welcome to the first Post of the rest of the Second year | the Wakefield Doctrine welcome to the first Post of the rest of the Second year | the Wakefield Doctrine

welcome to the first Post of the rest of the Second year

Yeah, well no one said that these things have to make sense.

I have chosen to write another Post, not the smallest part of that decision is that (possibly an inbred characteristic of the ego of an individual of the maleular persuasion in the current culture) I don’t want to “break the streak”.  But for today we are throwing away excessive reflection and just, in the words of a cultural icon, “goin for it”.

The Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) is a unique, productive and fun way to see the behavior of others and by doing so, understand why people do the things they do.  Fine.  It is a tool to be used in understanding the behavior of others.  And it is a tool to understand ourselves.  A very, very effective tool.  And through understanding (ourselves) we can then change and enhance and improve what we do and how we do it and what we are and how we live our lives.

(That’s not too ambitious, is it?) No, no it is not.

Unfortunately (or not) two thirds of our little group totally do not see/understand/get/imagine/’yeah, even for the fun of it’/say what? the need to ‘change or improve’ themselves.  And you know what?  That’s fine.
No, that’s not just ‘fine’, that’s great!  That scotts and rogers, while both curious and find the Doctrine fun and amusing do not see a need to use this thing of ours for the purpose of self-improvement serves as (further) validation of the whole thing.

Of course they don’t need to improve.  (The Doctrine predicts that they would take that position).  But…

Remember a few Posts (actually quite a few Posts) ago, where we talked about how everyone starts with the qualities of all three types and at some point, early on become predominantly one (over the other two)?  Well, that’s not the point I am trying to make here.  The point (I am trying to make here) is that anyone Reading and/or following this blog is a slightly (or not so slightly) mutated form of their own type.  It takes a certain level of flexible curiosity, combined with a intellectual self-confidence to read and enjoy the concepts that comprise the Wakefield Doctrine.
So when DownSpring glenn insists that he has no interest in his clarklike or rogerian aspects and believes that he is only building up his scottian aspect, he is, to use a technical term….wrong.
I spoke to the Progenitor roger yesterday on the same topic and he agrees that he has no need to develope his scottian or clarklike potential, he knows there can be no gain to focusing on those two other facets to his being.  (To his credit, he did accept that while what he said was true for ‘un-enlightened’ rogers, he recognised that he was not a normal roger).

My response was simple.  By their responses both glenn and roger demonstrated that their clarklike/rogerian and scottian/clarklike aspects (respectively) are  developing as a result of their involvement in the Wakefield Doctrine.  And as further proof, how they both framed their arguments that they were not doing so only served to make the contrary point.

(What? I have to go to work?  And act like a real person?  wtf…damn…got to stop…there is something to be said about having a blog and there is something to be said about earning a living.  It is a tribute and an indictment of the cost of having both while being a clark that I am trying to write these things and then go into a workplace that so does not find this kind of thinking a positive character trait.)

Let’s close the Post with the question (which if you have been following the Doctrine long enough, you know right now that it will not really be a question). What is the point, the practical value of the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers?  This question is framed to apply to those of you reading this thing and not to the general population of clarks, scotts and rogers.  How does any of what you find here impact your life?  Negatively or positively, either one.  (at this point I would proceed to give the answer on behalf of everyone, but I really am out of time this morning)

Mister B? if you would find us some Monday morning appropriate music and if I can find a photo or two will/can wrap this thing up.  What was that? Miss Sullivan is touring Europe this Summer?  How nice…you have a Postcard…perhaps we need to talk about your interaction with the student body here at Mill Fill…

Ciao tutti! L’Italia è il nostro primo arresto… vederà tutte le statue nude famose ed avrà un pubblico del papel domani! (nessun Britney… quel significa il papa non…) il lol che ha divertimento, dice Jimmy desideriamo che sia stato qui e comprerò il sig. B una certa viola mette insieme… dai gatti reali come ha chiesto… il lol Na dell’AT fa
 
 
 
Share

clarkscottroger About clarkscottroger
Well, what exactly do you want to know? Whether I am a clark or a scott or roger? If you have to ask, then you need to keep reading the Posts for two reasons: a)to get a clear enough understanding to be able to make the determination of which type I am and 2) to realize that by definition I am all three.* *which is true for you as well, all three...but mostly one