Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers ).
Predator!!! Herd Animal!!! Blue Monkey!!
(Simply convenient terms for a characteristic perception of reality or… hate speech?1)
“rogerian indulgence… scottian impulsivity…clarklike irresponsibility”
(Examples of productive linguistic shorthand or…fighting words?)
“Don’t be such a clark!! Jeez, they shouldn’t say mean things like that, he is such a roger…god, why won’t you just grow up? scott!”
( Honesty or……… slurs?)
As awareness and interest in the Wakefield Doctrine continues to grow, we are benefiting from increasing feedback from Readers. (This) input becomes a useful and significant element in the crafting of the message (in) these Posts. As we know, just as the Doctrine holds that we all have the capacity to experience the world as each of the three personality types, the descriptive terms assigned to each (type) is meant to be multi-interpretive. Often found when describing aspects of human nature, the tendency to exaggerate should never be underestimated. And when you factor in writing skills that are at times rudimentary, the urge to use terms that are easy to misconstrue is just…about…irresistible. But, hey! what are ya gonna do?
The core fact remains, there are three personality types (that) are predicated on each of us experiencing the world in three distinctly characteristic ways. And as we are trying to describe the perception of one (personality) type to another personality type, we are forced to draw the picture in broad strokes…very broad strokes.
It’s funny, each effort to present the Wakefield Doctrine to new Readers seems to bring along with it an example of the validity of our little personality theory. Today is no exception. The use of terms like predator and herd animal to describe scotts and rogers are often met with objections, “yeah but that has such negative connotations“, or “you must not think a lot of our type if you describe us like that…”.
The thing of it is, while people take issue with connotation or implication or insinuation, no one yet has said, “What? What does that term refer to?”
In most instances, when the discussion, say about clarks, gets to the point of, …”and so, the idea that you like to carry sentence fragments around with you…to spread through the few conversations that you have that allow the other person to get more than 3 complete sentences into..you clarks talk like that on purpose?” … everyone laughs.
Or if someone were to say, “…the print they use on the latex cycling suit is specially formulated to cause the wind rushing by to sound like the commercial jingle of that particular corporation, that ways during a ride, you can hear, ‘have it your way…have it your way at….” rogers (and clarks and scotts) all laugh. And understand, they know that we are talking about rogers without having to be told.
What we are trying to say is that so far, no one has stopped and said, “What? I don’t get it.” Of course this has as much to do with the quality of intellect that the Readers (and Progenitors and DownSprings) bring to the table at this stage of the growth of the Doctrine. We all might as well enjoy it.
No doubt there will come a time, when the Wakefield Doctrine is on a par with Catholicism or Islam or Oprah that we will hear people say, “Hey, did you hear the one about the socially-contexted guy who met a socially-disconnected dream-instead-of-live girl and they ran into the act-without-reflection priest?”
Until then, clarks are ‘head-decorating, mumbling, manipulative funny people and scotts are ‘the Tasmanian devil-from-the-Warner Brothers-cartoon but with higher levels of social skills as represented by the Joe Pecsi character in ‘Good Fellas’ and rogers…’damn they talk so good you want to sit and listen forever…until you wake up and realise they have all left but you still to have to wash the dishes.’
1) In Iceland, the hate speech law is not confined to inciting hatred, as one can see from Article 233 a. in the Icelandic Penal Code, but includes simply expressing such hatred publicly:
Anyone who in a ridiculing, slanderous, insulting, threatening or any other manner publicly assaults a person or a group of people on the basis of their nationality, skin colour, race, religion or sexual orientation, shall be fined or jailed for up to 2 years ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech )
About clarkscottroger
Interpretation cuts both ways. Scotts are “action-oriented” “go-getters”..Or, they are “predators” “pack-animals”
Rogers are “keepers of tradition” “the glue that holds us all together”, or, they are “whiny professional victims” “control-freak rule- makers” Clarks are “cerebral and creative” unique and interesting” or they are “weirdos” “Anti-social oddballs” And the thing is, It’s ALL true. As a Scott, just let me say this: “FUCK”
Damned right I’ll leave a comment! I’m standing up, clapping my hands! I am. And after I write this I’m gonna fucking start dancing to the damned video!
Some of you who know me think I am just being a clark but I tell you not so! I can be as sybil-esque as the next person in today’s society without being considered “insane”:) Actually, all I am doing is expressing my scottian tendencies. Emotional content is tipping the scales today and I don’t know for how long so I better take advantage.
I like today’s post. Right down to the word ditties attached to the photos. It is a flowing post today. Once upon a time I suggested that perhaps there needs to be a “the Wakefield Doctrine for Dummies”. That idea was shot down in flaming fashion. As it should have been. But it was never my intention to insinuate that people are stupid or anything. I believe that the individuals who pick up the various Dummies books are simply looking for the short cut. (isn’t everyone?) That’s all. Give me the gd shorcut and be done with it!
Here’s the thing. The short cut is always being presented here at the Wakefield Doctrine. (If one thing a clark has it’s patience. It is both asset and liability). I find that reading about the Doctrine in these posts reminds me of the validity of the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers. It’s sort of like those picture puzzles where they hide different objects like flowerpots and such and you have to “spot” those objects within the picture. clarks, scotts and rogers are all around us and if we know how to “look” it becomes easier to see them.
I personally find it helpful discussing the Doctrine in everyday terms via everyday examples. Readers like Fabri are refreshing. His comments really hit home a few points and it wasn’t just his comments but how he expressed them. Nothing against the “regulars” but “talking” with other people is quite a nice change of pace.
Well, I’m gonna get going. Need to maintain a scottian edge today.
gotta say i like your scottian side DS1. also exemplified in your GirlieOnTheEdge post today. Hope you enjoyed dancing to the frickin’ video. did your resident roger freak out or what? lol the Girlie in a blurry of a hurry. oh my!
and glenn yes it does cut both ways. so what else is there for this scottian woman to do but say FUCK
btw, nice post Mr. Progenitor
(lol) …is there a roger in the house?
It is correct that when certain words are cited as being of a negative connotation, the antonmys are usually left in the box…but it seems that the words and labels and such are sufficient to convey the intended meaning and when someone comes up with a better term, the old words will fade into the background.
Yes,sir, there is. I have about a five minute window here.
Nice post. Just clear enough to be clear. Very impressed to see mention of the concept of CSR profiles being either objective reference points or just reinforced prejudice. A huge turn in the evolution of the Doctrine.
Very insightful all around. Cool beans.
Just got caught. Damn. Got to go. Bye.
ole man riverrrr, dat ole man ribber
…jus keeps rollin along
Evolution indeed Mr. RCoyne. Will be sure to stick around for your follow up comments.
…. “Often found when describing aspects of human nature, the tendency to exaggerate should never be underestimated. And when you factor in writing skills that are at times rudimentary, the urge to use terms that are easy to misconstrue is just…about…irresistible”. And therein will always lie the quicksand that inevitably sucks down potential discourse. But the Doctrine is here to stay and as long as it is “out there” there is the possiblity to make use of it productively.
Appears it’s “time” to move beyond rudimentary interpretations of the Wakefield Doctrine and get down to brass tacks. (hey! former band name of someone in this neighborhood?)
“Serious About Music? Then it’s Time to get down to Brass Tacks!”
That was actually on the band business cards! I say with no small amount of pride that I played in the Venus DeMilo, for a wedding reception (350 people) while wearing a Sateen shirt with a floral pattern*. Furthermore, and I swear to jethro that this is a true story, during this Sunday afternoon performance, I used my time on stage most productively, i.e. I practiced new songs that I was in the middle of learning…not the songs that were coming out of the PA, not even songs that were on the set list…other songs.
It was just that people were eating and talking…and besides my band (Brass Tacks!) had keyboards, drums, bass and sax player…nobody seem to notice that I turned the volume down on my guitar! Of course I made sure to turn back up for my solos…otherwise, why not practice those other (non-where-I-was-playing-at-present) related songs?
…now, new Readers…can you tell me which of the three types I happen to be (clark or scott or roger)?
*Model: Sunset in Florence Fashion Collection