Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clark, scotts and rogers )
No, you are not wrong, all of what you have seen so far in this Post has been intentionally mis-leading, it’s all been a come-on, a ruse…for the purpose of enticing you into reading today’s Post. All this because, among you Readers might possibly be the one Reader who will write a Comment on this Post.
Surely that justifies the verbal legerdemain? Well, you are probably right, it is best not to resort to tricking people who enjoy reading blogs, who as we all know, are the most perceptive and discerning of audiences.
Having said that, if you are still with us here, we owe you another story. A few days ago, in the Post titled; 3 personality types, 1 rabbit and the Wakefield Doctrine, we told you a story and while it was a good story, it was meant for the scotts among us. Since we started today’s Post with trickery and deceit, it only makes sense to tell a story for the clarks out there! ( don’t worry, clarks will understand why this is the case. )
As a young boy about 4 or 5 years old I grew up in the town of Oak Bluffs, on the island of Martha’s Vineyard. From where we lived I could walk to a family friends house in about 15 minutes and with another 15 minutes walking I could be in the center of town, which at that time consisted of 2 blocks of commercial development. 1 street with drugstore, restaurants and barbershops etc on both sides. Continue down Circuit Ave and you come to the Flying Horses (merry-go-round) and the boardwalk that defined the shoreline on that part of the Island. There was a neighborhood that was composed entirely of Summer Cottages across the park that overlooked the ocean. Year round residents did not take too much notice of this area, as they were boarded up and vacant for 9 months out of the year, when the Summer People went back to their real homes.
Whatever. One day (around end of September), I was walking home from town with a friend following an afternoon of doing nothing much. My route home took us past a recreational field which was part baseball and part football field. On this particular afternoon, the grassy area was being put to use as a football field by a group of ‘big kids’* The field itself was up a slight incline from the road, (no sidewalks or anything fancy like that), so for some reason we decided to ‘sneak up’ on the football game players. (Bear in mind there were no bushes or hedges between the street and the field, just macadam road a little sand then grass up 5 feet or so then level field). So we snuck up on the football game. (Nearly every boy of this age at this time in the culture had his Army Man game moves. Mostly a matter of running a short distance and throwing yourself down on the ground. From this position you would either do the ‘crawl into position’ or (you might) jump up and run another short distance so that you could ‘hit the dirt’ again. And so on and so on.)
We got into position on the side of the incline, peering over the top where the football game was continuing, obviously we were not spotted. For some reason I decided that we should throw some rocks at the kids in the football game! (Don’t ask me! Maybe the situation required the use of grenades, maybe I was bored…those of you Readers who are astute enough might know. I cannot recall why I thought it was a good idea.) But I did and we did, throw rocks. As soon as we established our range (with the stones) the big kids noticed and stopped their game. At first they laughed, at the sight of two 5 year old boys throwing rocks from the side of the road. But then one of the rocks almost hit (or may have hit, memory not clear) one particular boy who was wearing an orange knit sweater. The laughing stopped, the game stopped, we stopped and all of a sudden my friend and I had the un-divided attention of 10 boys. We stood up as a small group from the game headed in our direction (lead by the boy in the orange sweater). For reasons still not understood, even though the focus of the group on us began to waver ( “hey, forget them, lets get back to the game”), I threw one more rock and yelled “Run for it!”
We were chased. My friend headed for his house, me to mine. I could hear the kids somewhere behind me yelling something about calling the cops. Just as I made it to my house, quite by chance as I now know, a siren started wailing in the distance. And it was moving in my direction. I ran into the house and up the stairs to the safest place my somewhat desparate brain knew: my parents bedroom. I slide under their bed and lay and waited.As I remember this childhood incident, the strangest thing about it is that the story stops right there, me hiding out like an escaped criminal under my parent’s bed, hearing the sirens somewhere in the distance, certain that I would soon hear the sound of feet pounding up the stairs.
None of these consequences materialized. Nothing happened, at all! My ability to recall ends there, no memory of what happened to my friend, whether the cops were after me on not (I know now, probably not) I don’t even remember if I told the family about it. Life (un-recalled) went on.
Hey!! Where did the time go! Tomorrow is Video Friday so set your clocks to Friday and be sure to tune in, we hope to have: a) a guest b) a really interesting conversation, c) good listener feedback.
And don’t forget now, the Wakefield Doctrine is to be found over at ‘the FaceBook’** so come over and visit, we even have a video club that you should join.
*big kids being defined as those between the age of 12 and 14
** it’s an old person thing, you know how old people always seem to stick a totally unnecessary article in front of things that they are un-familiar with? ‘the email’, ‘the Facebook’…’the cancer’…I suspect that old people do this thing with modern inventions as a verbal equivalent of using those oven mittens that everyone has at the stove…better be careful! you might get hurt…here put on these mittens and insulate yourself! fuck oldness.
About clarkscottroger
Sneaking up. Spying. What boy didn’t thrill over doing that? Maybe the hardest I ever laughed in my life was the time my friend and I “snuck up on and spied on” his mother. We were in the garage of his house. It was attached to the house. She was in the kitchen washing dishes. We got down on all fours in the classic “sneak up on:” way and slowly crawled into the entryway of the kitchen. He was in front of me. His mom, unsuspecting. Terribly exciting for an 8 year old. My friend, Steve was his name, incongruously decided that this would be a great time to fart. He let loose a bowel blast that had to have lasted 20 seconds–right into my innocent 8 year old face. And loud? Birds stopped singing in the neighborhood to listen to it. It shook the walls. His startled mother dropped a dish right into the sink. Our cover was completely blown. The fart alone was enough to blow our cover. But, the 25 minutes of unrestrained,uninhibited, full-on, 8 year old boy laughter sealed the deal. I’m laughing so hard as I type this I can barely see. To this day, one of the funniest moments in my life. I don’t think anything will ever top it. That is a childhood memory to cherish for a scott. I call it simply, The Fart.
yeah, that whole ‘playing army’ thing, amazing how impressionable kids are…I knew what ‘hit the dirt’ and ‘run for it!’ meant without ever recalling being taught it. That and the peculiar sneaking up manoeuvre (lol) where you balance on elbows and use the sides of your knees to move forward.
Damn….I suspect that that was the mid 20th century military indoctrination that is currently being manifested by all the kids playing video games…get ’em ready to fight for theys country
A ‘Friend” on ‘the Facebook’* has posed a fairly interesting question about today’s Post,
actually a 2 part question: a) “why this is a story for clarks or b) what is it about (this story) that makes it a story for clarks?
The quick and short answer is that the story resonates with two extremes that seem incompatible with the clarklike personality. aggression and fear (well, on the fear, not so much). You can see the ranging from extremes in the arc of the story, but the truth of the matter it is none of these.
The truth is when I first decided to write ‘a story for clarks‘ it was the sense that when held in contrast to the story of the rabbit (a story for scotts), today’s story contains an unmistakeable element of deceit.
Just a passing feeling, as I headed towards writing the story down.
And as quickly as that felling came, it was replaced with the thought that the age I was when the events of the story take place, puts me at the age that the Doctrine holds that we ‘settle in’ to our predominant personality type.
In other words, I became a clark at about this time in my life. Nothing revaltory in that, we already know that at about this age we all settle on of (of the three ways of experiencing the world) and become that clark or scott or roger.
We also know that the other two ‘leftover capabilities’ are dormant but available.
This is where Seven’s question becomes more than she probably realizes, it is to ask the question that the Buddha asks “What did your face look like before your parents were born?”
Damn. (sounds like a Post or two there, stay tuned!)
* as a young boy I collected baseball cards, then I became a young man and I collected valuable Postage stamps, now I am old and I collect Facebook Friends lol
Thanks for doing your best to clarify things, Mr. Clark.
So, is Jack Sparrow a clark or a scott? He is, after all, “On his own team,” and very pushy, but he has no problem with accepting the unimaginable.
…I was about to add the standard, ‘remember that we have all three personalities, only one is dominant’ statement, but that is not sufficient. The thing about posessing the capacity to experience the world in 3 ways is not that we have them, but in what proportions. We have often said that you and everyone else drawn to the Wakefield Doctrine are not ‘run-of-the-mill’ clarks, scotts or rogers. Those of us here clearly have higher levels of the other two (sub-dominant) types or we/you wouldn’t still be reading this… (Molly!! hey, over here!! I can see the wheels turning in your head!! stay with us* lol )
Back to Jack Sparrow
As you get comfortable with the Doctrine and it’s description of what it is that constitutes the 3 types, you will find yourself running checks (of a person) on different/progressive levels. I think I said in an earlier Comment, often a strong roger is mistaken for a scott. Still true. You start with the superficial and work your way in…(the Doctrine predicts that you already know this and are starting to get a little impati…)
So …
Jack looks like a scott…true there is a certain watchfulness.
Jack is aggressive…and yet is apparently comfortable with the un-predictable…a clarklike quality.
…gonna go with clark (here is why)…
Jack is ‘all over the place’ and kinda totally flamboyant, but… it is always in relation to the external world and people.
A scott can be flamboyant and emotional (the best word would be mercurial) but it is about him/herself… the emotionalism and other outward expressions are centered on the scott being frustrated in getting what they want.
A scott is aggressive, but only in terms of expressing their predatory nature.
A clark can be aggressive but it almost always involves another person or purpose.
Jack accepts the unimaginable but there is an element of distance, i.e. the unimaginable thing may change the world, but it does not change Jack. (Better way of saying this: a scott adapts to changes in the world, a clark simply accepts changes in the world, adds it their description of the world.)
I think the key is to try to get inside the person and figure out how they see themselves, in relation to the world. A scott sees the world first and foremost as does a predator, a roger knows that world is knowable and if they follow the rules everything will be perfect and clarks…clarks just stand there shaking their heads and wonder ‘how do all those real people relax and apparently enjoy life with so little effort’? lol
and thanks for taking the time to get into this Doctrine thing, I appreciate the perceptive questions. (among the DownSprings we have scotts who are fun and forthright and help us to keep from getting overly complicated at times and we have rogers who are friendly and oh-so-difficult at times, who keep us focused on the human element but other than DS#1 few clarks and as we all know, clarks are not only the creative ones but we don’t seem to mind living in a reality that is so variable, so unpredictable, well you know how much the other two types be hatin that…)
So thanks for writing…keep dat shit comin
Jack Sparrow be one of my favorite characters. Ditto on the thanks Molly for bringing forth clarification on a clark(s) via Jack. Now, with a heads up from the Progenitor clark, you can undoubtedly look at Jack against the backdrop of other pirates(for example). You will notice his flamboyance as more “distinctive” from any other pirate, his behavior is idiosyncratic, “indvidualistic”. He doesn’t quite “pass” as a “regular pirate”.
Jack Sparrow is also a “bleeding heart”.(clarklike thing) He will sacrifice for the benefit of another and at a cost to himself. Knowingly. Comparatively, you will not find a roger to do this.
Thank you so much for taking time to expound on Jack! I love how you compared the scott nature to the clark nature, showing the difference in motivation.
Based on what I have been reading, I am guessing it is clarks who make statements such as “I am good at reading people” or “I understand people,” but often also say, “people just don’t get me.”
…another perspective that often helps is to remember that when it comes to conflict and (attendant emotion situations):
with rogers it is always personal.
with scotts it is never personal
with clarks… where’d they go? wait!! hey! clark we have an emotional and stressful conflict situation here! come back!! lol
So very, very true! clarks are the ones you want in a time of crises but if one is not available and you have to pick between a roger and a scott….well, you should know by now it’s not the scott!!