We are (quote) enjoying (endquote) a lively discussion about  the desirability of change (of ourselves) as it relates to the Wakefield Doctrine.  Another way to express that is,  “If the Wakefield Doctrine provides an effective tool to alter oneself, to improve qualities and/or deficiencies of our own personalities, is that a good thing, or what?”  This argument has been raging between a scottian and a clarklike perspective, with very recently a rogerian contribution (to the debate).  By our own definition that should provide us with the best of answers, no?
Well….like kids in a workshop full of power tools and lumber, the results are, shall we say more exuberant than polished.  And that is as it should be for none (of the participants) are trained or skilled writers and while we all have very excellent vocabularies and should be able to present a cogent argument,  none of the participants have managed to pull it off.  But it has been fun!  And more importantly, this discussion is validating the core premise of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers).  I say this not simply because the the scott sounds like a scott and the clark like a clark through the course of the Comments.  (Though you do have to admit, if we presented the text of the Comments along with a description of a clark and a scott and a roger, I bet you would be able to identify each one one on the basis of what they wrote).  This alone  keeps these Posts coming along, there are clarks, scotts and rogers…just a matter of getting enough people to become aware of that fact and eventually the Wakefield Doctrine will enter the collective consciousness of the culture and you will hear someone on television say something like,
” the small mid eastern country issued a statement today saying, and I quote: “conditions in the area forced us to respond with a anticipatory retaliation” end quote.  Many casualties, what a bunch of rogers!”
(or maybe you will see an ad on television), “HEY!!! HEY!!! HEY!!!BUY THIS!!! HEY!!!” (damn! we already have scottian advertising).
So the fact is the clarks and the scotts and the rogers are already out there…most people do not know the proper words.  So the debate currently flying across the airwaves (do they still have airwaves? or is it through the ether?) Anyway the answer is contained in the discussion.

And what is that?  Well, glad you finally asked…the answer is also the answer that glenn insists on missing in his grasping onto the notion that what he is must be maintained against a threat of losing it to the other two aspects (in glenn’s case, clarklike and rogerian nature).
The simple answer is, “glenn dude you have already lost”.  And it is not a ‘losing’, it is not a competition and it is especially not a “what I am” versus a “what I am not”
The final answer both to the argument whether we should look to alter ourselves and to how one would do this, if so inclined is this…

We are all born with the potential to view the world from one of three perspectives.  These perspectives are a set of assumptions, premiseses, ‘the world is like…’ statements.  This is not rocket science or weird clarklike stuff, there are a whole bunch of jokes, fables, aphorisms and chestnuts to the effect that the traveller is told up a ahead there is a village of friendly/hostile/strange/whatever people.  The punchline is the same in every version (of the story), after encountering the village the traveller confirms that he experienced what his expectations implied.
This is all the three types that comprise the Wakefield Doctrine are, a set of expectations about the nature and character of the world. .

The key is that even though we become a clark or a scott or a roger, we all still have the capability to see the world through the eyes of any of these three. Resistance to this notion is not unexpected, it is validation of the Doctrine…
of course a scott is going to take the position that “I am what I am and it would be crazy to think I should try to become someone else“…
what else would a roger say than, “why isn’t that interesting, tell me all about your theory” (and then go and tell the others about how there is proof that  clarks are so crazy…
and clarks would take to the Doctrine like ducks to dogs…except…”hey great theory, but I happen to have a theory of my own that covers what your Doctrine seems to have overlooked, let me just help you with that…after we rename it, of course”….

So.  Short answer to glenn.  You are a clark.  You are a roger.  You are a scott.  They are mutually complimentary.  Like hearing a wider range of tones or seeing a broader band of colors, this Wakefield Doctrine represents an additive process not one of substitution….your contributions are proof of this….

…”but I’m not talking about hate, I’m talking about eight….dinner at 8! ” This from the most excellent FireSign Theatre…which if we can rouse that there janitor of ours, Hey Mr. B! get your rogerian butt up here!

Holiday Music what you talkin bout Willis?…oh well…how bout dis?