Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
We are happy to be seeing quite a few new faces. If you end up finding the Doctrine an interesting site, in all likelihood you will like it here for one of three reasons:
- You never met new information that you didn’t find fascinating to some degree;
- There’s some kick-ass music videos and that ALK and this glenn guy they really seem alright
- There is a tradition here that goes back at least 35 years, how bad can it be?
First a ‘cook’s tour’1 of this site: the Wakefield Doctrine maintains that all of us fit into one of three ‘personality types’, we are all of us, a clark or a scott or a roger. What is unique about this theory is that it does not involve taking a test or filling in a survey form that tries to get you to list your likes and dislikes, hates and loves, favourite colors and pet peeves. No, the Doctrine is way easiest, it simply says, “hey you are either a clark or a scott or a roger! (But here is where it gets easy!) here in this blog we will show you how each of the three types ‘look and sound and act’ . Ya find the one that is most like you…bam! now you know your personality type!
Of course, there is much, much more to it than that, but it is real damn simple to start and most of all, it’s fun! And not just fun in the ‘omg I am just like Hilary“! (or Justin or whichever cultural icon appeals to you). No frickin way, this is more fun! How can I say that? Because not only can you and your friends go and look for the rogers and clarks at the mall but you and your friend can talk about how that new teacher is such a scottian bitch and… you, alone in your room can feel that maybe now you know why people are so mean sometimes.
It’s all here in these Posts and Pages and Comments and such. Again we say welcome, make your self at home and if you have any questions just ask! ( Remember…there are no stupid questions, just your questions).
Very good drive through Wakefield last night. Courtesy of the wonders of modern technology, we had Ms AKH and DS#1 in the car with us for the better part of 47 minutes. Damn this Doctrine-thing ‘shore is gettin interesting.
What we did was this: glenn and I started out on our usual trip to Wakefield. Being away for three Saturdays, he and I drove the traditional route, including a stop for gas, (unfortunately neither the alien nor the near-transparent-clark-girl were there) and then we drove down through Galilee to not buy ice cream, finally out to the main road (Rt1a aka Ocean Rd). At that point, just north of Scarborough Beach, AKH was called, put on hold, DS#1 was called, un-hold AKH and there we were…Wakefield with 3 DownSprings and a Progenitor! Can I get a damn!
At first the conversation was the slightly over-energized, off-tempo in a first-time, stage-fright kind of way that you might imagine. But even that was as the Doctrine predicted, i.e. how a clark reacts to stage fright is distinctly different from how a scott would react. But ‘nerves’ quickly dissipated and we settled into quite a stimulating discussion. Very interesting.
Topics revolved, for the most part, around how cool the whole ‘drive to Wakefield’ has very suddenly become. The simple idea that we could have an actual discussion among Progenitors and DownSprings about the Doctrine. Now the thing about this blogsite here, is we try to create a sense of a discussion of the Wakefield Doctrine via the Comments after a Post and everything, but this thing last night was just plain cool.
…damn! it was real. With “actual people” doing what people do when engaged in a challenging and stimulating conversation: contradicting themselves, correcting their last statements, objecting to how their last statement was being interpreted. But in a car. Driving through Wakefield. Discussing the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers.
This will be continued. But before we get out (for now) a couple of the high-points of the conversation:
- who was sitting in the front and who in the back (don’t even ask!)
- what was the itinerary and why was I stopping on the green lights and driving through the red
- how would AKH and glenn get along (never having ‘met’)…
- something was said about how cool this would have been if we were younger…(I am embarrassed to take responsibility for that)
- the beginnings of a discussion on gender differences, i.e. how is predatory aggressiveness differently expressed in scottian males v scottian females
- (decided that that topic should continue in camera, for now and that it would expand to clarks then rogers)
- brief discussion about the bad rap that scotts might get when new Readers hear the word: predatory
- finally, glenn (somehow) could hear what we have been trying to say about evolution, that properly approached/defined is not a bad thing
- this last was the proof of the benefit of these trips to Wakefield
- decided next time to try and get AKH to come to Wakefield in person so we can get the roger and DS#1 into the dashboard, then watch world collide
Very good Saturday. Will be adding to this Post throughout the day.
Mr. B? Show us what you have been brought, at such great cost to us here to provide our Readers, yo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbFAEw_Foqw1. Cook’s tour n Informal a rapid but extensive tour or survey of anything
[after Thomas Cook (1808-92), British travel agent]
About clarkscottroger
The opera singer..what the fuck? Andrea something…that broad’s got a deep voice. She sounds like a dude. Your cell phone with the car app thing was fun. Just as you described it—a GROUP discussion of the doctrine. That could happen here any time, readers. All you gotta do is leave a comment, or a question, or an opinion–even a snotty opinion. All contributions are welcome. Don’t say too many “bad” things, though, cause Clark will censor you. A comment was made last night that my resistance to nurturing my recessive clark and roger traits is based in insecurity. It is. I agree. Scotts are CERTAIN–not always right, but always certain. Being a clark even for just a minute makes me feel out of control—you guys don’t know fucking anything for sure. It’s all a big fucking maybe…could be…may not be..That actually scares me. I’ve been like that. Hated it. And rogers–so emotional, vulnerable, defenseless it seems. They actually seem to LIKE being in some kind of psychic pain. I’ve been like that for brief periods in my life. HORRIBLE. Fuck that. So, I am only secure when I am certain–and well-defended. Being uncertain, or defenseless feels awful to me. Any other scotts agree? Disagree? Interesting, but then I’ve always found myself very interesting.
The other issue that arose during our phone call in the car (or was it a car ride in a phone?) was the issue of people, perhaps upon first reading about the WD, maybe finding the definition of scotts off-putting. Words like predatory, competetive..etc.. These traits are there in scotts, but they are blended into a (hopefully) functional human being. It is entirely possible–even likely–that a scott can be predatory and competetive–and also compassionate and affiliative. In the world laboratory, people tend to like scotts when they meet them. Lots of reasons for that. Scotts are funny, charismatic, and hard to ignore. But–just a thought—could part of the reason why people like scotts be that scotts like people? And people sense that even though the scott is busting their balls and tweaking their sacred cows, he/she only does this to people for whom he/she has a liking. For me, when I encounter the rare person who I truly do not like, I usually just pretend they are not there. The people I like, I tweak. Those I hate–I look right through. If someone makes me angry, I can be quite forceful and over-the-top in expressing my anger. But when you think about it, you really only get angry at people who matter to you. So even the anger is an indication of connection. People I don’t like are not important enough for me to waste my anger on. Or even waste my attention. So, from now on, when I say “fuck you”, please understand that, to THIS scott, fuck is a good thing–an act of love, no? So, fuck you is a friendly salutation. Fuck you very much. You fuckers. And fuck your mothers too. They deserve it after all.
…That could happen here any time, readers. All you gotta do is leave a comment, or a question, or an opinion–even a snotty opinion. All contributions are welcome. Don’t say too many “bad” things, though, cause Clark will censor you…
This ‘Coments to Posts’, as a forum is more a place to state ideas, it is not a conversation, at least not a conversation in the sense that I believe you are using the word. And certainly not in the sense that we experienced it this Saturday night past. Here you make a statement and I read it. Then I make a statement (that may or may not be a response to your statement).
Not a bad thing, but a conversation?
Saturday night was a conversation (….no wait! let me finish!…Eww..that was kindalol no I dihent!! Fuck you too…)
You get my point. Real conversations are real, they are actual interactions between/among people…in reality. As fun as this Post/Comment stuff is, it is not reality. We will use it cause it is here, but don’t mistake one thing for the other. (Right there!! What was the tone of my voice? Did I have a ‘chuckle-in-voice’, was I getting upset…that is what I mean. Young Man!) (lol)
people tend to like scotts when they meet them. Lots of reasons for that. Scotts are funny, charismatic, and hard to ignore. But–just a thought—could part of the reason why people like scotts be that scotts like people?(Yeah scotts like people…for frickin dinner…)
For the new Reader, glenn has posed the interesting question, (if I may paraphrase), “people like scotts, they always respond to us, we are funny, outrageous…”
The reason for this site is this thing we call the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) and as it’s (full) name implies it will tell you all about the three personality types of people. As to glenn’s rhetorical question of why people like scotts, we have the Doctrine to tell us. And it tells us, as glenn rightly states, ‘scotts are certain…” People respond to certainty, confidence (which is often confused with competence) and so will follow the scott.
However, as to glenns assertion that people sense that scotts are ‘busting their balls’ and (therefore) they (the ball-owners) feel positively towards the scott because they interpret this as the scott liking them.
Probably not.
Outside of the scope of this forum would be a discussion of the way of scotts testing for ranking and to establish dominance. Quick story might help illustrate:
I worked in timeshare sales years ago. This type of sales is incredibly manipulative, which is achieved by establishing a very controlled environment, both for the salespeople and the ‘customers’. So not surprisingly there are scotts in positions of power, the top position being Director of Sales. My friend Alex was such a scott, very highly developed, stainless steel teeth, as the roger would say.
In any event, I witnessed a meeting between Alex, the resort developers and ‘a money guy’ that tells us what the Doctrine would say about scotts and people liking them. The objective of this meeting was to convince a sophisticated, accomplished Investor to bankroll the sales and marketing of our resort. (His name was Rudy, he was from NYC and he had made millions on Wall St.)
So the meeting opens with Rudy making a short speech about himself and the complexities of the financial world and how admired he is by his peers on Wall St. He sits down and it is Alex’s turn to speak. Alex is, of course, expected to present reasons why Rudy should view the resort as a good investment, why we deserved his backing. Instead….Alex got up in front of the room and after a really brief, 2 minute overview of the resort and it’s prospects for sucess, he turned to Rudy and said,
“Rudy, when I arrived this morning I happened to walk past you out in the parking lot. We had not met yet, of course. But the thing I remember the most was the smell of the cigar you were smoking out there. I mentioned to Clark here, just before this meeting, how much it stunk. Really, really bad…” (Now at this point everyone but Alex are getting uncomfortable. The developers are squirming in their seats, Rudy has gone from surprised to beginning to turn red, I am sitting back in my seat, amazed. And Alex just keeps pouring it on, how much he has always hated the smell of cigars…
But then it happened. A split second before Rudy got up to storm out and/or punch Alex in the face, Alex ‘turned the corner’ and went into…)
“…but after hearing you speak just now, and I hear some of the ideas that you have for our resort here, I must say I am really impressed.”
At this point, I looked over at Rudy, an established investor who had made millions of dollars and Rudy was smiling like a damn schoolgirl who has just had the Most Popular Guy in school help her pick up dropped library books.
Needless to say, we got the funding. Rudy was Alex’s biggest fan. And I understood something about the nature of scotts and why people respond to them the way they do.
With scotts it is all about the “testing”. The insult/putdown, implied or otherwise – no make that in your face insult/putdown, is a method by which a scott will gauge the testee’s (insert crude scottian comment followed by laughter from the lesser scotts) metal. How an individual responds to the scott, as in the Progenitor clark’s story above, is a most important component when scotts are going about their foodplay.
So you see, if one is able to identify who is a scott or a roger or a clark then in fact one does have a huge advantage. To reference the above comment again – the Progenitor clark knew Alex to be a scott and therefore was aware of what was happening. The shock value was there but also the certainty of the outcome.
A couple Posts back RCoyne made some astute comments as to “methods” employed by scotts on the prowl- whether they were in a group or not. I would posit that the larger the audience, the higher the stakes for the scott. (energy)
Glenn honey, I know that you know Andrea is male but that it is in your nature to begin your comment as you did. You know the video was meant for all the clarks out there. As to your comment: “A comment was made last night that my resistance to nurturing my recessive clark and roger traits is based in insecurity.” You did not hear the sentence that was made – it was suggested that perhaps for scotts in general, resistence comes as a result of insecurities. Maybe.
I concur that at first read the basic”qualities” of all three may be a bit offsetting to some but that is why there is this ongoing “conversation” that is the Wakefield Doctrine.
I look forward to next week’s dashboard driveabout adventure with a second Progenitor in there with me.
AKH – you had better sit up front:)
P.S. Fuck you Glenn