Month: November 2010 | the Wakefield Doctrine

hey…isn’t that the Speaker-for-the-scotts? she’s heading over here and she looks pissed…damn! I’m outa here

November 30, 2010 By clarkscottroger

OK folks. Here it is. Proof-positive of what I’ve been saying about how unreliable personality tests are. I decided to take one for myself. And like my results below, the questionnaire itself was not detailed. It even says so in my results for crying out loud! I mean, come on, how can a personality test give you specific results if the questions themselves are so broad?

In addition to this test I also took another on personality types that I found in Psychology Today**. I took the damn thing 5 times with completely different answers every time.
The results? All the frickin’same.

Results (…I got ya results…right here…)

My Results: (from one of these tests or another can’t frickin keep ‘em straight anymore) How lame-assed are these “tests”? they have to nerve to stick this Disclaimer right where you can’t possibly miss it:

“This questionnaire can’t tell you exactly what you are like; it doesn’t go into enough detail and only helps you ask questions about the way you behave and make decisions in your occupation. Don’t rely on it to tell you what your personality is like but use it to think about the different ways that people go about doing things. Read each description, ask yourself if it sounds like you (and it may not!)”

I mean, come on.. Seriously “…sounds like you (and it may not)”. Ya think?

Hey! AKH to test-dudes! Going out on a limb much there? You people are the kind of risk-takers, cutting-edge…’hey, show-me-how-fast-you-can-make-this-thing-go kind of people. Tests to identify your unique personality? Hey! psych-geek, do I look like a roger?!

My point?

The Wakefield Doctrine is a frickin useful thing, maybe not a, “hey I get paid to sit in some office and maybe teach college freshman psych students to worry about whether they might be gay or something ” (type thing), but a theory of personality which at least gives you an accurate assessment of “who” you are…no, wait…let’s put it this way: the Wakefield Doctrine is both usable and it is useful!

Example: (you find out you are a clark) and somebody says, “hey I got a cousin who works at a car lot and they need more people, he says you can make a lot of money’!
Doctrine sez: don’t even try to convince yourself, don’t waste a minute of thought on getting this job, cause you will get the job and you will not make any money.

Example: your sister calls and says to you: “my husband has a friend at work who would be perfect for you, and he is one of the best engineers in the whole place,
Doctrine sez: jeez I would love to spend an evening listening to a roger talk about themselves…as long as we don’t have to do anything fun

Example: you’re at a party and you discover that the guy your friend brought along for you to meet is talking to everybody even though hey doesn’t know any of them, he is joking and laughing and everyone is paying attention to him
Doctrine sez: er… that is a scott…great fun if you don’t mind spending the night in jail of the emergency room

Believe or not, the Wakefield Doctrine ain’t hard to grasp. How many more frickin’ ways can I tell you that you are missing the boat here people?

And when I say understand everyone else, I mean just that…with the Doctrine you will know how other is gonna react in any situation! Think that would give you the advantage over them, or what?

So get on over to the Doctrine, right now. No… I’m talking to that other person sitting in front of the computer. Jeez. Hey, when you get to the Doctrine?….look for stuff the right side of the page? Over there-> idiot. See that Table of Contents?

Stop reading this and start reading that! Go to each ‘bio page’ (clarks, scotts, and rogers).

After you have done that, come back here tell me why you regret not having done it sooner. I’m being totally, 100% serious. (hey, I don’t care how fast you think you can read, you are not done yet, get back there!)

The Wakefield Doctrine is not just some crazy idea thought up by someone for your entertainment (though it is fun once you start applying it). It is an authentic, dynamic theory. And remember, everyone has some characteristics of each. So don’t let that throw you off. It is the predominance of one (of the three types) that makes you either a clark, scott or roger. Don’t try to be the one you think is best. When I read ‘em I never would’ve thought of myself as a scott because scotts seemed to be very brash in an irreverent way. Self-absorbed. Why is it that we all tend to view the scotts as the bad guys? But I digress.
The point is, when you read about the three types (clarks, scotts and rogers), they are tangible. Specific. Easy to grasp. Unlike all of those other personality theories out there. Did I just put the Doctrine into a league of its’ own? Now what does that tell you? Correct. That the Doctrine is a plausible theory of personality types. Damn. That’s frickin’ right. A plausible theory that can be applied to everyone single person regardless of gender or culture.

And I’m gonna keep on bugging your asses until I hear some results.

Don’t believe me? Then go to this link take their frickin test and then come right back (hey rogerian academic dudes!! Here ya go.. a couple more “she is making us take your test” Readers)

Now click this…

http://similarminds.com/big5.html

**Based on the Five Factor Model credited to Goldberg, Costa and McRae, this test is designed to provide you with valuable insight into your character, aptitudes, and disposition. It is based on the theory that all human personality traits belong to one of five broad dimensions of personality. Each of the five main personality traits stretches along a continuum. The personality traits tested in the questionnaire are consistent cross-culturally, and are fairly stable over time, beginning in young adulthood. An understanding of your position on each dimension can provide you with valuable insight into your personality.
You scored somewhere in the middle between introversion and extroversion, which means that you draw characteristics from both ends of the spectrum. Sometimes, you need time to yourself, preferring to think things through on your own. Other times, you enjoy interacting with others. Overall, you are likely a fairly outgoing person who occasionally opts for solitude. You likely need a balance of alone time and time with others in your life because you can become a little overwhelmed if you ignore the introverted side of yourself.

Filed Under: The Basic Principles of the Wakefield Doctrine

but uh-uh Honey, lay off of my shoes

November 29, 2010 By clarkscottroger

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

A lot of work to do, not enough time to do it all. Quick Overview for you New Readers and then, to work.

The Wakefield Doctrine is a way to look at the behavior of people. We call it a theory of personality, but it is not really…more of a ‘set of perspectives’, a guide to figuring out what (the other) person is experiencing and therefore what they are likely to do next. Here at the Doctrine we say, you live in the world of a clark, a scott or a roger. We have the potential to ‘be’ any of the three, but for reasons not yet clear we all settle on one way in early childhood. (One of the most common questions we get here is: “Sometimes it seems like I am such a roger, other times I get mad and act like a scott. I guess this Doctrine doesn’t include me” To which we answer, “Yes, yes it does….clark.”) The basic idea here is that everyone eventually starts to see the world a certain way, as a pack animal/predator or perhaps a herd-based social person or even a blue monkey.
What this blog was created to do is to spread the word of the Wakefield Doctrine to as many people as possible. And we are doing this simply because we have found that when we tell people about the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers, they really seem to get a kick out it. Everyone who starts to look around them always see the rogers first, the scotts second and finally the clarks. And they always get strong rogers mixed up with distracted scotts, at least in the first couple of trys. But once they see the clarks and the scotts and the rogers, they can never look at the people in their world the same. Ever.

Like we said. Its fun! And way more ‘predictive’ than any homespun theory of personality has any right to be…I mean a deviation of error of < .7% , yo. (Just messin with you, we have not measured the accuracy of predictive element to the Doctrine…but maybe someday we’ll get all chi-squared on this thing of ours.) So there you have the basics. But like I said, a lot of work to do today.

Hey! Progenitors! DownSprings!! Look what I found!!

Male Female examples dynamic Cultural Sigil/movie/TV

clark scott Bob Newhart and (any co-star in any of his series) High energy/high maintenance The Bob Newhart Show(s)

clark roger Chris (on America’s Test Kitchen) and the less attractive of the two other cooks Logical, informative a little boring

clark clark Woody Allen and Diane Keaton Jeez do these two ever stop talking? Annie Hall/

scott clark

scott roger Joe Pesci and (any one of his cut-out placeholder wife co-stars in any movie) (what woman co-star?)

scott scott Yeah? Well fuck you too!

roger scott Bill and Hilary Clinton …just stay off of ‘em Blue Suede Shoes War of the Roses

roger clark

roger roger David Boreanaz/Emily Deschanel Socially stable high energy Bones

Yeah, I know! A damn chart! ( …it’s meant to refer to something in our culture, not related to the Doctrine but still demonstrating characteristics…roger… ) ( …hey somebody go get glenn…there’s a DownSpring-shaped dust cloud in the seat at his computer at work!!…)

All we need to do is relax and let the blank spaces fill themselves in, I have total confidence that we can do this thing.

As you see, a lot of the spaces in the grid have something in them, but not all. So what we need are suggestions so we can complete this grid and get on to the next one, which is the Female/Male grid (hey! I had to start somewhere…the sooner we get this one filled in, the sooner we get the other one done.)

What!!? ( wtf….yeah you’re right….if we gonna be gender-neutral we gotta carry through on it…thanks a lot…DS#1… )

Here…from the “other axis”

Female Male examples dynamic Cultural Sigil

clark scott Uma Thurmann and David Carradine Cut it out… Kill Bill Part II

clark roger Kristin Stewart and that pretty guy in those Twilight movies Now, what do you want Twilight

clark clark Diane Keaton and Woody Allen Sorry, didn’t mean…to interrupt Annie Hall

scott clark

scott roger Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise …crawl you bastard crawl Jeez haven’t sat through a T Cruise movie since Risky Business

scott scott

roger scott

roger clark Sculley and Muldar (DS#1) isn’t it nice I let you admire me? X Files

roger roger Kathy Bates and James Caan Why don’t you let me make you miserable? Misery

No time left… Ps and Ds? you guys know what to do…new Readers? not to worry is not always work…we have fun… sometimes

Mr. B!! those kids of yours still on vay-kay? Damn…let’s get us out with something up-beat.

( …hey! somebody stop glenn, he seems to be chewing his secretary’s ankle…listen to this ( visual cue: Moe! Larry! cheese!!)… )

Now… get to work, bitches

Filed Under: Featured, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: clarkscottroger, personality types, predicting human behavior, relationships, the Wakefield Doctrine

gonna write me a letter, telephone every town I know

November 27, 2010 By clarkscottroger

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

Leftovers? Did someone mutter, “oh man, fricken leftovers again”

Yeah, ‘fraid that’s what cha gonna get today. Leftovers. Remnants. Re-assembled parts. Accept this fact and it will be over before you know it.

Ran into DownSpring Joanne (Mistress of Metrics) last night. She is doing well, says that she will get back to us with some very useful questionnaire-related ideas. Also, she wanted any Readers out there to know that she ‘has her eye on the Grand Canyon’. While Joanne may have forgotten her hat (for her damn head), when she was there a few months ago, she intends to get back soon, avec le chapeau, and add that bad boy to her collection. (hey, “Garcia Lopez de Cardenas, dude! if you wanted to hold onto it, all you needed was a picture of you and the hat! might be Cardenas Canyon if you had, yo) So we will be on the look-out for that.
In our little talk with Joanne and “Dave” (…this person being an argument for an unusually high scottian component to Joanne’s make-up. But that is a whole Post in itself). I gently steered the conversation around to the topic of writing Comments, the exact words were, “hey why the hell aren’t you writing Comments”? Talked a little about the idea that, for some totally incomprehensible reason, people find it daunting and/or intimidating to write Comments after Posts. Damn, wish everyone would simply understand that these Posts are meant to be an open, un-critical, nurturing space, ya know? I guess they must all be…I don’t know…(insert obvious joke here).

Anyway, good to see her. She might be the first of us to own more than one part of the world, by rite of hat.

AKH been busy…’spects to Post some of her uniquely scottian take on the Doctrine. ‘KH has a bee in her bonnet about all them other “tests” that are offered at other “blog sites” and how they are just rogerian, self-promotational bunch of girls…” I found a personality type test on Psychology Today. took it 5 times answering completely differently each time and got the same results! an actual test that people can go take and see that it’s true that these tests are neither useful, reliable or accurate. ha ha”. We are looking forward to her report. ( AKH, yo…the lobster bib and tiny little forks? not really necessary…)

the roger has been busy over at the ragamuffin…go on over…glenn hangs out there and he hasn’t even pissed on the table legs or chewed the upholstery or anything. (Think of it as your chance to watch a scott in a ‘natural habitat’, sort of like those safari places where you ride around in a Range Rover and see shit and they don’t let you get out of the car or throw stuff at the animals.)

DS#1 is in the process of upgrading her employment situation…we all wish her success and fun and all…as to her current employer…Starch and Oil SuperMarket, or the Family FeedTrough or whatever the hell they call themselves, “ Hey supermarket dudes, fuck you and your scanners and the humans you pay to convince the intelligence-challenged customers that your calorie warehouse is just like they remember when they were little kids and went food shopping on Friday evenings and there was a friendly cashier and all“.

(…oh damn!…you’re right, I did have a half written Post). Here, read this:

We all know that trying to write a Post over the course of more than one day hardly ever works, but the title¹of (this) Post was so strong that I just could not resist. I am currently trying to be a good family member and participate in Thanksgiving Day activities (…the word in your mind right now is: oxymoron, lol). In any event I type a little, then go out and stare in horror at the Macy’s Parade on the TV until I cannot stand it and come back and type some more. Intellectual smelling salts, if you will.
We haver never really focused too much current culture, preferring to leave that in the more capable hands of Mel over at the Spatula, but there are appearing “changes” in said culture that those of us here at the Doctrine are feeling compelled to address.

(blah…holiday reference….blah…clever play on words…blah)

OK Wakefield Doctrine Lesson of the Day. If you are influenced by the western hemispheric culture sufficiently to do anything Thanksgiving-related this week, then you have witnessed a demonstration/illustration of the Wakefield Doctrine.
You saw the clarks…they were either helping in the kitchen (so quietly that you have to make a deliberate effort to remember them washing dishes, watching the oven etc)…you heard the scotts…wishing everyone HAPPY HOLIDAYS WHERE IS (so and so) I HAVEN”T SEEN…WHEN’S THE GAME ON….and you were there because of the roger…”why, you can’t be by yourself on Thanksgiving, it’s a day for the family to gather…everyone will be here, I have gone to so much trouble to make this perfect for everyone“…

Mr. B? I believe my time has come….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-hSPaimhuU

1) Post title derives from lyrics contained in the blues standard, ‘Dust My Broom’ originally recorded by Robert Johnson. The recording we are listening to is by Elmore James, who in his version of the song, creates one of the seminal guitar ‘licks’, something no person that has ever picked up an electric guitar can possibly resist trying to play.
The lyrics below are from the Robert Johnson version, the changes (in the lyrics) are somewhat intriguing, almost as if the song had been cleaned-up for a wider audience. The lyric ‘device’ of the need to ‘write a letter’ is a pervasive sentiment found not only in the blues but rock and roll and even pop music. (courtesy of Wikipedia):

I’m goin’ get up in the morning, I believe I’ll dust my broom (repeat)
Girl friend, the black man you been lovin’, girl friend, can get my room
I’m gonna write a letter, telephone every town I know (repeat)
If I can’t find her in West Helena, she must be in East Munroe I know
I don’t want no woman, wants every down town man she meets (repeat)
She’s a no good dony, they shouldn’t ‘low her on the streets
I believe, I believe I’ll go back home (repeat)
You can mistreat me here, babe, but you can’t when I go home
And I’m gettin’ up in the morning, I believe I’ll dust my broom (repeat)
Girl friend, the black man you been lovin’, girl friend, can get my room
I’m gonna call up China, see is my good gal over there (repeat)
I can’t find her in the Philippine Islands, she must be in Ethiopia somewhere

Filed Under: Featured, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: clarkscottroger, personality types, relationships, the Wakefield Doctrine

Maybe I was wrong to ever let you down, but I did what I did before love came to town

November 24, 2010 By clarkscottroger

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

As everyone knows we are about to celebrate Thanksgiving here in Oceania. Once a single-day holiday, calendar-creep now has it starting on Wednesday and ending Sunday night (…”man, did you see the traffic on the interstate”?). We will make every effort to keep the Posts coming, even through such a distracting time of year. (This Post is as mixed and confused as the Holiday itself).
Second only to Christmas in it’s demands upon the members (of our) culture, Thanksgiving is shedding it’s historical camouflage and coming into it’s own in terms of proscribed ritual behavior. Of course, Thanksgiving has always laid claim to being a standalone, not-a-hand-me-down, genuine American holiday, unlike those twin imported festivals, Christmas and Easter. As children we are not only taught the story of The First Thanksgiving, we even had school-directed Thanksgiving lessons.¹ As a result, it is a holiday in which it is relatively simple to know how to act properly and as such, is clark-friendly.²I probably should resurrect/re-post something from the Doctrine archives that deal with the holidays, but hey! it’s Thanksgiving Week!! And we all know what that means!

…it means stress raised to levels otherwise experienced only on Wedding Days, (the day before) major Surgery, asking a girl out for the first time and/or giving birth; all delivered to every single member of your family unit in equal doses:

the cook-person (usually the female, but not always) “hey get out of the kitchen, you’re in the way”!/”hey where did everyone go, why do I have to be stuck in the kitchen”?
the children “why can’t we go outside, we hardly know those people”!/”I will try to get home at least for dinner, but I have a term paper that has to get laid”
the relatives (old) “why I remember when you were just this tall”!/”don’t you remember when we all went to the shore, you were this this tall”
the relatives (young) “why can’t we stay home and have dinner”/”there’s nothing on TV, they don’t have any video games at grandma’s house”!
the invited friends “hey, you know what would be really exciting“?/”hey, your family are really nice people”!
the turkey/the carving/the presenting of the food, “it’s over-cooked I just know I over-cooked it”!/”no, it’s just fine! It’s just that the knife is still too dull”!
the desserts “hey, more than one desert at a single meal”!/”what the hell is a ‘Mince’ and why is it in a pie”?

We all know that “the holidays” are experienced differently by each of the three (clarks, scotts and rogers) and therefore the demands of the celebrations are very effective illustration of the nature of each. But if there was no Thanksgiving, a roger would have invented it! (Actually, they probably did). Think about it! A holiday celebration that is:

based on a factual historical event (sort of)
the protagonists (of the story) are religious refugees, persecuted and driven away together on boats
food, specific food and a not-to-be-deviated-from Menu
ritual menu and a full schedule of events
shopping in herds, as the climax of the celebration (Black Friday)
a moral taught to the young: we came here, those strangers who helped us were different, (…we had a feast and wiped out their culture)

I will be so bold as to suggest that there is no more rogerian a holiday than Thanksgiving! If there was a St Roger, his feast day would so be in the last week of November. (Saint Roger; Holy Mother Church’s only self-martyred Martyr. He died at the hands of the original Pilgrims and the Wampanoags; records in Vatican archives tell us that St Roger’s suggestions throughout the day were accepted with good nature by all in attendance, i.e. “..don’t you think the deer is a little over-cooked”…”pumpkin pie? who would make a pie out of those things?”…”why is that construction-paper Indian’s head all folded”… But, as the story has it, the assembled party reached their limits when he was heard to say, “what do you mean, ‘no turkey’? the best part of the holiday is a cold turkey and pemmican sandwich at around 9:00pm’. His martyrdom is the subject of an up-coming Ken Burns documentary, “St. Roger…when enough is not nearly enough“)

And since we are on the subject of rogers and holidays, is there any human activity that is more one sided, over-hyped, expectations-sure-to-fall short, ( not counting sex on the eve of a relationship breaking up), than parades? I don’t care if you are a trombone player in the middle of the herd or someone sitting in their living room watching it on TV…you are a roger. (…Someone tell me I’m lying.)

In any event, my own memories of (childhood) Thanksgivings are all about the walnuts. (Among the several once-a-year foods) a bowl of nuts was put in the living room for the guests but the cool thing was that the nutcracker and those pointy-picking-something-out devices were included. I did not, and still do not like walnuts, but the chance to use the implements was the high point of the day. (…well that little memory-leftover has nothing to do with any of the rest of this trainwreck of a Post, lol)

1) such as pageants and plays and a whole bunch of shit that we were forced to make out of construction paper (using those rounded scissors and that white-paste-stuff that you could never keep off your fingers) and then the fuckin head of the Indians you so carefully crafted would get folded over and the whole thing still had to go up on the border around the blackboard of the classroom.

2) you really should not need this explained to you…about clarks…and holidays.

Filed Under: Featured, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: humor, Personal, personality types, relationships, the Wakefield Doctrine

like the cry of a child or the setting of the sun on a rainy day, this is the Wakefield Doctrine

November 21, 2010 By clarkscottroger

( I left the message where everyone would see it… )

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

( …yeah, yeah I know “the expectations of the clark is gall upon their tongues”… yeah I ‘ve read the Bible too, you know… they won’t let us down…I choose to believe that… )

Today being Sunday we have a special treat in an ‘early days of television programming’ sort of way. What do I mean? Well in the early days of TV, the late 50’s to early 60’s, there was virtually nothing on TV during the day Sunday or Saturday. Just shows like Meet the Press and high-culture shows like David Copperfield (no, no the straight one! ). The only bright spot in a retro-culture-sense, was Davy and Goliath. This was on at about 8 or 8:30

( did I hear someone come in? oh, yeah put those over in the corner…. yeah, you too… have a good Thanksgiving )

I was going to Post a set of responses from the Progenitors and DownSprings, their response to the question:

I am glad there is a Wakefield Doctrine because…and the one thing that will make it better for the new Reader is…
….the new Reader should take this from their first visit to the Wakefield Doctrine….

roger? glenn?…….DS#1??…..( AKH won’t let me down…) AKH??

The best aspect of the WD is best seen from a distance; a wide-angle view, if you will.
If considered from a liberal standpoint ( and consequently applied as such), it illustrates to newcomers that;
it is highly advisable and acceptable to think ” out of the box”. In contrast to academic psychology, which generally attempts to make very much out of very little, the WD should represent a free-range approach that can provide very quick and insightful results.
The flip side; if applied from an overly conservative standpoint, the WD will likely be used as a new dogma that simply reinforces prejudices that were likely already firmly in place.
Ultimately, the WD should be used responsibly. Although newcomers will initially enjoy the ” labeling” phase, they should hopefully realize that there is more to learn about oneself here than anything else

What? Lots of unconnected bits in this Post–at least the bits are unconnected to sensible people. I’m sure clarks see the connections right away. Not sure what you’re asking for here. “I’m glad there is a Wakefield Doctrine because…”? Is that it? And the one thing that will make it better for a new reader??? That too? How about some fucking clarity? No. Just fucking with ya. I’m glad there is a Wakefield Doctrine because in general most lives are rather boring and uneventful. The WD gives me a place to go read what my clark friend is thinking–and then I get to respond to it..if it deserves a response. Makes life a little less boring.
What does it need to be better for the new reader? Clarity. The core idea is often obscure. Seems like new readers would get discouraged and leave–because the simple core idea is not “right up front”. Now….Davey and Goliath. I’m stretching my memory back to the few times I let myself sit through an episode as a kid. I fucking hated this show. Even as a very young kid, I felt tricked and misled by this fake-ass children’s entertainment. The idiotic God message in every episode–forced, and often concealed until the very end(when they figured they had you hooked in)–left me feeling like I’d been manipulated. If you have to conceal your message in a cartoon so kids would listen to it, it must be a pretty fucked message. And it is. Religious assholes make me want to puke. What right do these Lutheran fucks have to send veiled religious messages to other peoples’ fucking kids? Each episode contained some “lesson” from God His Own Self. If you gotta sell it, then it don’t sell itself—so it must be shit. Even as a very young child, I saw hypocrisy in Davey and Goliath. So fucking wholesome! Yeah, right. I’ve always hated wholesomeness. Makes my skin crawl.

( …point taken about the clarity, glenn. This issue has been the second most daunting challenge since this thing of ours started, i.e. how to present the new Reader with the basic principles of the Doctrine, while still allowing there to be a ‘conversation’ among the people who actually ‘practice and apply’ it. It has always been our goal to have Posts that replicate the experience of standing around with Progenitors and DownSprings.
You know, all three types are ‘capable’ of being manipulative and often are, but it is when we consider why one type feels that manipulation is necessary do the differences really start to stand out. clarks are manipulative because they are afraid, scotts are manipulative when they get bored or (as AKH is beginning to explore, due to gender issues) and rogers are manipulative because they know it is for the other person’s good. In defense of the roger…they are of the herd, there is nothing else that matters other than the herd so what may appear to be manipulation (in a bad way) to us may simply be good health and exercise! The herd must remain healthy! When you exercise and diet, you are being manipulative towards your other body parts. Given that everyone else in the herd is an extension of the one, this is how it is with the rogers… )

I am glad there is a Wakefield Doctrine because it helps me not be so scared. As a clark, I am inclined to view the world with a hazy backdrop* of fear. Knowledge of the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers (and actively using it) has helped to allay some of that fear.

For example New Reader, stepping back from the immediate in order to view the panoramic is tantamount to a clark’s ability to (more) quickly assess, assimilate and assume control of her/his surroundings and act accordingly. (No, not as involved or complicated as it sounds.)

Once an individual, whether clark, scott or roger, is imbued with the “tools” contained within the Wakefield Doctrine then the pressure is off. Figuring (term of old ) motivation and such becomes much easier. If you know how a person views the world then naturally you can know how they will react in/to that world.

scotts are no longer scary, rogers are better understood and clarks…..they are what they are…..

As to whom I would like to play me in the Wakefield Doctrine, the Movie – I will ponder that a little longer. However, I welcome suggestions from readers.

At this time of year when family dynamics go ballistic and all sorts of shit can happen, I would like to give thanks for my scottian friends who provide energy/drama (color them red), my rogerian friends who make sure all the ducks are not only in a row but correspondingly similar to all the other ducks (let’s color them as the sky – blue) and to my clark (like) friends who whoah! Wait a minute. I don’t have any friends who are clarks. Well there is one. But he would rather remain anonymous being the clark and all.

Here is my own vid for the day. (see below, right under Jack)

* “A painted cloth hung at the back of a stage set. Also called backcloth.”

( …as we all of us here know, it is not just that there are three types of personality, absolutely frickin not, this Wakefield Doctrine is about a preponderance of one of the qualities what be makin us what we are… the hats (for your damn heads) that we have (available in the concession stand, please don’t be shy step right up) illustrate this point graphically better than we can verbally… it be sayin’ clarkscottroger, or for glenn and AKH it say, clarkscottroger…and for our absent progenitor roger…his hat would say the following: clarkscottroger… dig? )

I am glad there is a Wakefield Doctrine because it has truly opened my eyes. The premise (and fact as far as I’m concerned) of the Doctrine that there are but 3 distinct personality types is unmatched. Sure, there will always be the personality type tests, but they are not really based on anything specific. Much too broad to truly figure out who you are. If put into “scientific“ terms, this would be a theory of types A, B and C. But it is so much easier for a new reader to relate to specific names with totally different characteristics that are tangible while leaving out all of the mumbo-jumbo that you have to take a frickin’ psychology class to understand. The Doctrine is easily grasped and allows one to apply it immediately.

You have the clarks who are both the most difficult to relate to and the easiet to misunderstand because they are constantly one step ahead of the conversation trying to figure something out in a different universe. You might, in fact, feel as though you are having a one-way conversation.

And those damn scotts. You just never know what you’re in for. Are they smiling because they like you or is it because they view you as easy prey and are happy about that? Gotta remember to watch the eyes.

Finally the rogers. Definitely the easiest to identify. They are all around us and are so complacent that it’s impossible to miss ‘em. You’ll find them in herds/groups with those similar to themselves. They will absolutely never be the ones making a spectacle.

Easy, huh? And maybe that’s what’s best about the Doctrine. It makes perfect sense and answers questions about things we never had the answer to when it came to figuring out other people’s behavior.

Wow! Me represented in a movie? Lol There are so many good ones. But if I have to pick one my first inclination is Jack Nicholson I know we’ve seen the videos before in the Doctrine posts as prime examples of scottian behavior. But he’s so damn good to watch. And it would seem that his character in his numerous films are always scottian. A true unnerving, entertaining and sometimes scary guy to watch. And did you ever notice that he’s always smiling (physically or with his eyes) even at his darkest? Well there you go. Think about it. How cool would it be to be him? The one who is always in total control (that’s what the attraction is for me) Wonder what he’s like in real life. I can’t imagine him as any type other than a scott. Even when you see him on, let’s say, the red carpet you can’t deny the eyes. However, since I am a female of the scottian persuasion I’d have to go with none other than Angelina Jolie. She’s hot, smart and always in control of any given situation. And of course the eyes. They are always smiling. But beware, like Nicholson in his roles, it doesn’t mean that she likes you. More a look of amusement while sizing you up. Viewing you as a play toy.

So there you have it.
Happy Thanksgiving!

( thank you Ms. AKH to the point as always, yo. Yes, the eyes have it. The primary characteristic of the scott (male and female)…no mistaking that gaze… “More a look of amusement while sizing you up. Viewing you as a play toy” or “as if she is studying the Menu in a restaurant”… ( …hey AKH since you raised the issue of the ‘eyes of the scott‘ I added a clip … )

Mr. B! Come on now, you gave up everything for the love of a scottian woman, don’t be shy! show us your life before hazel made you a happy man…

…now for the man himself…

(I know dat song!, dats the fuckin song in that that movie…Hannibal and the FBI broad…fuck yeah!! what was that name Secret of the Lambs, yeah thats the one…great fuckin movie…)