Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

You know, in two conversations yesterday we were offered the following advice: be more specific in the examples of the interactions characteristic of the three types (clarks, scotts and rogers); and there should be no limits on what we say in the Comments section, whatever the writer feels is appropriate should be presented, un-edited or otherwise verbatim. Both (ideas) have fatal flaws. But we applaud the effort to express their thoughts and certainly they should keep trying.

Also, yesterday was Wednesday, the Good…the Bad…Decide Right Now!! day which means a fair amount of the Comments were directed to the subject of this week’s Feature ( Animal Shows). And there were some who thought…blah…blah…blah

(…..damn did not have a single number in the frickin’ lottery…now I got totally nothing for this Post…) (…oh well…too late to back out now…)

Sorry for the interruption, be sure to let us know (here at the Doctrine) when you get tired of that ‘device’. Don’t know what it is usually called when you write something and at the same time (in parenthesis) you write something as if it were a separate voice or monologue or whatever. You hope that it reads like there is more than one person speaking or more than one train of thought; surely there is some kind of literary term, like SRC (self reference criterion)? nah, thats a marketing thing…sort of like in the car industry. The apocryhal story holds that the reason quality sucked so much in the American auto industry before the 1980s was that all the executives had company cars with constant (company) maintenance. They never had a problem with their cars, so why were the consumers whining? Or the other story cited to illustrate SRC is about when McDonalds decide it was time to take Ronald to India (the dining demographic being totally high percentage vegetarians).

(Seeing how the two referenced but not identified people I mentioned in the beginning of the Post went to the trouble to make a suggestion, lets let them contribute.)

…But we are not talking about SRC.
          (…”HEY! I got yer SRC right here and I will point to my crotch and jut out my face to bring the point home!”…)
          (…”Well, considering your starting Point in this Post maybe there is something about this SRC that should not be ignored, specifically is the person involved a clark
              or a scott or a roger…that would be helpful to know”…) 

The term we want is probably:

  Autopoiesis literally means “auto (self)-creation” (from the Greek: auto – αυτό for self- and poiesis – ποίησις for creation or production), and expresses a fundamental dialectic between structure and function (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis)

That is more along the lines of where we were headed in terms of self-referential writing, but now that train of thought is gone.  I guess I better finish up with the “two other contributors schtick” so we can pull the plug on this Post.
          (…”No, there is a case to be made here but if you would simply provide a recognizable context, then everyone could apply it to their own particular situation which
           would give them more confidence and make it more likely that they will write and submit a Comment!…”)(…”Really, they would!”…) (I just know they would). (!)
          (…”Greek huh? you know all dem Greeks are homos right? you knew that but its funny when I type it , I can make you read it HEY HEY HEY…alright I get it…you
           making fun of me…so what HEY”…)

Sorry I had to resort to the obvious LHF (Low Hanging Fruit) of doing the “off stage” dialogue thing. Hey, sometimes no matter how much effort goes into a Post, nothing is there. Experienced Readers will be at the bottom of the Post by now, hoping that there is some enjoyable video to make the 5 minutes of their lives that this page has taken, make it worthwhile. (lol good luck with that)

Lets get to the Lesson of the Day and hope tomorrow brings an interesting Post. The guys in the auto industry were, for the most part, rogers. Pretty obvious, as rogers not only are the engineers of the world but also the marketing guys of the world (I mean marketing, not sales. Sales is the domain of the scotts, but thats for a different Lesson of the Day). The rogerian nature thrives in the environment of the herd. If everyone around you is the same as you, then the world is perfect. The auto rogers created a situation where their experience with the product they were marketing was un-realistic. But as long as no one among them (in the herd) said, “Hey guys! Does the average Consumer have an in-house mechanic with limitless resources keeping the vehicle in perfect running condition”? there was no problem with there product…

Hey! This is boring me. Lets try the other ‘suggestion’. So, when you go to work today, ask your boss to answer the following question: “If everyone of your friends said that there was a new club that was accepting new members, but only if referred by a current (Member) would you respond: a) “who to I give my check to”?  b) “refer me or you’re fired!” or c) “do you think you could ask someone if it is alright for me to try and join”?
How they answer will tell you which of the three types your boss is. Pretty helpful, huh?

Jesus Christ…got to be one of the worst Posts this Doctrine has seen, yet!! lol

Hey, hey now.  Forgot one, no?