Yeah, one of the non:clever/catchy/interesting/where-did-that-come-from Posts. Still under the impression that it is better to crank out one of these each day than it is to not. At least until it becomes apparent to me what I need to do next to continue on my effort to bring the Wakefield Doctrine to the werld (that spelling, inside joke referencing ‘the Lady’, want to know more, ya gotta ask).

In any event, I thought given it is a Sunday morning, this might be a good time to take a look at how things are going here at the Doctrine. Speaking of ‘going’, Saturday night is the “traditional drive around Wakefield” night,  when DownSpring glenn and I drive around Wakefield.  We do this thing and in the course of (this) hour long drive we review recent Posts, discuss and argue reactions to them, elucidate and discover and generally try to advance the body of knowledge that comprises the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers. Last night’s conversation began with the notion of how limited the sample base is for the Wakefield Doctrine, i.e. that everything we ‘can prove’ about the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers  is based on a statistical sample that might be short the number (of test subjects) usually required by institutions of higher learning.
As glenn put it, “hey this thing is un-deniable but the sample is a max 25 people, ain’t nowhere near enough”, to which I replied, “yeah, this is true, fuck ’em”. I went on further to clarify my point, “…glenn, lil buddy, we know this is Doctrine thang be true, we see it everywhere we look, fortunately we are not trying to convince a publisher or a Phd thesis review panel that the Wakefield Doctrine is valid and efficacious, so for now it does not matter”. (To which glenn replied, “yeah, you’re right, fuck ’em”.)

Allow me to apologise for the crudeness of the language, but I feel that benefit of a verbatim accounting of the conversation far outweighs the cost of a few offended Readers (sorry MJM). If you are going to hang with the Progenitors and DownSprings and witness the creation of a “unique, productive and fun way to understand the behavior of those around us”, then it will get a little rough at times. (insert the really obvious joke here). It is just that this is how the Wakefield Doctrine is developing, at least in the context of the work I do with a scottian DownSpring. Of couse, the conversations I may have with a roger will be of a different tone, entirely. More words, less swearing. Its all good, to use the totally over-used expression. (…where was I?)
So we moved from the discussion of the too small test subject pool on to practical application of the Doctrine. This is where it got genuinely exciting. As often happens during these drives, the discussion will meander, much as does the car we are in, but an interesting topic will appear and we are all over it. ( Authors note: My problem has been recording (these conversations) so that they can be shared with the rest of the group. But am doing the best I can, if there is a writer in the house who knows how to take this alarmingly fast fast growing pile of words and organise them in a way that a normal person can benefit by, let me know. Heck, there might be a hat (for your damn head) in it for you). 
But I was about to relate the cool thing. The practical app. Anyway, we were talking about how what seems reasonable to one person appears insane to another, yet both people are otherwise very much alike. The example glenn used was himself and another person in his industry (i.e. snake oil sales and marketing), glenn said, “my friend steve is always starting new ventures and businesses. He sees an opportunity and without hesitation will leave an established position just for the chance to create a new business. I could no more leave my salaried position for a startup than I could jump out of the car at this moment”. (glenn went on), “people I work with will act puzzled about this and ask why I can’t take a chance when I have so much going for me in the business”. The question resonated, the notion that you can have two people similar in all regards but one will risk everything for a future benefit and the other cannot bring themselves to go outside the security of what they have worked for in their careers. (The Doctrine provided the answer.)
I replied to glenn, “hey the Doctrine has the answer, it can explain, in a way that has not occurred to anyone, the difference between you and Steve” (I stopped talking, going for the ‘close’, you know  the first person who talks buys it’)…a moment went by, we drove on through Wakefield… finally glenn capitulated. (Actually what he said was, “fuck you”)….more silence…”alright what does the Doctrine have to offer in this situation?”

The answer was this: the comparison between glenn and Steve and their relative tolerance for risk taking was reduced to the question to glenn, “why can’t you imagine taking a chance on such a reward” to which glenn would have responded, “I can’t because….” The Wakefield Doctrine view would substitue the “I don’t take those chances”  for  “I can’t take those chances”. The difference is huge. I will leave it to our Readers to reflect upon the implication of the difference between the two ways of expressing the question. Any questions, comments or contributions to the discussion will be welcome. (I am getting bored, and I’m the one writing this stuff!!)

So, that completes the serious portion of our little Sunday Post. There will be music at the close of this thing and (hopefully a clever and/or funny photo on the front).

Thanks for coming by…..

(jeez, I thought that would never end!…. ( lol  and you were saying…something about the virtual high school student “being contrived” and getting old?…tell us all at Mill Fill High about how to keep the Reader captivated…hey Britney! you can’t dress like that!!! this is a GP rated blog!…) alright…I apologise for saying that…damn doing that apology thing way too much today…holiday weekend? oh man…this wis going to last foreever…)

Hey, excellent vid!  have not heard Zepplin that good (at least live) and it is just fun to watch Jimmy Page. Hey glenn, you will have to read tomorrow’s Post cause I came across some Speedy West videos that I think I will use,  if I remember.