Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers), or as we said exactly one year ago,

The Wakefield Doctrine is based on the premise that behavior is a response to perception (of the world).  …choose how to perceive the world means that we acquire characteristic (choices in perception) which is evidenced in characteristic behavior.
The Wakefield Doctrine … describes personality on the basis of perception rather than the behavior that results (from perception).
Three  ways of perceiving the world are: clarks, scotts and rogers. We all begin life with the potential/‘tendency to perceive’ the world as any of these three types. At some point we become predominantly one.

We become clarks, scotts or rogers.

 Well, that was then and today is, well…today! There is much going on here at the Doctrine. Most discussion is centered on the question, “what good is all this effort (behind publishing this blog) and what is the best course of action going forward”.
As glenn, unwittingly perhaps, pointed out in yesterday’s Comments, everything we do here is a demonstration of the Wakefield Doctrine. The “Proof of the Validity” of the Wakefield Doctrine is to be found in the Posts and the Comments. As far as the future of this blog is concerned, no plan of action or strategy is possible without having a clear vision of where you want to go. What we need to do today is establish the goal of all the work that goes into producing this thing of ours. To present this in a more rogerian style, we would say,  What the heck is the point of this thing? (I will be brief, even I get tired of reading some of the stuff on these pages, and I write nearly all of the Posts! {Laugh here}.)

There are really two questions here; a) what was the reason/purpose of creating the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers and 2) what was the reason/purpose of creating the Wakefield Doctrine blog.* Fortunately we only need answer the second question. (The first question is implicit in the second, yo).

Why was the Wakefield Doctrine blog created?
Answer: to see if we could get people beyond the circle of friends who enjoyed the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers.  Hey, if the 6 or 7 people in the immediate circle enjoyed it and ‘got it’ enough to tell their friends, then we should be able to expand this process to include everyone else in the world.)

So, a year ago I started the blog. The title/term, the Wakefield Doctrine, came out of discussions with glenn as to the best way to present the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers. His contention was that what we called it had to be more ‘serious’ sounding, less quirky than ‘the theory of….’ And so I coined the term the Wakefield Doctrine, (after the town that was driven through while most of the modern developments of the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers took place). (We still drive through Wakefield…hey, wait until the movie! I have the opening scene already written!)

Opening scene: nighttime in a german luxury car, driving through the streets of Wakefield, the Driver and the Passenger are in animated conversation:
                       Driver: Hey, lets get this thing out into the real world…gettin tired of just talking…besides you’re already stealing parts of the theory to use at your little training sessions…
                       Passenger: Yeah, sure but the thing sounds too weird, they ain’t gonna listen if I start tellin them they are scotts or whatever…gotta get something legitimate sounding…something that sounds more like the other stuff I use, more credible sounding…more rogerian, ya know?
                       Driver: Fine…Wakefield…we’re going to call it the Wakefield Doctrine…you like that?
                      Passenger: fuck yeah!

So there you have it. The beginning of the Wakefield Doctrine blog. (The blog was the obvious next step in the effort to present the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers in a way that a person of normal interests and IQ could comprehend.)

Yeah, I know, still have not defined the goal,  in such terms that allow us to say, “When we get here/when we accomplish this, we will have succeeded in what we set out to do”
Gimme a minute…

So, for a year the Wakefield Doctrine has been in the blogosphere. Learning by trial and error (more error than trial), this thing of ours has begun to acquire a ‘voice’, an identity primarily by virtue of the Posts that have been written on a semi-regular basis.  In the course of this year, we have met other blog writers and they have become both fans of the Doctrine and served as mentors to our efforts. As an end result of all of this effort, we have Readers. A count of visitors and (their areas of the world) shows us that have have increased our original circle of friends, from 6 or 7 people to 45 or 46 “people”. Aka Regular Readers.

“So, where is the problem?” (you say), “you have a certain measure of success by seeing the number of people who ‘get’ the Wakefield Doctrine increase from 6 to 45. What more do you want?”

Well, I’ll tell you! Read yesterday’s Comment-based ‘discussion’  centering on my Post that expressed my concerns regarding the goals of this blog and whether or not it is worth the effort. All of which brings us full circle to the value of setting a goal. A measure by which we will determine if this is all worth the trouble.
(Our more astute Readers are, at this moment, sitting back with their coffee, saying to themselves, “hey Post-Writer! If this blog is about the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers, then your goal should be established only as a result of the input from all three types, no?”…{and then to further my Mitty-esque fantasy, this Reader would then call out to their family/co-workers/schoolmates, “hey everyone! there is something going on at the Wakefield Doctrine! They are talking about shutting down! Gather ’round!”})

Well, maybe not. But there is a valid point about the participation of the three personalities regarding the goal of this blog.

Damn…out of time for today (…to be continued)

Wait a minute! The hell with that! That would just be more of the same kind of approach that we have been pursuing all year…the viewpoint being “guess I have to keep putting out these Posts, otherwise I might be losing something or maybe I am not trying hard enough or some fuckin thing…
Here is The Goal. Within the next 89 days, this blog will need to have an average daily visit(s) of over 100.
(Why 100? Why the hell not? Numbers are not everything…no wait…they are the only thing! Thanks Vince!)

Pretty simple, isn’t it?

The answer to the question,  ‘how do we attain this goal’,  is as it has been since the very first Post, i.e. “guess I’ll  figure it out as I go along” Whatever it takes. If I can do it, I will. The Wakefield Doctrine will continue on… if, (I don’t figure it out), then it will not. The theory of clarks, scotts and rogers will endure, it is just the blog that may dissappear.

As to (scottian) objections that have been raised that this all is a clarklike indulgence in setting goals designed to fail, I say, “hey you might be right. Trouble is we are way beyond anything simply clarklike about this effort…or maybe totally clarklike (laugh track cue here)…but who the fuck is gonna say for sure?”

Damn, now that I read today’s Post, all three personality types are totally being demonstrated!

…we clarks are feeling driven to prove more, to seek transformation from without…the scotts are angry at the threat of being deprived of a feature of their environment, which they have had as little to do with the creation of, as would a lion sitting in a tree on the Savannah…(“hey you can’t cut down this tree! I enjoy this tree!!”) and rogers…their world has been enriched by the creation of a clark and true to their rogerian nature they look and say “what are you talking about! I have always written blogs…I don’t understand what you’re talking about…are you thinking about doing a blog too?…maybe I might consider helping you…”

Damn…what a frickin Doctrine!

* (glenn should be credited with the “a” and “2” joke)

(for the clarks out there…)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X34gR-PogME