Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
Lets be realistic. You, me and you over there, and the guy from frickin Ukraine, we all get a kick out of clickin on the ‘Doctrine and seeing some photos that (at first) seem reasonable, then suddenly makes you laugh. And you, and that new person from Mel’s home State ( “Michigan …the one with the really cool-looking Lake“) and a couple of ‘people’ from some country I didn’t know even existed ( Norrkoping Ostergotlands, Lan??! ) drop by once a week or so to read a few Posts, I guess. I don’t really know. Now, at this point, we usually say something about how fuckin grateful we are that you come to our little blog and how hard everyone here works at keepin this thing going… but you already knew that. And that is most likely our problem. predictability. A Rut. Same ole, Same ole. Hey! we’re the Wakefield Doctrine, listen to us talk about our little club…yeah, listen to us….this is a printed medium, you are no more listening to an actual conversation than you would be if you mailed a frickin questionnaire to you friends that read: “At tomorrow’s party please have answers prepared for the following questions”. Listen in…no that is not true. And it is our fault.
For all of what we claim, the Wakefield Doctrine being a “unique and productive insight into the personalities of the people in our lives…” blah…blah…hey glenn! aren’t you supposed to find something really offensive to say here?…oh! “DS#1” go for the ‘I am so quiet and precocious…don’t you see how underestimated I am?”….
hell! even this little rant…fuckin go back to the Fall of 2 frickin 09 and you will see this same damn thing in the first 3 Posts that you come across…
Clearly this thing of ours is getting too comfortable. And as glenn says, ‘hey you gotta make ’em squirm, you’ve lost your edge’….(hey, glenn? speaking of losing your edge, you want a bottle of seltzer and a cream pie to go with your schtick? they’ll love it, it’ll be soo retro…don’t worry…you’ll still be out-fuckin-rageous/ I can’t believe he actually said that, man that guy is crazy…)
Whatever.
So here’s the deal.
We keep producing these Posts so you can listen to songs that you forgot you liked and you tell someone about this site. Today. Right now. Anyone. Does not matter. The girl in the cubicle next to yours. Your secretary or your supervisor. Your suite mate at your dorm or your lab partner in biology class. Your damn sister, if that’s all you got. And you say this:
“Hey I found this blog. They said I have to tell one other person to go and see it. Their url is https://wakefielddoctrine.com Go there and visit the site.”
Now, the stupider ones among you are thinking, ‘yeah well how are they gonna know I did that’. Hey Reader, look to the right edge of this window. See that section titled: Live Traffic Feed? Says Wyoming and New Symrna Beach? What do you think that means?
We’ll know.
Now get goin. Maybe we’ll be here when you get back.
The Wakefield Doctrine is predicated upon the idea that everyone experiences the world/reality differently, from one of three overlapping but distinctive perspectives. It also proposes that our personalities are but a result of our perception, of our habitual responses to the world. The Wakefield Doctrine maintains that this characteristic perception of reality can be grouped into three distinct types, called for reasons stated elsewhere, clarks, scotts and rogers.
Born with the potential to view the world in one of these three ways, all people possess the characteristics of all (three) but soon (by age 7 or so) ‘become one of the three. Put another way: we also possess the potential to see the world as a clark or a scott or a roger. It is only the predominance of qualities from one (over the other two) that makes us what we are. No one is only clarklike or scottian or rogerian.
The value of the Wakefield Doctrine is that once you can see the world ‘through the eyes’ of another, behavior becomes understandable. If a scott sees the world as a predator (would) then all action is predicated on interacting with the world as a predator. This is distinctly different from a roger, who seeing the world as a social being, predicates action and reaction on the basis of a world in which the interactions of the herd is the dominant theme.
Yeah…sure, why the hell not.
About clarkscottroger
Fred be workin’ the crowd….
Just between you and me, how much more concisely can a progenitor describe the Wakefield Doctrine.
(Hey, you know about all those “Dummies” books. Wonder what a “the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) for Dummies would look like…..
Can I get a witness?
Can’t speak for those outside the U.S. but maybe American folk are caught up in football today. It is the playoffs afterall. Why, the game is on in my own living room just feet away. Personally, looking forward to today’s second game. Those of you who know me know who I’m rooting for:)
What’s my rant today? (decided this would be a rant page since no one’s here anyway). It’s rogers!! (not you Bud, never you babe) I am back to marveling at a roger’s “scottian certainty” as to the world according to…..rogers.(those damned assumptions.) Not only that but the refusal to even consider that there are alternative viewpoints. Take FaceBook – “looking up” people from our distant past in order to what? Say “hi, its been years but what have you been doing with your life?”, etc. etc. Seems rather voyeuristic to me. More often than not there is simply no thread left that would connect the person I am currently with the current version of the”friend” I once had. There are exceptions but tell me. What the hell is the point?
Yeah, yeah, its that social thing, the herd thing, the collective. The world is a roger’s playground so very, very different than that of a scott’s playground.
I’m finished rambling. Thanks for the podium sir.
interesting point…the matter of “certainty”
In fact, as a quality of human thought and self-awareness it is one of the more instructive as evidenced by the three types of personality.
(Since you began with rogers)…
rogers possess certainty that draws authority from the external…they are right/sure/correct according to “standards” and “rules” and as such can exert authority (of certainty) only to the extent the herd has an influence…for example laws are powerful only in their jurisdiction, i.e. where the members agree to be governed.
scotts possess certainty within and of themselves…they claim the certainty just because they can ( if they can)…that is why they are effective leaders as they are, they are not claiming power (certainty) according to any set of rules or standards and therefore are not limited to the purview of the herd…they operate at will…their weakness is that they are on their own…
clarks…certain? yeah, right
Makes sense. Explains their aversion to clarks and their ability to “stand apart from the crowd”. rogers seem uncomfortable with the notion of “being different”. They are not comfortable with non-conformity. I have experienced this first hand. It is not a pleasant thing.
scotts are certain without self-consciousness. I admire the spontaneity of their “certainty”. No tendency towards introspection. No need to second guess or analyze. It is the doing thing – they just do.
Poor rogers. So easy to disparage. I do it myself all the time. What they possess is not so much certainty as…righteousness. When a roger believes he or she is right—it becomes a fact. Not to be questioned. Most of your hateful religious types are rogers. The Austin Lounge Lizards have a song called “Jesus Loves Me–But He Can’t Stand You”. There is a whole middle section of this country peopled by folks who believe this–and they are not being sarcastic.
you are in danger of missing the point, worse yet, of being mislead by your own value system,
righteous, as is being used in this particular context, is referring to the relationship of (a person’s) acts to a set of established and therefore by defintion external standards of behavior. To act righteous is to conform to standards set by the group (over time).
your shortcoming in this discussion glenn, ironically is that you are focusing on an observers interpretation of the intention of the ‘actor’ as opposed to the conformance of the act to the standards…while not questioning the ‘right’ to attribute intent to the acts of another, you are in fact engaging in the very thing that forms the basis of your criticism of the acts of a roger…except rather than claiming validation (of your actions) from an external, commonly agreed to set of standards, you are passing judgement from, for all intents and purposes, a totally subjective perspective, i.e. yourself, which, by definition is not subject to objective validation or examination and criticism by others, Effectively, ‘because I said so’.
If by your argument a roger believes that belief becomes fact by virtue of a statement of belief, then a scott becomes rogerian the moment (that scott) stops acting and starts to pass judgement.
(in the words of our Miss AKH, “just sayin” )
It’s Ok if I do it–pedantic motherfucker. A thing is what it is. Despite your convoluted, tortured, twisted clark logic–rogers ARE self-righteous. And I am fucking right about that. Fucking standards and acts and observers and all that horseshit. This is why clarks are NEVER sure of anything. The fallacy of your thought process is there is too much process. “Righteous in this context..” blah, blah, blah…All I’m telling you is something a child can see—Rogers are self-righteous–absolutely convinced that they are morally superior and you are not. “external commonly agreed-to set of standards…yackety fucking yak yak yak… clarkian bullshit rambling words on top of words and add some more words…notwithfuckingstanding..” Hey!! Judge THIS! And just for the hell of it—the word judgment does not have an E in the middle. ..Stop wasting E’s! What if we run out ya fucking hump? How you gonna run a blog with no e’s? So, in conclusion, fuck you.
If a person adheres to any idea or belief simply by simply stating it so, and has not actually examined the idea or belief, then that is despicable. The wheels of karma will ultimately find those persons, and assist them in the generation of new orifices.
A sense of healthy individualism should and will trump all else; if ‘you’ have never been established to your own satisfaction and understanding, then karma will indeed have a field day at your expense. Those folks will be very prone to ‘isms’ of all sorts; any port in a storm.
I myself have sported several unexpected orifices over the years, and can advise you thus; they will heal over time, given that the creature in question is paying some attention to the order of the universe. And, the orifices always seem to prefer Oreos ( and milk, of course. ) If said creature is hosting several simultaneously, then they will try to form an a capella group, and will be suprisingly good at it. And they’ll do requests.
Thank good! I was afraid that new Readers might not (easily) come upon the rare and elevated level of discourse that I am sure the Doctrine is known for, throughout the blogosphere…
glenn…roger, roger…glenn Hey guys, I lost a box of coherency, if either of you stumble upon it as you spinf ion metaphorical circles, do not, I repeat, Do Not touch it!! You might start making sense.
AKH! yo AKH get your scottian (reference to bodypart of Reader’s choice goes here) out here!! Those scamps are off their meds and I need you to grab ahold of theys ears and set them in a corner, ’til they behaves theyselves…
The Wakefield Doctrine is sure a lot of fun!
The original statement that was made was not one that disparaged rogers.
The response to my statement was informative. Clarification on the characteristics/ “nuances” of clarks, scotts and rogers is always helpful.
An in depth explanation, lengthy or not, never hurt anyone LOL
Often those without sufficient intellectual ability or patience dismiss too quickly opposing or “hard to understand” ideas.(did someone say scotts?)
Oreo Man! May the Cat help me, but I think I know what you are trying to say…..and that’s only because I don’t have any meds!
Ditto Glenn. D-i-t-t-o. Learning should be fun!
You mean ‘he did not’, you don’t say no you to me