(  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…)