Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) NEW! IMPROVED?! BETTER!!?
yeah, totally improved and betterer…damn, we already borrowed Bowies’ cchhanges, thing, haven’t we? Oh well, ‘the more things change the more they stay the same’…now there is an example of clarklike thinking. (The hell with the explanation of what’s going on), let’s do a Wakefield Doctrine Lesson of the Day!
Change. (or maybe) the expectation of change is a hallmark of clarks. And it is anathema to scotts. And I don’t mean that scotts don’t like change, they abhor the very notion of it. The idea of change (as in, the opposite of predictable) is enough to make a scott do that tail-tucking, runaway thing. Rogers, on the other hand, they don’t like change either, they really kind of hate it, but they can tolerate the notion of change. Arguably, rogers owe a large part of their identity to their (characteristic) efforts to resist change. Rogers are the conservators of what is and what has been, they just loves they history. (Pop-up Question: the quickest way to find a bunch of male rogers? look in the newspapers, find a Civil War ‘re enactment’ event and there will be your herd. Want the rogerian females? Can you say Family Reunion? I mean seriously, these kinds of gatherings are catnip for rogers…without out the hyper active playfullness or the semi-drugged out happiness…more like a herd of cows in a field of grass that somehow grew to a height of about 3 feet, so they don’t even have to lower their heads to eat. You know…contented rogers)
Sorry, off topic…scotts and change. Not gonna happen. It is an interesting illustration of the scottian worldview to propose to a scott that they imagine living in the kind of world that clarks do. In fact, I once proposed that to DownSpring glenn, one Wakefieldnight last year. Specifically I said, “You know, for clarks the idea that things will stay the same and not change at random is a fond wish, a hope that clarks have, which only illustrates the quality of the reality that clarks exist in, e.g., maybe the sky is (normally) blue and the sun rises in the east. But if tomorrow the sky was dark green and the sun rose in the West, well…stuff like that could happen”. (To which glenn replied, “No fuckin way…that’s crazy…that’s impossible….GO Red Sox…I can’t hear you…you’re not makin any sense”.) (Ed. note Not an exaggeration, verbal conversations on Wakefieldnight actually do sound like this, except more profane and/or crazy in overall tone.)
Anyway, suffice to say, scotts do not like the idea of (fundamental) change. And that makes perfect sense, from the perspective of the Wakefield Doctrine. The saying is, ‘clarks think, scotts act and rogers feel’. (There is another saying, ‘a scott alone in a room, isn’t’). But what makes scotts so strong, so alive and vivacious and (often) fun to be with, is this un-complicatedness. They will act. They will move and react and generally do the things that they enjoy, without a lot of worry or self-consciousness or introspection. ( Think, puppy compared to old cat). Lots of energy. And the energy is expressed in actions. Scotts (as you know if you have read the Page on scotts) are the perceived Leaders in most cultures (you have read the Page on scotts, haven’t you?). They make good leaders, not just because of their enthusiasm and energy (come on, people…trying to present a theory of…here, you maybe don’t have the time to read the background material, already?) but mostly because of their certainty. It is not that scotts are never wrong, but they are never unsure. (…Fine, but don’t write a Comment complaining about how you don’t get it…it’s all there, you want me to frickin read it to you?). And it is this certainty that most people assume is Correct Action. And they will follow it. Show me a charismatic leader in history, (particularly one with a meteoric career) and I will show you a scott. Terrible mangers…great bosses.
Hey! Look at the time! Gotta go, meeting with a blog consultant this morning….yeah the subtitle thing. And that was the ‘free suggestion’, not sure I have the stomache for any major re-design of this thing of ours. But you know what they say…”what’s good for the Doctrine is what must be done, yo”. (No, the expressed resistance to change is not contradicting the point of this Post…will have the counter-balancing explanation for the tendency of clarks to resist change, which is a whole different thing from the scottian loathing of change.) And you would know that, if you had bothered to read more than the Posts with their ‘what-the-hell’ photos and catchy music videos, wouldn’t you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T97f2kBzOQDamn! Age much there, guys? Shit, feel a secondary-totally-uncalled-for-point-to-be-made coming on…getting old does seem to suck, but you knew that. What I did not really think of (before hearing Blood, Sweat and I’ve Fallen and Can’t get up, there) is that what makes it suck is the carefulness that seems to be a part of the gettin old experience. For those of us old enough to remember this song, the version above is done in such a cautious, careful-watch-out-for-that-high-note kind of way, that it makes you think that maybe that is not the best of all possible strategies to employ when trying to do things now, that you did then.
About clarkscottroger
Blood, Sweat and Tears, eh? Dig this man (ref. Woodstock) when I was about 7 years young for my birthday all I wanted was a couple of 45’s. And When I Die was one of ‘em. I’ll decline to mention the others (all of which I happily got). I played it over and over and over again. No rewinding or pushing any buttons. Had to lift the arm and put it back. Remember those cool little yellow 45 rpm adapters? And those round yodel-like (without the cream – come on, you remember “yodels” don’t ya?) anti-static thingies? But I digress.
Anyway, I thought I was pretty cool. Imagine Blood, Sweat &Tears at age 7. And that was the story of my life. Always thought I was pretty cool and a little ahead of things. Didn’t give a shit what people thought. I was in the band in high school (played the flute- inspired by Ian Anderson), hung out with both cheerleaders and pot-heads (actually aren’t they kind of the same?), and yes, I was athletic (track team – hurdles, 220, 440; long-distance running team) and biking alone at full speed for miles on end along Sandy Hook (NJ) in the summer.
But back to the point. Now upon reflection (and clarkie, I think you’re gonna like this) those are my first recollections (unbeknownst to me at the time) of the emergence of my true scottian nature blooming.
Seems to have all started with that silly little tune from BS&T. Fuckin’ (that’s for you Glenn) imagine that.
Yeah, the sixties were a magical time…
actually my first significant interaction with the (music) of the ’60s was hearing Led Zepplin on earphones…was a very typical clarklike experience.
was at a friend (of a friends) house and it was all, “oh man, you got to listen to this on the headphones…it’s so loud…” So naturally I did, ‘Good Time, Bad Times’ it was; so I am sitting on the living room floor at Mike and Chuck Moore’s house (their parents were out, of course) and it was like nothing I had ever heard/felt, it was not music played at a high volume, it was totally fuckin’ loud music…I really, really liked it. But then as I’m rockin out, (there on the floor) I happened to look up and notice that my friend Barry (and his friend Mike {and Mike’s brother, Chuck}) are ‘falling about the room’…didn’t make sense at all…(remember these were early stereo headphones, you did not hear nothin but what was coming through the headphones)…anyway their movements seemed odd, then things fell into place and I realised that they were laughing! Hysterically, ‘falling down laughing”.
I caught my friend’s eye and he started to look embarassed (for some reason), so I take off the headphones…
(As we all came to learn, eventually, there is a tendency to ‘sing along’ with music played at high volume…which given the song I was listening to was hilarious…)
…fuckin rogers
Yeah, they are but….had you not been the one being laughed at, you would also have been laughing. Surely, you started laughing?:)
You didn’t? Tell us why.
you know that I did not…
being a young clark all I could do was sit there and (credit to the Progenitor roger) “my head swelled up and my face fell”…I did not enjoy the process…I did not hold it against my (rogerian) friend…(I think, looking back, that of the other two, Mike Moore was a roger (ranked higher over Barry in the herd) and Chuck was a scott…outranking both…
which as we all know means that both rogers were procurring food for the scott…please allow me to amend my characterization from my first Comment…
fuckin’ scotts
Okay, maybe they were all scotts in that situation. But come on. You really, truly, honest to god didn’t laugh even a little? Maybe secretly to yourself? Of course the roger was embarassed. Too weak and probably dreading the thought of himself getting caught in the same situation as you were in.
I used to bust out singing with the good old headphones. The first ones I ever used were Navy issued. Seriously. My Dad used to be a squadron commander in the Navy. A true airman. Very intense stuff. Talk about keeping out noise. Can you imagine how loud it was on deck with jets taking off and landing? I used to sing along with the entire Jesus Christ Superstar LP(s). To this day I can remember the words of every character. Anyway, to my surprise (but NOT embarassment), I would catch one of my brothers or sisters “spying” on me. I’d get pissed, but I’d also laugh along to cover my anger (or just say fuck you with a smile). But as usual, I digress.
Anyway, the point here is that we all laugh at ourselves sometimes. That being said, I believe that rogers have perhaps not the inclination, but certainly the propensity to join in on a good laugh at someone else’s expense. As long as there are enough of ‘em together. So whether you’re a fuckin’ clark, scott or roger get over it and sing you’re fucking hearts out. Or whatever else might embarrass you. Who gives a shit (except maybe those damn rogers). Actually clarks too. Screw it. We scotts are the only ones with balls enough to enjoy ourselves during what might be embarassing to others. In fact, we probably actually make other people feel embarassed for witnessing such moments. Yeah, I can see the nervous smiles.
So fuck everybody.
…actually I did not laugh outloud…that would bring attention to the embarassement (of the rogerian friend) and clarks are all about worrying about how the other person feels…
that is not to say that, as a clark, I felt silly in the situation…but it always has everything to do with the make-up of the laughers and the laughees…
btw great insight into the scottian form with the line: “…I’d also laugh along to cover my anger (or just say fuck you with a smile)” (italics mine)
Good way of expressing the scottian reaction to embarassment…the face has it all, we know how focused the eyes of a scott are (and the smile is usually totally heavy on the teeth), clarks are the opposite, as focused as a scotts except (they) are looking at some very far away from the immediate room (most of the time)…but it is the eyes of a roger that are most…interesting…subtle…hard to describe…I’ll put a link to a video of a scene between Jack Nicholson and James Spader. Jack, scott, of course and James is the patron saint of the rogers, but I would challenge anyone to describe the eyes of the roger (other than gelantinous intensity)…go look here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Dp66_SpL4w
hey there clark!
i just found this new thing on facebook (i know, stop rolling your eyes) from a former high school friend who invited me to join. now i’m not a big facebookie sort of person, but this is kinda cool. perhaps greater presence for The Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers). check it out at
ZipCodeEDo.com Geocentric Social Network
i realize that there is a countdown going on. but i truly believe that with this tool there are endless possibilities to get the word out. Initially on a local level and then on a national level. let me know what you think.
as far as the eyes, i’ll have to get back to you. i haven’t eaten since breakfast. Seriously. and I’m starving (in a homosapien kind of way). need some real food.