Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers )
(As a certain Lady we love would say, “Sit your ass down binyon, sit your ass down “.)
Funny thing about the Wakefield Doctrine, it is so right, so…self-sufficient, (as a personality theory), that the more we have new people join us here at the Wakefield Doctrine blog ( motto: ‘your friends are asking smug and pointed questions about the Doctrine? screw ’em, theys just rogers‘ ), the more we are seeing it’s principles illustrated and demonstrated in ways that we did not anticipate 2 years ago when this blog was created. The remarkable thing is that these new ‘proofs and validations’ of the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers are coming from the people who are newest to our little group!
We probably should not be surprised by this fact. As we have new Readers come and read about our unique, useful and fun personality theory, it is totally satisfying that they are presenting us with new perspectives on the Wakefield Doctrine as it can be ‘boserved in the wild’, if you will. They are describing new ways we can know: which people are clarks, (and fresh ways) to: illustrate how the scottian personality types interact with other people, and they are even, in the case of the most recent Video Friday, forcing us ‘old-timers’ to: accept the rather startling idea that rogers are much, much more aggressive than any of us thought.
And all this is coming from people just beginning to read, understand and apply the Wakefield Doctrine. A fact that we interpret as the demonstration of the soundness of the Wakefield Doctrine, as opposed to any special knowledge or skills found in the original group of Progenitors and DownSprings.
Example: this past Video Friday, we had an conversation with DownSpring Phyllis and in the middle of a competent, but otherwise unremarkable interview, she mentioned, quite in passing, that rogers consciously approach the world with the intent to manipulate and influence those they come into contact with, (that in fact) they believe that they are able to ‘lead from behind’. Now that may not seem like an earthshaking revelation, unless you are one of the Progenitors or core group of DownSprings. Believe you me, the reaction ’round here was a little more dramatic, best characterized as, “What??! rogers are deliberately manipulating others, including scotts!! From within the herd!! What the hell!!”
Well, as far as the core group of this Doctrine was concerned, you might as well have said, ” …and all mandatory childhood vaccinations are, of course, the source of most incurable disease. Of course I am sure, why do you ask?”
Example: recently a certain Molly M started reading the Doctrine and in a Comment to a Post, she asked quite simply, ‘why is this story a story meant for a clark‘?
Damn! Totally forced us to consider what the thinking behind writing that particular Post was, we are not embarrassed to admit that our response required a deliberate and considered effort to understand the Wakefield Doctrine.
Then we had Clairpeek, (who has her own blog here), wrote a Comment in which she raised the simple, but very provocative notion that the fact that we all have the other two personality types in reserve allows conditions in which one type can ‘fill in for the other, in certain situations’. (As she said: “As you said, one has the potential of the three behaviors, which means that no matter which one is dominant, the other two will ultimately cover aspects of the main behavior that do not comply with its particularities”)
Frickin, of course! (damn)
So we want to welcome them whats been pushing us ‘old hands’ to work hard to keep up and, seeing how you have gone to all the effort, I will extend the offer that we do to FOTDs: If ya want, we’ll send you a (nearly free) Wakefield Doctrine hat (for your damn head). Just let us know (and we will follow-up). If you have any additional questions, be sure to check out them other blogs written by the what did you say her name was or even, if you have the nerve go, ask Alice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTWfgmkJ3Mk
About clarkscottroger
It is always refreshing to hear “new” perspectives concerning the interpretation/application of the Wakefield Doctrine. Clairepeek, a new reader and self-admitted clark has some very salient points concerning her view of the 3 ways in which to view the world. When she said “It was not so conscious at first, but as I learned to know who I was, I grew to like ‘Me, myself and I’ as opposed to wanting to be a combination of the writers I admire”, I thought “aha! Me = scott, myself = clark, I = roger”. She acknowledges that she is “different” people at “different” times. I would suggest that she is a combination of those she admires. Nothing wrong with that.
As to “the other two will ultimately cover aspects of the main behavior that do not comply with its particularities”. That seems to go to the heart of the discussion at this blog – how do we utilize the “other 2” to our advantage? How do we successfully express our rogerian or scottian sides to the world in a manner that is unself-conscious and totally “natural”? (and efficacious!)
In parting I say THANK YOU to Downspring Phyllis for interviewing last Friday and to the Progenitor roger for calling in to the Saturday Night Drive Show. I learned something new about rogers as well as having a few things clarified about the world in which rogers live.
P.S. To Molly M, who in my opinion is a clark’s clark, thanks for asking the simple question you did. Often the most complex concepts (thought provoking?) are presented within the most simple of questions.
Some how, it doesn’t surprise me at that rodgers consciously manipulate.
I would agree with Downspring#1 that I am a clark, with the exception of wanting to fit in. When I was growing up, I wanted to be part of the crowd, until I noticed the constant manipulation going on. It seemed that things were said sweetly enough, but that there was an underlying threat — i.e. If one didn’t go along they would be excluded. I could do without such. Either a friend was a friend, or they weren’t.
The fact that rodgers consciously manipulate also explains why a straight forward comment or opinion can get one accused of trying to manipulate a situation, when all you were doing is expressing a differing point of view.
Totally agree with the concept of a person being, ” Either a friend was a friend, or they weren’t”… and I am way, way too familiar with the feeling of, “wtf? now why on earth would he/she go and say a thing like that”?… and unfortuantely, for all of the amazing amount of intelligence (we clarks) have, we find ourselves simply ‘caught by surprise’ at the machinations of others. (The price of believing that our definition of ‘a friend’ is the same as that held by our friend).
To our credit, we have to take into account the fact that rogers exist and live in a world that is primarily one of social context and inter-relationships, and the dominant ‘currency’ found all social relationships is emotion; which rogers are the naturals and we are at a certain disadvantage… (emotion being, shall we say, an attribute sought with great earnestness, but not always sucessfully*).
For a lot of us, the open and direct admission by a roger to being (consciously) manipulative came as a surprise mostly because of the small group of Progenitors and DownSprings.
The fairly hackneyed expression about new blood being a breath of fresh air ( now there is a mixed metaphor/visual that youj might want to surpass on…lol)
clarks, of the 3, have the simplicity/purity of conviction to know that it is that simple: someone is your friend or not. No clarklike extrapolatin’, analyzin’ an dramatizn’ – there are no such things as half friends (to a clark). No such thing as friends that serve a purpose (getting into a club…well maybe?lol) or are good in one situation but you wouldn’ want to be seen hanging out with them around someone else.
I don’t know that it is so much that clarks want to fit in as much as they want to know what it feels like to fit in. clarks are well aware, quite young, that they will never fit in. The challenge is finding the place and time in life when one is comfortable being the clark that they are. Having said that, yes, clarks are all about evolving. [the hunger of a clark is not the same as the hunger of a scott]
The preponderance of scotts out there often misinterpret this yearning for dissatisfaction. To them I simply say “fuck you!” (for the benefit of my scottian friend Lunchbox Lenny. Go Lenny, go!) LOL
As to the rogerian element. Guilt. They love to use it as a tool in their manipulation. Using guilt in this way, regardless of outcome, always generates emotion. Aren’t they about emotion?
What was it we were saying Saturday night regarding action / emotion and how the 3 use it (abuse it)? …rogers – action provides emotion, for scotts emotion provides action, for clarks??? (“ring, ring? Is this the creator? yeah, need some help on this part”)
It could be that Downspring#1 is right, but as I wrote ‘Me, myself and I’ I was referring to my conscious, subconscious and unconscious – to which I give a voice under other names than Clark, Scott and Roger (that’d be on my blog)… Although, I admit that since I have discovered the three ‘personas’ I have troubles to think in my old box. Anyway, I will say this: I cannot be a combination of those I admire, I can only be me: a mix of the three personas with one more dominant than the others (I know, I am rambling… )
Although, there are three different behaviors and with them we can predict the reactions from either ‘group’, there is one factor that I have yet to read about and which makes a Clark, a Scott or a Roger not entirely one (as I had mentioned in my first comment)… I will probably make you all scream and shout at me, because I have my alarm buzz going off right now, but I need to say this:
Experience, or rather how a Clark, a Scott and a Roger experience something can be anticipated because we know their behavioral range, yet the ‘prediction’ cannot be THAT accurate. Indeed, every individual is influenced by others, and by occurrences around them. Therefore, I am highly convinced that a twist to any of our three established behaviors is inevitable; counting that the twists are as numerous as people’s experiences in the world.
Am I totally off base here?
(no! of course not! now if you don’t mind signing the pennant that the little fan in the left field bleacher is waving…*)
The wonder of the Doctrine is not so much that the descriptions of the world (that is perceived) by each of the three types has such a level of internal consistancy, rather it is (that) since scotts are predatory, mecurial people with a short attention span, the percentage of scottian fans following professional golf is markedly low (except for the one guy who screams, “Get in the hole!!” at the moment of the winning putt). Now, on a practical note, if you are a marketing professional trying to measure the effectiveness of a program to get more basketball fans to go to golf tournament, this (relatively new to golf) style of audience outburst is very useful information.
I do not disagree that the is a ‘limit to the resolution’ of the Wakefield Doctrine in terms of particular human behavior, at least once we start dealing with (behavior) on the level of the individual.
I am prepared to say that if one day if we (Progenitors and DownSprings) are trying to decide which restaurant chain (among five local eateries) to go to for lunch, I totally bet you I can predict which one the roger will want to go to and which the scott will want to eat at, and the clarks…they are not huge fans of restaurants anyway.**
*cultural reference…I ‘pologise for it, the growth of the Wakefield Doctrine is coming with a price, in that I see that I must change and grow and (maybe even) give up some of my old ‘fallback’ devices, i.e. cultural references.
** except for certain family-centric events, at which the clark will play a significant early planning role, but a fairly minor role in the actuall festivities.
Claire–Welcome to the jungle. Yall is a clark among clarks.Your writing screams out CLARK. Your blog screams out CLARK. I tend to like clarks. Their minds are different. Not very practical, but awfully entertaining. The mind of a clark is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there. I’m going to enjoy visiting your mind. I am the Lunchbox Lenny you’ve heard tell of. I never use a preposition to end a sentence with. Good to have a new clark in the heezy. This here scott comes to you in friendship for purposes of peace and understanding….nah. I just like clarks. Let’s be pals, OK?
glenn, yo …actually we have 2 new FOTD (Friends of the Doctrine) …that is Molly over there… on the left
(“so… that is the scott that AKH referred to”… “I thought he would be taller”….”I don’t why clark is being so formal…what am I thinkin? don’t know why lol”…”he doesn’t sound nearly as outrageous as everyone made it sound like…”)
…was about to say something to effect of ‘how fortunate we are to have such capable clarks (and scotts and rogers) among this first group’ but then I remembered that we knew that it had to be this a way.
you first scotts, (AKH, am looking at you) ya knew you could be direct and strong and such and yet you overcame the aspect that you were not (as confident in) and we have ‘3 personalities’! as a result, another place for people to learn about this thing of ours, that did not exist until you created it.
the rogers among us are also a pleasant (non)surprise… of course they are good at communicating to the masses ( theys rogers) but the forthrightness of Joanne and Phyllis, the ‘freshness’ of the insight they have given us into the herd…damn!
as for the clarks…Molly? Claire? youse just the kind of people/clarks I hoped would find us…as DS#1 can attest to, this Doctrine thing, it’s not just a blog, it’s an adventure!
…btw did anyone happen to see a set of plans for world domination? I seem to have misplaced my copy…
You guys are right, this is fun. But I am still having trouble telling the difference between a strong rodger and a scott. Maybe it is just me.
not you…we all have that trouble. they can be very similar
I have found that, if all else fails (trying to distinguish between the two), listen to them talk and count the number of personal pronouns!
(lol) no, really!! rogers simply use “I”, “me” “mine” way more that a scott (those guys simply assume you will be paying attention.
Gosh am I behind! Fun to read ya’all… I mean it, super fun, my mind is slow to keep up so I am going to take my time here. Though I am no Roger, this will be a lot about me since I am new and discovering, little by little, the wonders of the Wakefield Doctrine. Being a clark… and again, you guys really nailed this, I needed to share how it feels or som’ing.
I just got freaked out by Downspring#1… yes, hello! You said, I quote from your second comment: “I don’t know that it is so much that clarks want to fit in as much as they want to know what it feels like to fit in. clarks are well aware, quite young, that they will never fit in. The challenge is finding the place and time in life when one is comfortable being the clark that they are. Having said that, yes, clarks are all about evolving […] ” and suddenly I was back in time… remembered how desperate to fit in I was; seeking ‘friends’ that would treat me like crap but at least, I was not alone… one realized though as a Clark, the kind of strength one gets from being a Clark… that was just freaky and interesting to bump my head on such a thought: Thanks Dnspring#1
Spooked again as I read clarkscottroger’s **… quote: ” except for certain family-centric events, at which the clark will play a significant early planning role, but a fairly minor role in the actuall festivities.” I don’t remember you being at any of my family’s event. This is strange how you described ‘me’ at these festivities, picture-like almost!
Glenn, thank you so much for your warm welcome. I’m pal with everyone… and here you go, the friend topic again. I’ve trust issues, so don’t miss a step – lol – joke aside… nah, not even that, I am a very practical person (in my head) but when it comes to bring it out for real it becomes not so practical; in the end,” I am not ‘stupid’ I just have bad luck when I think”… at least, when it comes to practical matters; what’s practical anyway? You are right about the clark’s mind, even I as a clark, “I would not want to live there even with running water.” Well, this time I was entertained by a scott, and I most appreciated it.
Molly, glad that you joined me – or did I join you – in the Clark’s clan. It so seems you’re enjoying yourself too… most likely bound to feel the same way that you do about making the difference between Roger and Scott; don’t despair, we’ll get it soon… I hope
and now my loop is completed, I talked a lot like a Roger did I not (hehehe), but with all your brilliance within your comments ya’all, you confirmed this humbled Clark that she was a indeed a Clark… and I proved (if needed be) somehow that it is almost impossible to belong to only one behavioral clan… GLAD to have arrived in the jungle in such company!
Okay, just babbling on now, so yeah, that was fun and I’m done… for now.
Hey there Molly and Claire. Glad you stumbled upon us here at the WD. 2 more clarks added to the mix. Hmm….. interesting, if not surprising, as clarks tend to live in another world. They don’t come out much. Except, of course, Progenitor Clark.
Claire as soon as I saw you on feedjit and read your blog I knew you were a clark. No question.
Welcome aboard to both of you!
Well, just wanted to say hi to the newcomers. Comments that are deep and well-thought through and insightful. Emergent Clarks…this has got to be in the Book of Revelations…must be a sign of something…do you guys all happen to play the trumpet, by any chance? Just asking.
On a serious note, to add a bit to the Saturday discussion: yes, an ” advanced” roger can be quite manipulative( not the generally doe-eyed garden variety- ” lunch” to you scotts ). For rogers, emotion does indeed drive the action; and with that in mind, remember that any resultant manipulation may or may not be from a negative connotation. That qualification would have been considered before the action ever took place; about as practical a definition of ” passive-aggressive” as I can think of.
Yes, Molly M’s question of how to tell a strong roger from a scott is a common question.
In my current work situation, it took a little time but ultimately I was able to distinguish a particular individual as a roger and not a scott when in conversation she (roger) made mention in passing of belonging to a particular group (yes, it was a church group). That and the ease at which she could speak of people at work with me (technically her inferior position wise). She also has the ability to greet people as if she knows them intimately. I marvel at the ability of rogers to wear such congenial faces. But look at the eyes. Is there congruity in their smile and what appears in their eyes? I know, I know. I’m getting vague but all this conversation is quite helpful as I have been trying to make a more conscious effort at “employing” the Doctrine lately instead of simply enjoying observed manifestations of behavior according to the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers. Consider it being pro-active. lol
Indulge one more “experiment” of mine. This past year I became friendly with a young woman at work. She graduated high school this year. Intelligent, curious, good sense of humor, seemingly “mature” for her age. I never settled in on which of the 3 she was. Well, actually make that which of the 2. I knew she was not a scott which left roger or clark. One would think that being a clark I would recognize a fellow clark immediately and 99.99% of the time I do. Could her youth have something to do with it? NO. Age is never a factor. A clark can be spotted regardless of age.
My self test came yesterday in 2 separate encounters. I made a purchase at her station. She asked if I was working that day and I said yes except when I was due to come in she would be leaving. This has significance in that it was her last day before an extended trip abroad in a peace corp type situation. We said goodbye, I told her to be careful etc. being all clarklike and motherly and then told her to give me her e-mail address. (which she did). As it turns out when I came in for my shift I was to take over at her station. If ever I was going to find out and confirm what she was before she left now was the time. As she moved to walk by me to leave I stood there and (in some discomfort) told her to “give me a hug” and moved toward her. Yup! clark confirmed! It was an awkward hug as only clarks can give each other. Unlike the rocking back and forth, hold tight tug I gave a young male scott when he left for college 2 weeks prior.
Man, I’m going on here like a roger! But since I am….Thank you again RCoyne for the clarification about rogers. I agree whole heartedly that “passive-aggressive” is a superb descriptor when discussing the manipulative machinations often employed by rogers. All hail the kings of “kondescension”!