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.