Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers).
The Wakefield Doctrine is: a unique, useful and fun way to to understand the behavior of those around us, at home, at work and at play
The Wakefield Doctrine is not: a theory of personality or a categorization of characteristic behaviors
The Wakefield Doctrine is: a description of the way that people perceive the world they are born into and grow up in
The Wakefield Doctrine is not: a rigid, one-type-fits-all/one-type-only, forcing a person to accept the label or designation of one and only one type
The Wakefield Doctrine is: effective in that if used as intended, will allow one to modify the very nature of their interactions with other people
The Wakefield Doctrine is not: easy to learn or to effectively apply to one’s life.
There. Good to get the ‘serious’ part of the Post out of the way early, that leaves us with some time to look at the response to the Good…the Bad…Decide Right Now!! This week it was Animal Shows. Voting rates were up, all of 4 votes! (Given that there were over 100 views on the 2 days, that’s a great voter turnout!) Really. In the world of Reader active participation ( here at the WD), that is a very encouraging number.
The results of the voting are in, and tabulated ( wikipedia: “the word tablature originates from the Latin word tabulatura” to put in a table). What we see is a 4 way tie! What we do not see is much of a discussion about the Wakefield Doctrine in the context of these shows, which is unfortunate.
To borrow from the “is/is not” device used to start this Post, the purpose of the Wakefield Doctrine blog (in general) and each and every one of these Posts (in particular), is to present the Doctrine in such a way that a person stumbling upon this site, reading as much as they can in 10 minutes can then, it is hoped, recognise what we mean by clarks, scotts and rogers. This is the goal, the Mission Statement (to get rogerian) this blog. Everything else you find here is meant for the amusement of the Writer(s) and (for) those who come to the blog; serving as illustrations of the concept that is being put forth, yo.
It is worth noting that no one is being told what to write, in terms of Comments found in these pages. While encouraging in many aspects and a total disappointment in others, the very nature/tone/content of the Comments found in these pages, bear witness to the validity of the Wakefield Doctrine’s claim to enable understanding (even prediction) of the behavior of others. Since no one involved has experience in the production of a blog, it is hoped that with time, skills will emerge that allow the message to be presented in an increasingly efficacious manner.
While not as pedantic as may sound, we are constantly trying to find a blog-based, a “written out” representation for the (verbal) conversations that have gone on for a number of years. Such conversations that usually began, “did you hear what so-and-so said to what’s his name at work? what a fuckin roger” or “you know, you are a very intelligent person and have a lot of good ideas, but if only you would try and not be so strange people might listen to you more”, or “I can’t believe they said that! it really was embarrassing, but even though everyone else felt the same they kept it up…like they were enjoying the discomfit of everyone, how scottian“.
That’s what we are trying for here. Recent efforts at pointing to examples in the “real world” of clarks, scotts and rogers is promising, but we expect that it will take some time to get comfortable with, in terms of explaining/communicating/or otherwise getting the Wakefield Doctrine across to Readers. To hear the expression, ” what a roger“…don’t be such a clark” or ” heel!, your scottian side is getting the upper hand”, coming from sources that have not had direct contact with the Progenitors or DownSprings, when that happens, we will know our job is done.
So, to follow our own advice (Doctrine-wise). Here is what we are saying: ” hey Readers! during the course of your day today, find a clark or a scott or a roger and point them out to a friend and say, “damn, what a (fill in the blank).” When your friend then asks what the hell you are talking about, tell them, “go to www.wakefielddoctrine.com and find out for your own damnself”.
Go out and do this thing.
Now.
About clarkscottroger
Nice music. For a guy who claims to have very little liking for country music, you put a fair amount of it up here. Such a fucking clark! (Hey. I did it! What you said in the post..) Clarks will explore music they don’t like–just to explore. Clarks put themselves in situations they don’t like–just to see how it is. Clarks are cool. Liking don’t matter much to a clark. KNOWING matters to a clark. A roger will often be a very skilled musician who will tell what is wrong with you musically–and why you SHOULD like this or that. Just doing it doesn’t matter to a roger. Doing it RIGHT–and making you do it right matters to a roger. Rogers are demanding, but they usually ARE right. A scott likes what he likes. Usually stuff that is lively, peppy, frenetic,—music that refuses to fade into the background. Like scotts refuse to fade into the background. Musical virtuosity don’t matter much to a scott. Getting fired up and energized by music is what matters to a scott. Scotts are charismatic and happy in the world.
Pedantry and good manners matter to a clark. Dignity and composure are highly valued clarklike traits. Emotional sensitivity and defensiveness matter to a roger. Being treated “fairly” helps keep the herd together–and nothing matters more than that to a roger. Rogers cannot fathom why anyone would ever treat THEM badly. They will treat others badly, but they usually feel they are doing it to “help” the other person. Making a splash in the pond is what matters to a scott. “You better fuckin’ notice me! I’m important!” Scotts value power, respect, and individuality. All scotts are always trying to find a way to stand above the crowd. Rogers are always trying to find a way to belong in the crowd–and assure the crowd’s continued existence as a crowd. Clarks are on the fringes—not sure how much they are willing to give up to be in the crowd. Therefore they never are in the crowd. They know that. It seems like a problem to them–but they seldom do anything that “solves” the problem. They’re “thinking it over” to quote an old Jack Benny joke.
The Wakefield Doctrine allows users to spot these traits in others and in themselves. You can then adapt your interactions with others–and be more effective in the world—and less perplexed by the behavior of others. Keeps the frustration level down. If you know the doctrine, you won’t spend as much time wondering WHY someone behaves in a certain way. You’ll know why. Less mystery equals less frustration.
So, watch the scotts around you make a lot of noise and trouble–and know they are not being “bad”–they are just doing what (to them) they seemingly MUST do. Watch the rogers around you judge and condemn people who are deviant or “misbehaving”. They are not being cruel or intolerant. They are doing what (to them) they seemingly MUST do. And, watch the clarks around you pontificate, isolate, and analyze. They are not really being pedantic or superior. They too are doing what (to them) they seemingly must do. The doctrine allows us to stop being frustrated or pissed off by everyone’s behavior. They are not being “bad” people. They are not dysfunctional. They are instead just who they are supposed to be. So fucking relax already…OK?
No! No can do my little glennster. NO. CAN. DO.
You almost have it. But your scottian “look at me, look at me” brain prevents you from the next step in “evolving” your, (how would the lady say it) “baboon ass?”. Hm….that’s it… NOW SIT YOUR BABOON ASS DOWN. BINYON.
Everyone knows you have the basics down as to the Wakefield Doctrine. We know you are happy with being a scott and nothing but a scott.(so help you god)
Yes, the WD is a nifty little tool by which to navigate one’s way around the werld and that is exactly the step you refuse to take. Having said that, OF COURSE, a scott’s world is either black or white, yes or no, here or there (no clarklike inbetweens for a scott). (Are you still with me boy? Are ya?)
You say “Scotts value power ….,…., and individuality”. But I thought that was a clark like thing – individuality, standing apart, being unique. Are you saying you value a clark like thing in your own self?
Interesting observation. Definitions must be clarified. Clarks’ posture is one of “apartness” Not quite the same as individuality. Different end point. Scotts favor individuality as in –standing ABOVE (not apart from) the herd. Scotts have little use for “blending in”–unless it is to set up an ambush. Scotts are engaged with the crowd–as in trying to lead it, influence it, provoke it–but they are not interested in simply being “of the crowd.” Clarks are usually apart from–not engaged with–the crowd. There is a disconnect. They know it. They seem to think it is a problem. But they seldom take action to correct it. They find it curious and mildy upsetting to be outsiders like this–but the cost of membership is just too high for a clark…..all that comformity bullshit..not for clarks. So when I say that scotts value…individuality, it not same kind of individuality that clarks like. Therefore, it is not an expression of inner clarkness. The inner clarkness is there. But usually stays un-expressed–maybe even suppressed. My inner clark scares me. I don’t want that fucker around. We have pursued this topic before. I hold that the utility of TWD is in adapting to and understanding others. Clarks add that it is also useful in terms of “awakening” the less dominant types within us–and thereby becoming more …what? whole? I don’t think clarks are wrong about this–for clarks. Clarks want to (and may need to) bring forward their recessive aspects.The very definition of a clark is to feel incomplete and less than others. Scotts generally do not see much value in that. In fact, I see bringing forth my recessive parts as doing the opposite of making me more whole. My clark and roger parts suck. I want those fuckers to stay in the background and shut the fuck up. Every time they show up, I am …decreased–not increased. So the usefulness and applicability of TWD differs depending on which of the types you are. Nobody is wrong. But I am right. (I should end it here…but I am sorely tempted to add something offensive…nah. Another time. I been fucking with Clark enough this week. Don’t take your eye off me though. Any day now…)
BTW #1. Love when you call me “My little glennster. And I always enjoy nice ladies paying attention to my “baboon ass”. Makes me just a little less lonely. You’re a peach #1.
“…Norton, my friend…I’ve been watchin you…”
good job with the second Comment, that is the beginning level of discourse that the Doctrine can use, especially in these early days.
As was stated in today’s Post, the goal (of these Posts) is to re-create the experience of talking to a group of Progenitors and DownSprings. If we can accomplish that, we will be well along the way of having the Doctrine take root in the culture.
(Whether you are aware of it or not), you make a point in your Comment that not only provides the answer being posed but illustrates this notion of re-creating an out-loud, in-person conversation. To wit:
“…hold that the utility of TWD is in adapting to and understanding others. Clarks add that it is also useful in terms of “awakening” the less dominant types within us–and thereby becoming more …what? whole? I don’t think clarks are wrong about this–for clarks…”
That is a true statement, for a scott. But the over-arching concept of utility of the Wakefield Doctrine is totally informed/shaped by the nature of the speaker. What a scott means by their answer to the question (“What good is this thing?”) is qualitatively different from both the question and the answer as presented by a roger and a clark.
Still a true statement for all three, but different forms of true for the individual.
And where this ties in to the experience of the Wakefield Doctrine in person as opposed to reading the written word,is that you are aware of what a scott is even as a scott explains it to you…and a roger and a clark…anyone qualified to participate in such a conversation would immediately pick up on the fact that there is no conflict in the statements made by a scott for a clark or vice versa.
Keep up the good work, who knows maybe you can get through a whole week with your thoughts being expressed in these pages…
Some of my thoughts do not qualify for publication–according to you. But they are still my thoughts. I love all my thoughts equally.
That is so true, all I can say is “Keep up the good work!”