101

January 8, 2010 By

( from the Roger);

     Attention…Company!   Shoulder… Arms!  By the right flank, by files left…March!  By Company into line…March!  Halt!  Order… Arms!  In place…Rest!   ( from Brig. Gen. Wm. Hardee’s North Carolina Drill Manual, pub. 1862)

     Ahh… I sometimes dearly miss the ritual of getting the attention of a group of surly re-enactors. ( Mostly Rogers with guns and edged weapons, for God’s sake.) We Rogers do so love a bit of pageantry now and then.

    The point to all that is to get your attention, of course. I had really planned on doing a quite straightforward post here, so please forgive the indulgence. I will now get right to it.

     By its very nature, the theme of this blog project needs to be repeated now and then for the sake of newcomers. Hopefully should eliminate some of that ” deer in the headlights” syndrome. ( or is that just me…) And hopefully, there will be a newcomer every so often… and if they’re browsing through all the old posts, it would be good if there were one of these ” primers” laying around. So… CSR 101.

    The main  ” voice” in this project is Clark. He is the originator of the theory. He started this blog, set up its format, checks the pertinent numbers, dots all the ‘i’s. I am Roger; I’ll do posts as the spirits command me, and until now, they have been little ” performance pieces”  from my point of view. This is the first time that I have addressed you, the inquisitive public, in a primary ” first-person” voice. As you will discern for yourselves, the forum is open to all, and there have been some very engaging conversations thus far.

    The main premise to the Wakefield Doctrine is that there are three fundamental personality types in the world. Clark and I discovered this years ago ( we are both older than dirt) through extensive discussion, debate, examination ( both the big ones and the little ones). And, being typically self- indulgent Americans, we eventually named the types after ourselves. Narcissism, plain and simple. Who, we asked the very heavens, was more important in the world than we? The Cosmos did not answer back, so… there it was. The theory of Clarks, Scotts, and Rogers. And, as a by-product, we also developed the idea that there are only three jobs in the world; scientist, salesman, and machine operator. And wouldn’t you know, the two classifications seem to interact in an almost prophetic fashion.

     A brief description of each;

     Clarks- Very cerebral by nature. Not necessarily a quiet personality, but very internally involved. Seemingly very conservative externally, there is likely a maelstrom of  abstract thinking going on in there. Scientists at the core. They think things up, invent things and ideas.

     Scotts- Very competitive and aggressive at heart. Very confident, socially outgoing in a particularly pack-oriented manner. Scotts are typically salesmen by nature. Their concerns are always highly self-motivated, and have a tremendous sense of forward momentum.

     Rogers- Very group- associated thinkers, very socially oriented.  Moderation, balance, and a sense of overall order are paramount. Machine operators at their core, they thrive in a detail- oriented environment.

     That’ s not all, of course. This is just re-stating the ground rules.  The intriguing truth of all this is that everything and everyone, ever will somehow fit into this framework. Look at yourself, your environment, anything in your universe, and it will work its way into this. Very seldom is any one person strictly defined by just one category; we are all maddeningly complicated combinations of all three. But with some poignantly uncomfortable self-analysis, you’ll find yourself gravitating more towards one type than the others. That is precisely when it starts to make sense. The stark clarity of it will give you a perspective that no one else around you has. You can not only recognize other people’s core natures, but you can predict with astounding accuracy how they will act in any situation.

     Here’s a quick example: I’m a Roger. I have done lots of different things in my life, but I identify myself primarily as a musician. I can play guitar better than most people I meet, and am quite comfortable, conversant, capable, and oriented towards the environment of professional musicianship. Pretty impressive, eh? Most people would say so. Does that make me better than them? Better than you? No, actually. But it does mean that I’m a damned good machine operator; meaning that I am skilled at a very particular thing in a very particular environment. That’s all. And that also means that there are many, many things that I haven’t a clue about, because I’ve spent so much time obsessing on the one thing. I can’t fix my toaster, but if you need to know what modal scale to use over a II-V-I chord change, I’m on it. Guy down the street makes a good living fixing toasters; I’ m just hungry because mine doesn’t work. Chew on that, Guitar Boy.

    Well, that’s probably enough CSR for one day. I’ve got to go have another crack at that toaster. Now, let’s see… put the fork in, then plug it in…

   ON THE NEXT POST: What’s the difference between the Wakefield Doctrine and the Boston Symphony Orchestra? Tune in next time on ” CSR 101″…

Share
Filed Under: clarkscottroger, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , , , , ,

I have only one burning desire

January 7, 2010 By

Interesting Post today.  Some direct personal experience with clarks, scotts and rogers shared by the Progenitors and Downsprings that comprise the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers).

…what is that?  you want to know in Twenty five Words (25) or Less!  what exactly is the Wakefield Doctrine?  ( Who the hell let that apostic heckler in the house, damn!)

!…, they are just not gonna go away…shit, starting to piss me off…don’t they know I am the source of all wisdom in this heaven-gifted blog?   Alright, binyon!  You want to hear a whole worldview and means of understanding our fellow humans reduced to a damn TV Commercial?

The Wakefield Doctrine (trin…trin…trin) (theory of, no the certainty of…clarks, scotts and rogers… not ralph, steve and edna…clarks, scotts and rogers)

Wakefield Doctrine, the; (noun):  to see the world as another sees it, to understand not only why they act a certain way, to understand that is the only way…
(CHA…CHING! 25!  count’em twennnteeefive, not 23 not 27 Twenty Five) (and it almost makes sense, too) (take that, you Diet-of-Worms, wait for a mistake, tear down-to-try-and-be-noticed-intellectually-inconsequential, poseur!) (Yeah! I called you a poseur, and what are you going to do about it? huh? Let’s hear a retort, not so easy when you have to do more than sit in the back of the room, in the dark and  take potshots at the person standing on stage, up in the lights?) (And when the hell did this culture turn the corner where sniper was a role to be admired?)

What? is this thing still on?  Heh…heh…Lets get back to the Post and put this ‘unpleasantness’ behind us, shall we?

With the onset of the New Year, we will be trying to present the Wakefield Doctrine in ways, we hope, will make finding ‘local’ applications much easier.  (An awkward way of saying, ‘we want you to be able to read this thing once and be able to say, “yeah I know who the rogers in my life are” or “of course, so and so is what they are calling a scott“).  None of us here at the Doctrine is a professional or otherwise trained writer, (‘no!  I just won’t accept that!’).  This is not so uncommon in the, ‘desire trumps skill’ world of blog writing.  I have written elsewhere that one hundred years ago, the authors of this blog, if the wherewithal was present, would have arranged to have pamphlets printed which we would take to a busy street corner and try to inveigle the passerbys to stop and listen and take and read what we had to say.  In any decent sized town (100 years ago) you might have found one, maybe two of us engaged in such street corner/public square eccentricities.  But today….for a thousand dollars I can ‘print’ a million of my pamphlets and the the ‘street corner’ has a million passerbys who I can try and get to read my little treatise.  Some things never change.

But that was then and this is now….(no shit!, never really got why people get anything from that particular expression). But the thinking is, lets really make an effort to present the Wakefield Doctrine in personal terms, such that the first time Visitor/Reader will have a much easier time making sense of this, this…(damn, can’t find the word).  Anyway, what follows are the responses of the Progenitors and Downsprings to the question:  can you give us a brief description of people or a relationships in your life and relate it to the Wakefield Doctrine?

(From Joanne):

I was visiting Dave M., a Roger, from the Friday night gang, in the hospital yesterday. He’s ok, they’re doing tests…some heart issues. Anyway, he and I, both Rogers, started talking about our favorite TV shows..it’s funny, we were both nodding our heads in unison as we each mentioned any shows that we liked: Extreme Engineering, History channel stuff, Ask This Old House, Haulin’ House (Dave, not me…yet). Lots of how-to stuff. All of this is opposed to conversations with my friend Miki (Scott) “.just give me the damn hammer and I’ll do it. By the time you listen to all of that stuff, it could be done”. And I reply…”But not well”. We went Christmas shopping a few weeks ago, and she found a couple of things she thought would look nice on my mother and aunt. I would have thought my way out of not buying them…they just looked too big or not right, or what if she didn’t like them and would be forced to wear them. Instead, she just held them up…said” These will look great on them!” ran over to the register and bought them. Wouldn’t you know it, they looked great! Don’t know how she does it..but I’m trying to learn.

 

(From Glenn):

I was riding around in the car with my friend, Clark(a clark).   A subject comes up and he goes off on a tangent about “time-lines” and “strings”( or some such shit) and I have heard this stuff before.  I do not understand it—and it bores me.  So, I usually astrally project myself into another place and time while still listening to the drone of clark’s  narrative(the drone—not the words—the words will make your eyes bleed).  When the drone ends, we resume the conversation as if there were no tangent and as if I had been there all along.  Clark never suspects that I left.  Clarks seem to know that if they talk about some of their clarklike ideas, people will usually just not respond.  Clarks do not expect a response—and are not offended or surprised that there is no response.  Perhaps the clark says to himself after one of these musings, “I may have over-estimated this scott’s attention-span.  I better back off for awhile and talk about something less obscure and scary.  Then the scott will rejoin the conversation”.  Whatever, it all works out fine.  Fuck you most gratuitously.

(From AKH):

A long, long time ago I was the assistant to the Controller (Charlie) of a manufacturing company.  He was no doubt a Scott (just look at his title!).  Apparently there had been others before me who did not last long working with Charlie.  Most likely Rogers, as they do not have the propensity for standing up against outspoken, egotistical outsiders.  What a bunch of frickin’ spineless, whimpering babies.  Didn’t seem to bother Charlie.  Being a true Scott, he went on with the business at hand, unperturbed, pretending to be oblivious to his effect on people all the while knowing he was superior, making those sissy-assed Rogers squirm in their seats.  What an ego!  It was surprising that he didn’t fall over from weight of his large head. Very condescending with that smug grin on his face.  Needless to say (what a dumb phrase-just frickin say it), there were several Rogers at the company who couldn’t stand the guy. Always gathering (like a herd – strength in numbers) to talk about him.  They were all of the opinion that I wouldn’t last a month working for Charlie.  Being a Scott myself, I set out not only to prove their stupid asses wrong, but to prove I could stand up to another Scott without my tail between my goddamn legs.  And you ask “so did you?”  You bet your ass I did.  Long story short, Charlie and I got along quite well, constantly “sparring” in a supposedly “innocent” manner.  Overtly, and sometimes subliminally, testing each other, each of us knowing that we were right.  I outlasted my predecessors by 2 years before I had to leave due to personal reasons (no, absolutely NOT the result of working with Charlie).  In retrospect, it was actually quite stimulating working with know-it-all asshole.

From Denise:

As way of example (I will try to keep this short): in my last life I worked in a law firm.  I often had to deal with a lunatic scott attorney via telephone.  One day, trying to get a somewhat complicated settlement done, I was talking with “Joe” and thought how rude of him – he’s yelling at one of his workers when he should be giving me his full attention.  I held the phone away from my ear a few seconds and then with horror realized he was yelling at me.  This was a first for me (the being yelled at) but what surprised me more was my reaction.  I immediately (and still professionally) took hold of the situation.  I told him (in what a clark might think harsh way) I would do such and such and call him later.  Oh yeah, I slammed the phone down. When I spoke with “Joe” later that day it was as if I was his best buddy.

(to also participate, I will exert a teeny bit of editorial license and relate the story of the ‘eureka’ moment of the Wakefield Doctrine)

From Clark:

At one time in the past, Scott (the progenitor scott) worked at a music store doing, among other things, repair on equipment brought in by customers of the store. Visiting him one day I witnessed the following:

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.
For whatever reason, it came to me that what I saw represented a distinctly different view of the world.  Scott saw the customer and the problem in a clearly different way and therefore his behavior was what it was.  If I had not been standing there, I am sure it would not have made the impression it did. (And I would now be typing the clark Doctrine (the theory of clarks).

Music? Of course there is music! How can you have a blog Post if you don’t have music?  You have music so you have to have a Post!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVC2cszdTao

…hey!  When was the last time we did a non-music clip? Here is a little something you might be offended by! (the acts punchline says it all). (In case of negative reaction:  lighten up).

is this thing on?

Share
Filed Under: clarkscottroger, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , , , ,

We the People

January 3, 2010 By

     We, the People of the Wakefield Doctrine, hereby declare that all Scotts, Clarks and Rogers are created equal; and are endowed by The Cat with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We the People also declare ourselves in support of said Doctrine, extolling it to be a heretofore unseen manner of understanding our fellow humanoids. We Hereby Pledge that our Doctrine be used only for Good, strictly to enhance our common experience with others. Furthermore, We the People resolve that the Doctrine be not used to reinforce stereotypic thinking of any sort; but rather to serve as a beacon of insightful perception.

We designate our People in the following manner; the Progenitors ( the original Clark, Scott, and Roger), the Downsprings ( second- generation veterans), and Acolytes. We hold that Acolytes will advance to the Downsprings as their knowledge and insight increases, and will also submit Posts to the Blog as they are added to the Mailing List. All adherents are encouraged, yea even required, to Submit Posts to the Blog.  All Posts are welcome, in that they serve to illuminate the tenets of the Doctrine throughout our own lives, and even into the annals of history itself. We hold these truths to be self-evident; and hold that they have been a thread throughout humanity from the Beginning.

Share
Filed Under: clarkscottroger, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , ,

Now the time has come. There are things to realize. Time has come today

January 3, 2010 By

Time.

In the time it takes to write this, it is about time this subject is addressed, when will it be time to get serious….it’s about Time.

The un-marked Rolodex stopped spinning this morning and came up Chambers Brothers, which means the topic is Time. (I will say with pride  that I resisted the Pink Floyd and stayed with the original source.)

On with it then.  Everything can be seen in light of the Wakefield Doctrine, ever thang.  Even Time.  Especially Time.

(BTW I did make some New Year’s resolutions, and primary among them was to present the Doctrine in as effective a manner as possible, which means that every Post/any Post contain something of the ‘real world’ that will offer concrete and objective expressions of the Wakefield Doctrine.  And I will not stint to present the Doctrine in as many different ‘contexts’ as may make themselves available.)

Time to start?

clarks are of the future, scotts of the present and rogers of the past.
(for clarks) the future never arrives, (for scotts) the present is over too soon and (for rogers) the past is essential.

All very obvious, but what are we to learn about the ‘worldview’ of each of the three in this context?

clarks, as well known by now, live in their heads.  They inhabit the world as outsiders, for various reasons clarks feel the need to earn the respect and acceptance of virtually everyone else they encounter.  Implicit in this statement is the idea that they must make an extra effort, to compensate. Being clarks, they are perfectly suited to the task; come up with a plan, something no one has thought of, in order to do something to redeem themselves…in the future.  clarks are doomed by both the (false) premise and the un-manageable definition of success.  But clarks live in their heads and their strengths are their downfall.  They are trapped by an idea, false to the rest of the world, but true to circular logic inherent in a worldview of ‘me and the rest of the world’.  And as Time passes, the requirements of the gesture that earns the respect of everyone else, grows and grows. Impossible expectations become a way of life that trades effort for acceptance, surrenders any chance to realise the falseness of the original distinction in exchange for the illusion that one more plan might be the one to make it all worthwhile.

scotts, people of action, they are the ones that live in the here and now (without the serenity).  Actions speak louder than words? Actions speak in place of thought.  The very distinctive trait of scotts, their living in and of the present, imbues them with certainty.  If your mind is reflected in your acts and your acts are of the present then you will have a certainty of purpose, which is why, for good or (very, very often) bad, scotts are the leaders.  Most people, most of the time prefer to listen (and by extension, follow) the person with the most certainty, conviction, sureness.  That would be your nearby scott.
(There is a ‘test’ utilized in sales, specifically timeshare sales, in which the sales representative will meet the customers, talk about what they will be doing in the next couple of hours and then abruptly say “follow me”.  Without hesitation, without looking back to see if the customers are, the rep will walk off.  If they  follow a sale is a near certainty, if one or both people have not followed the rep knows there is work to be done.)
The negative aspect of Time to a scott?  (One word: ‘getting old’).  Age. scotts are not the ones who ‘age well’.  Since most of their lives are lived physically, in action/in motion the decline of health and physical prowess is anathema to the scott, both male and female, (for parallel but slightly different reasons).  Want to scare a scott? tell them they are getting old. (might want to be sure your exit path is clear first, though).

rogers? too easy. (Is there a genealogist in the house?) Call from the Department of Redundancy Department1, for the first rogers  to pick of the courtesy phone…As we know the strength of rogers is the source of their limitations.  They organise and they preserve (for posterity).  But Everything a roger deems valuable enough to preserve is considered Perfect.  (As in, ‘improve on this? are you crazy didn’t you just hear the guy say Perfect?). For a roger, ‘if it is worth doing it is worth repeating,…without change or alteration’.

Damn, what a busy morning we gots here.

BREAKTIME!!!!

OK,  back to work.

Let’s consider the ‘point’ of todays’ Post.  Time is the universal, inescapable common experience.  Only problem is that we all live through it differently and more importantly, we all view the effects of Time in very different ways(or to be more exact, three different ways).  And the Wakefield Doctrine is nothing if it is not an effort to find new ways to see the world through the eyes of another person.

(Hey Slovinanss!, it’s snowing out.  Early class!  Go out there and step into the shoes of the others, have some fun.)

Mr. Chambers, if you will…

1) phrase from the totally wonderful Firesign Theater (just find an old person, ask them), specifically from a line in the ‘I Think We Are All Bozos On This Bus’ album. (Album? hey I did say old person)

Share
Filed Under: the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , , , ,
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »