Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers).
Added Content Alert! Added Content Alert!!
……….”Rinji news o moshiagemasu! Rinji news o moshiagemasu!”…………
(of course, the real questions is: ‘will those referrer guys let us send this Post up, just ’cause we added another vid clip? damn I hope so…well, wish us luck! come on…reddit!!)
No, everything is not a joke, but the three personality types of the Wakefield Doctrine will express and/or appreciate humor in three distinctly different ways.
clarks: preferred joke type is the shaggy dog story, example:
Two lions are sitting in a clearing in the deepest, darkest part of Africa. They are both sitting on the carcass of a freshly killed gazelle, their jaws are dripping with blood, from the dense underbrush comes the sounds of hyenas darting into the clearing, only to see the two ferocious lions and, with screams of frustration, disappear into the densely tangled vegetation surrounding the area. After an hour gorging on the flesh of their recent kill, one lion turns to the other and says, “No matter what I do, I can’t get it out of my head that today is not Friday’.
scotts: what can we say, they love the suffering of others, example:
Guy takes his wife to ER. The doctor comes out and tells him..”Your wife is very severely injured. She is paralyzed from the waist down—and it is permanent. For the rest of her life, you will have to bathe her, feed her, toilet her and care for her.”The guy starts to cry..”My poor, poor wife. Oh No!”
The doctor says, “I’m just fuckin’ with ya. She’s dead.”
rogers: you know friendly fellas, like them guys on the Blue Collar Comedy show. (Ron White and Jeff Foxworthy and Larry the Cable Guy). That is not to say that rogers are not funny! They are! Jim Gaffigan and others are good examples of rogerian comedians. Following is a clip from our new favorite.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaK9bjLy3v4Alright, everyone! back in your seats! This is not a free period! We are here to learn about the difference between clarks, scotts and rogers from the perspective of what they find funny.
- clarks: living life mostly on an intellectual plane, they naturally find the silly, non-sensical jokes funniest
- rogers: like jokes that rely on the listener identifying with the comedian, even when (the comedian) is making fun of them
- clarks: like the humor of the absurd mostly because they have very little vested in the notion of being part of real, normal life (as rogers do)
- scotts: real simple pain, embarrassment, humiliation of the object of the joke = funny
- rogers: jokes serve as lessons, instruction to other as to how to live life, the sample video contains a number of references to segments of society that Dan does not agree with, thereby the humor
- scott: the most concise example of the scottian sense of humor is the banana peel, (i.e. man falls down at minimum embarrassed, at maximum severely injured, now that’s comedy!)
As with everything else about the Wakefield Doctrine, the above characterizations refer to tendency, the predominance of a quality. This is clearly seen when you reflect upong your own response to what is referred to as ‘gallows humor’…’black comedy’…’dead babies jokes’…that most of us laugh when we hear these kinds of jokes, is not the issue; how we react to our own laughter (at this type of humor) can be quite illuminating. We laugh and then feel embarrassed that we laughed, this in and of itself is an irrefutable indication the scottian component of our personality, even if we are actually a clark or a roger. Do not forget, The Doctrine maintains that we are mostly one of the three personality types, the other two elements form the background, the context of our total persona. The difference between what we laugh at and what we think is funny is proof of this. …and we have not even begun to touch on what we can learn about the personality of the person telling the joke! (hint: outrageous, off-color, far-side of inappropriate is your scott; bungled, mangled punchlines indicates your clarklike joke teller and rogers? funny, reassuring ‘and-the-morale-of-our-story’!)
Pretty simple, isn’t it?
About clarkscottroger
I still puzzle at those individual(s) without humor. What accounts for a person’s lack of (sense of) humor? Nature v nurture? Having predominantly a rogerian viewpoint? (certainly not all rogers, as I know of more than a couple with a wonderful sense of humor)
In Doctrine terms what would prevent rogers from embracing the totality of humor? (I have a hint)
Can we break it (sense of humor) down to whether a person is a clark, scott or roger? (Since the written medium presents the most challenge when trying to express thoughts with inflection, let me state that I ask this question half in jest.) Obviously this post addresses the “types” of humor to which clarks, scotts and rogers are drawn.
What makes a person “serious” all the time? Can someone be “serious” all (emphatic inflection on “all”) the time?
Thanks for the chuckles…..
you know the old saying, “laugh and the herd laughs with you, cry…and they are totally gonna chow down on your misery”
Which is kinda funny, as scotts are the ones that find the suffering of others such an amusing thing…( the squeaking of the mouse, held in place by the paw of the gigantic cat…frickin hilarious!)
But rogers, they see the funny among members of the herd…( ‘Why Parson Brown, I believe when you read the Passage from Leviticus you pronounced “Lilith” incorrectly’…)
They (rogers) do laugh and the more evolved even laugh at the antics of them blue monkeys, but it is never the laughter among equals.
In the woods of Maine a chainsaw salesman came across Pierre chopping cedar trees with an axe. The salesman says to Pierre, “How much wood can you chop in a day?” Pierre thinks a minute and replies, ” Even on a bad, Pierre he chops a cord of word, eh?”
The salesman hands Pierre a brand new chainsaw and says, “Use this for the next week and when I come back if you have not chopped more wood than you have chopped, I will give it to you to keep for free”
A week later the salesman returns and calls out, “Hey Pierre! How much wood did you cut this week?” Pierre hands over the chainsaw and says, “Me, I cannot keep this! All week I us your saw and all I chopped was a cord and a half of wood! No so much an improvement, non?”
The salesman can’t understand how this could be, so he takes the chainsaw from Pierre to see if he can understand the slight improvement. He pulls the cord and the saw starts up immediately! Reving the engine he hears Pierre shouting, “That noise, what is that noise?”