Well…..
That certainly was different…perhaps a way of ‘letting off steam’ or even just having fun, nothing says this blog has to be all serious. But our task remains, the goal of this blog remains ever the same: to present the Wakefield Doctrine (aka the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) in a way that is easy to understand and allows you, the Reader, to apply (it’s) principles to your daily life.
I believe it was in the (…you do not want to look down) Post…we said that we will be focusing on each of the three types, one Post for each. First up: clarks.
To begin, this Post will not be about clarks in the sense of what they are, or how to spot them or even (their) characteristics. This Post is concerned with clarks from the perspective of how they relate to this Wakefield Doctrine thing. A clark reading this blog will be curious and will read much of the material, but they will do this in order to compare what the Doctrine is to the system they already have in place. Information is the central feature in the world of the clarks.
(A little dry, but then we are talking about clarks…) but stay with us here. This Post and the two to follow will be of value to us in answering the question: ‘how do I get through to a clark (or a scott or a roger)?’
Put another way, spotting a roger or a scott or a clark is pretty simple. But, ‘speaking the language’ of these three types of people is not so simple.
Our challenge is to learn to communicate with the other(s) in their language, on their terms.
A clark talking to a scott will sound like a clark (to that scott). But it is possible for that clark to speak to the scott in the ‘scottian language’.
Of course, we are not talking about ‘languages’ in the everyday sense and it is more about being able to perceive reality as the other does.
If you can do that, you will automatically speak their language.
Lets try this: you’re a clark (come back scott, come back lol), you are standing in a room full of people at some social function. Being a clark, you are standing in a corner and you are looking around and listening to everyone, trying to learn what is expected of you. Into the room comes a scott, who immediately begins to ‘work the room’, going from person to person, establishing ranking and locating food. This scott does not need to learn (what is expected of them), they simply need to act. To survive.
If you, (a clark) goes up to this scott and offers information, you will be identified as a clark. To the scottian brain: you are not a competitor and you are not food. The scott will be cautious, until you are identified to the scotts satisfaction)
But, suppose for a minute, you could speak scottian, the language of a scott. What do you suppose the difference would be?
You would not be offering information, for a start. And you would not be trying co-operate with this (scott). You would simply communicate with the scott directly.
(Now, the clarks out there reading this are leaping ahead of this little example…the implications of switching perspective to that of the other….hold up clarkies…lets try to bring along the rogers and scotts…they are not running out ahead on this one…)
So you go up to the scott and first and foremost demand their attention. You become a scott.
Damn.
Let’s just put it this way: the Wakefield Doctrine can provide you with enough information/perspective/encouragement to enable you to perceive the world as the other two types do and, by doing this, you will be able to communicate with them more effectively. Totally.
Of course, if you do this you may find that the message that you are trying to convey to the other person is changed by the fact that you are seeing the world differently. But that is a Post length topic in and of itself. In the following Posts we will consider this changing of the message effect that comes when we see the world through the eyes of another. This will be most difficult to the scotts and the rogers, but hey if this were easy I would be on TV by now.
Lets finish with a little (more) music.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi_0k3hzNS4
About clarkscottroger
Okay,
After reading this stuff for months, I’m seeing a therapist.
Now, I can’t blame YOU for that, it was probably someone I ate. ;)
But, since we’re talking about eating, when it comes to gardening, who does what?
You see, with the economy taking a nose-dive… I’m in the middle of planting a Survival/Recession Garden, to insure that my family eats. That way, I don’t wake one morning to find my kid eating “Jew Stew” for breakfast. I am rather attached to my legs, and I’d rather use them for “propulsion,” rather than “nutrition”… ;)
“Rather, rather, rather…” So many options here:
So, Oracle or Orifice, oh Obie Wan of Obscure arcana… I’m askin’;
Since everything on earth seems to be “organically” related, is it Clark that “plans”, Scott that “plants”, and then Roger that “fingerpoints,” eats, and complains? Or is it the other way around?
I mean, I get the “Symbiotic” part, I just seem to have the ingredient list all screwed up.
I gotta get a handle on this ASAP. I have “group” this week, and the therapist says it’s my turn to sit in the center chair… Oy.
If I can bluff the shrink long enough, maybe the judge will suspend my sentence…
Ronin
lol
You have got to go to an old video store and buy “Little Shop of Horrors”, (the original with Jonathon Haze and the totally wonderful Jackie Joseph, not the awful remake with Steve Martin.)
The original included Jack Nicholson (!) and some lines from Gravis Mushnick (the shop owner) that are worth the purchase price alone. (Look for the sign on one of the display cases: ‘20% off from all purchases’).
An amazing movie.
As to those three elements that we all have but only one is usually found in predominance: clark, scotts and rogers.
But in answer to one of your questions?
clark think, scotts act and rogers feel.
clarks create, scotts execute and rogers plan and engineer
You site is interesting in that you have specific information presented in a useful manner…rogerian there but it is creative which makes it clarklike and you keep doin what youre doin without listening to everyone around you saying ‘you can’t do that’…dude…
I suspect people who come to your site and enjoy what they find stumble on the Doctrine and immediately rush back to the safety of a sensible site…
(We just loves our videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amlXKaqk2jg )
As a matter of fact, Ronin, I am prepared to back my words with hats…you rent this movie and watch it and if you do not agree that it is most excellent, then I will send you a hat for your damn head.
You know, after you mentioned that movie, I got a hankerin to see it (see, all this Southern Jargon really does rub off, even on an “internationalist Jew”) so I started tearing through my DVD collection, and lo and behold, there it was.
So, while you don’t owe me a hat (and it’s a pity, because as a shaved headed Jew, hats are vitally important in the South, unless you want your one remaining brain cell to get parboiled in the sun), I do owe you thanks, for reminding me about his movie.
Even my two year old terrorist of a child enjoyed it! He got up and danced thru most of the good parts.
Now, which part of your doctrine is defined by the fact that I have this overwhelming urge to show all these bureaucratic miscreants standing in my way… my middle finger?
Lemme see… Clark hatches the plot… Roger loads the rifle… and Scott pulls the trigger? Is that right?
More later… gotta start working in my alibi. You can never start TOO soon… ;)
“Now, which part of your doctrine is defined by the fact that I have this overwhelming urge to show all these bureaucratic miscreants standing in my way… my middle finger…”
I gotta give you the esoteric answer (as you have indicated that you grasp the concept of the Doctrine) and that answer would be it is the why of giving the finger that tells you whose hand it would be seen…
(What did he just say?)
As you have read in these pages scotts are the ones most likely to say ‘fuck you’, but the scott would be saying it as much for the fun of it as the expected resultant behavior.
A roger, on the other hand might flip off the person but is taking the whole thing much more personally than does the scott. After all the rogers believe in rules of behavior, morality, consistency and other things that have to do with judging (another’s) behavior. Flipping a person is not so likley for a roger, but if it occured it would be only one small part of a larger campaign to ‘reach and teach’ the person who is the target.
You would never see a clark flipping a person off. This is not to say that a clark would not flip a person off, it is just that they are direct enough to permit anyone else to observe such an act. And if you did happen to see it, it was because the clark wanted you to see it.
You are catching, thanks for the input.