Short Post this morning, much to do. Not much time to do it in.
Trying to come up with something totally cool and catchy cause it will be one year tomorrow when this thing started. Nothin. Not only do I have nothing, I am feeling my clarklike aspect start to kick in…in reaction to the perceived pressure of commemorating/celebrating/whatever the hell it is that one is supposed to do on significant milestones. (Sounds like a Lesson of the Day).
the Wakefield Doctrine Lesson of the Day. Not so much a lesson as an observation of the differences between clarks, scotts and rogers in response to societally designated important days. (Which include birthdays, wedding anniversaries, retirement and funerals). On second thought, let’s start with the point of this whole exercise in blogation which is to present a way of thinking about stuff, mostly people. This way of thinking is called the Wakefield Doctrine and it is done along the lines of ‘personality types’, as in astrology, phrenology, scientology; you know it’s an ‘ology’ which means it’s scientific and you should read it and believe it. (Plus it is a theory, as in the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) so it surely has to have something interesting to it. And it does. Not unlike a supermarket magazine rack, the Wakefield Doctrine has something interesting, something that should be true about it. And even though pages and pages are spent on talking about the basis or, the underlying principles, the supporting evidence and uses words like ‘habitual perception’ and ‘predeliction’ it is still just one of those things that have enough ‘truth’ to it to make people remember it. It all comes down to getting up from your computer and going to work and hearing some ‘middle management’ type person hold forth on action lists, performance paradigms all while sucking up to their boss in public (and without the slightest bit of self-consciousness) and then 30 minutes later find that same person gossiping in the break room. The goal of this blog is to have you at this point say to yourself, “what a roger“, or be with friends and the person sitting on the fringe of the group even though they have been part of that gathering for years, suddenly noticing that that person has been saying things and somehow their words evaporate in the air (like cartoon dialog balloons fading as they move) only to hear those very words come out of the mouth of that really noticeable person, much to the delight of the crowd, who are all laughing and saying things like, “they are the funniest person how do thy think of that stuff” and you look back to the person on the fringe and you see the secret smile and you say to yourself, “I believe I have just caught a glimpse of a clark“…(the scott was there all along, a hub around which the social structure rotates).
That’s what I think I want to say on the (clark: “whatever”; scott: “fuckin aye big day partay”!!!; roger: “I have done a great job, but it hasn’t been easy and you are all so lucky”) First Anniversary of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theroy of clarks, scotts and rogers) blog.
But I guess I will be talking about how far we have come, and where we might be going, blah, etc, blah. The tone of this Post is attributable to my clarklike aspect, the eternally disappointed, why can’t I be more like, I really need this thing to make up for all my shortcomings, part of me that was really exacerbated by my going out into the blogsosphere ( looking for images for today’s Post) and, by virtue of the search terms (anniversary, birthday, celebrations etc) I was neck fuckin deep in (successful), (self-promoting), (thousands of Readers for year after year), and (did I mention I am the best of all blog-writers?), blogs. And believe it or not, my reaction was that I need to make the Wakefield Doctrine work even better, faster cause all of what I see in terms of successful, high-profile blogs have a rogerian self-promotion combined with a scottian aggressive confidence behind them. I need to do better for the Doctrine.
Talk stop. Music start.
(Since we clearly are of an age that makes the Beatles irristable, let’s get the obvious tune out of the way. Damn it, this is the Wakefield Doctrine and if we are nothing else we are not going to be (too) predictable, so there is no fuckin way we will be doing the vids that you would think one might might do on Firsaversary Day)
(I need to tell you, I like the live vids better but the only one I could find was Paul McCartney in recent times and though it was quite a good, faithful rendition of the song…he just looks so very, very old…lol so much for not caring about age.)
Yes? Britney? …Sure why not?
About clarkscottroger
Congratu-fucking-lations! Uno ano. Keep pumping out the posts. This thing is just about ready to take off. The hats…the t-shirts, the pithy arguments(and the pissy ones), the people from Studley, the continuing real characters(AKH, me, Roger, DS1, That roger sister of yours, et al.) The made up characters–Britney, Jane and them. This is poised to become a world-wide phenomenon. It’s got all the ingredients. It’s funny (could be funnier if you stopped censoring me), it’s informative, it’s weird and diffrerent, it’s serious–and silly, and it not only tells about the theory; It shows the theory in the interplay between contributors. One day, they will make a movie about it. The fucking producers will change a lot of it. They always do. Instead of scott, clark and roger, it will be called, Devon, Jason, and Jessica. The scott role will be played by Joe Pesci(who else?). The roger role will be played by, I don’t know…Laura Dern?…and the clark role will be played by Robert DeNiro. The story involves the three types discovering how differently they see the world–yet how they also all have the other perpectives inside of them. They are trying to start up a business– a high-profile security business. They seek large multi-national corporate accounts. Hilarity ensues. Ridley Scott will direct. Someday heads of state will discuss international disputes in WD terms. “Canada is being SUCH a fucking roger!” “The US, in typical scottian fashion is trying to dominate the world.” “The Swiss are still trying to perfect the cuckoo clock–the best one of all time”–fucking clarks! Yeah. This thing is gonna become the prevailing philosophy of the world. It will still be called the Wakefield Doctrine, but its sub-title will be…”The Secret of the Universe” So, jump on board now. Become a downspring. ( a treasured status). Try being a binyon. It’s a start. Progenitor slots are all filled at this time. All the “in” people are signing up now. Soon we’ll speak Doctrine in all corners of the world. The Doctrine will bring about world peace. It will promote a new brotherhood of man. (Except the fucking rogers–I said “man”) Ich bin ein Wakefielder. Exciting times we live in. Feliz compleanos!
Testament (perhaps) to the Wakefield Doctrine is the fact that my immediate reaction to Glenn’s comment is “what a f’ing scott!”. Glenn would think “job well done”. Action/reaction. Good.
To reiterate: that was (my) immediate/obvious reaction. Secondarily is my recognition that Glenn’s comment(s), although sincere, is strategy. scotts do/say things to illicit the immediate reaction and thereby establish ranking if you will. A scott will throw out a gambit because of a desire to engage someone/anyone in a game of will.(for lack of a better word) – game of strength.
Whoever can stand up to a scott will not be consumed by a scott.
I fumble now with words so let me try and give an example. Two days ago I interviewed at a real estate company in town that handles 99% of all the high end stuff. I would be working directly for the owner, a very, very frightening (female) scott. I was not frightened (as I am a Downspring lol). Met her shortly upon arriving, early in the interview process. Just a hand shake and initial greeting. I was sitting at a table with her assistant. She came over extending her hand introducing herself. What did I do? Yes, I stood up to meet her eye to eye and on her level. Had I remained seated I would have immediately told her I was “good eatin.” (remember scotts are about dominant/submissive)
As her assistant was finishing up with a grand tour of the office, Pat came into the lobby to stop and “engage” in some “light” conversation. Yes. The size up. She complimented me on my outfit (Jones of New York and finally not out of place, yet it was) and told me she “liked my earrings”. Two consecutive compliments. It put me on alert. Aha! Here it comes – almost out of the blue she then “told” me in no uncertain terms that I “would be working for her”. Her face only smiled. Disarmament strategy prior to the kill.
I did not provide the snack she was perhaps expecting but maybe, just maybe I satisfied her enough until she could consume a real meal.
Do you get my drift about the scotts roaming about….?
…as creator, if I may contribute to the conversation and possibly bridge the gap between the creative, fluid world of the clarklike world of thought and the gnawed bones world of scotts…if I may…wait, lets let Barbara start the conversation…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKfS3udCCx0
Well, said!
Them scotts be messin’ wit you, DS1? Jive-ass scotts! My thoughts are “strategy”, eh? Not consciously, but now that you mention it…why not? Don’t be fumblin’ with the words, baby. It’s all good. Once again…not certain about your meaning..You make it sound like scotts is evil. Whatever “sizing up” is going on is not calculated. More like reflexive..without malicious intent. Not evil, but probably still disarming to a clark. But then…we gotta eat, don’t we? Frankly, I’m not fond of eating clarks.(make up your own joke about “eating”) Too fucking bony. Give me a plump juicy roger every time. However, if there are no rogers around, and a clark offers itself up….well, who could blame a hungry scott for snatching a snack?(make up your own joke about “snatch”..) It strikes me, DS1, that scotts are troubling you at this juncture in your journey. Care to share? Tell old Uncle Glenn all about it. Is there a particular scott who is causing you angst–or is it a number of scotts? Or, heaven forbid, a PACK of scotts? But…somehow, the scotts are getting you down, girl. Tell me who they are, and if they are inferior scotts, I will kick their asses for you. If they be dominant over me, you’re on your own. But I’m still pulling for you. (make up your own joke about “pulling”. What? I gotta say all the jokes around here? It’s obvious. Make your own. Clark censors the ones I make..) I sense a very real distress in your recent contributions. Scotts trouble you these days. So…you know…spill it. What’s the dilly, silly? Let’s talk…
Hold on now my wee, willy! (make your own joke about “willy”).
No scotts be messin with this clark. I was trying to point out to those new to the Wakefield Doctrine the advantage(s) of knowing the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers – how it is helpful in recognizing behavior(s) of others which ultimately assists in one’s own action/reaction.(to those behaviors).
More simply put: how do I (in this case, a clark) act when confronted/interacting with a scott in a professional setting.
Btw, very sweet of you to offer to defend my honor(and kick ass) but rather presumptuous to think I need it.
We’ll talk…
That’s me. baby. I’m all about the sweet.