Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers )
(apologies to fans of Michele Bachmann, but while we fully intend to forward a White Paper on the benefits of the Wakefield Doctrine to the Bachmann campaign, we do not, as yet have her total and full endorsement. Stay tuned…)
The Wakefield Doctrine is a way of thinking about how people act and behave.
There surely are better ways to describe what the Wakefield Doctrine is, for example we could easily say, ‘the Wakefield Doctrine is a theory of personality’, or perhaps it would be best to ask a question, ‘Did you know about this real effective approach called the Wakefield Doctrine, it is a highly effective program to build and strengthen your confidence‘, hell, for that matter we could even say something like, “Have I got a system of self-development, you won’t believe how efficacious it can be! It’s everything you can ask for from a personality assessment paradigm”!
Now, the marketing faction within our group is of the opinion that the only sensible choice (of descriptions of the Doctrine) is the latter. They say this is because, to make it big in the internet, they believe, you have to position yourself so that people browsing the web will find you no matter what they are looking for, and that means having the right keywords and tags and meta-tarsels. This is necessary, the marketing faction says, because no matter how good the Doctrine, if nobody hears about the Doctrine, they sure ain’t gonna learn about what it can do for them. And subsequently, they damn sure ain’t be buyin no hats (for their damn heads) or even the real cool Tee Shirts. So, says this element of our group, lets get this blog in front of the maximum number of people and then worry about how to show them that the Wakefield Doctrine is so damn good.
There is another faction within the group of DownSprings and Progenitors, who are all of the mindset, “screw the computer stuff!! Make it exciting, stir them up, YELL at the Readers…grab them by the ears and eyes and the rest will follow. There is nothing truer than the fact that when it comes to sales and selling, it is the sizzle that sells, not the steak! People buy on emotion and justify on logic…hook ’em now and we’ll figure out the rest later…don’t over think it”!!
(If you need to be told which represents the rogerian element and which is the scottian element, then perhaps you should spend a little time with the basics, which reminds me of the Post that I wrote that was built on the idea that I had to describe/explain the Wakefield Doctrine in 25 words or less…and I did…damn that was a long time ago. Sorry, where were we?)
So, the message we are trying to convey with today’s Post and (with) the blessing of not only Michele Bachmann but Sarah Palin and them, is this:
The Wakefield Doctrine is more about the world and reality than it is about individual people. Most self-improvement programs and personality theories concentrate on defining the person (who is seeking help), as the starting point. They begin the process with, “OK tell us everything about yourself”. It is clear that (these other theories and programs) believe that the problem you are looking for help with is coming from you! Here at the Wakefield Doctrine we take the opposite approach.
The Doctrine says, “Hey, everyone you meet will be existing in one of three ‘realities’, whether you understand the Wakefield Doctrine or not. The world of people that you spend today living in, (be it the reality experienced as a clark or the one the scott lives in or the world rogers spend their lives in) is something that you can understand! If you understand the world that the other people in your life are experiencing, then you will understand why they act the way that they do. And if you still have frustrations and can’t get what you really want, then you can understand better the world that you are living in and change it. All this is a part of what the Wakefield Doctrine offers people. And while it may seem that it is tricky to learn about clarks and scotts and rogers and you start to feel that you are either some personality type that the Doctrine has not discovered yet or, much more likely you are just being stubborn and stupid, you still don’t have to worry! The people in your world? They will still be a clark or a scott or roger when you do figure it out! So relax and have fun.
The message of today’s Post is simply this: Don’t worry about whether or not you understand the Wakefield Doctrine. It is enough that the Wakefield Doctrine understands you!
tell ’em Keith!
About clarkscottroger
So very f***’d up, eh? LOLOL
well stated. so come on you fuckin’ readers. we’re here for your benefit….
Was it Auntie Sarah or Auntie Michelle who gave us this one, I forget ; Paul Revere was riding through the countryside to warn the British to stay away from our Second Amendment rights, apparently by firing a musket…
Damned hard to load a flintlock musket on the ground, never mind on horseback. And I don’t think we actually had any amendments yet … I just love it when the right wing digs up a new girlfriend.
…they do loves they scottian women-folk.
Damn! (Actually that raises and interesting question in a political/cultural vein), would it be possible to have a female for a national level candidate who is not a scott?
I believe it was Auntie S who had a few historical facts askew – that in and of itself should prove she’s no roger! LOL
Now you are forcing me to think politics (psuedo politics). Don’t know that I would want a scott as “leader of the free world”. What an oxymoron. (and no, not implying I think either Aunts have a chance at becoming “lotfw”)
Which of the 3 – clark,scott or roger – would be the best choice.
Yes.
She’d have to be billed as a scott, even if she wasn’t. How about a clark, though? First signed legislation; the New Shoes For Everyone Act. And thank you very much, but we’ll be suspending those other two branches of government now. Especially those rogers with the wigs on. And the damned House of Scotts across the street. Filibuster this!
not to get too technical, but they both got the eyes (of a scott) and the neck thingies…from biting so much.
(And since we don’t have glenn around), I will say that, under the right circumstance I would engage in sexual intercourse with one or both*
*provided it is alright with Phyllis, of course!
Well well clarkie. You be liking them scottian females. I have to admit we are the best ones to have sex with. It’s playtime. Roughhousing. Wrestling. SO much activity. Scotts “on” scotts: the best by far. But enough about that.
Although this post is not about Sarah or Michele per say, I can’t help but address them and their “issues” (not necessarily in a political sense – more like wtf are they thinking). Obviously they are scotts. Look at those eyes. Predatory as a fuckin’ hawk. And they are aiming right for the rogers. Their prey. The masses. ‘Cause they need the numbers and our society at large is made up of rogers. They (rogers) may be prey for scotts but the world needs ’em. Go figure. Fuckin’ rogers. They are more apt to join any type of club/group as long as it in order with their orderly herd-like world and consists of only others that are the same as them. Safety In numbers. And therein lie the skills of a scott. Personally I think that they’re both off of their fuckin’ rockers (Sarah and Michele) but what are you gonna do. Can’t change a scott. No way Jose. In a nutshell (no pun intended but it actually does work) these are 2 scottian women who are so caught up in themselves they can’t even begin to comprehend how the masses (rogers) wouldn’t agree with them. Scary people these two are. Their stances, especially Michele, are ludicrous. Change amendments? I think we may have a rabid scott on our hands. I wouldn’t normally aspire to aid rogers from trouble. But with these two I can’t help but feel bad.
…Can’t change a scott…
Well, actually, (where is that rolled up newspaper and that bag of Kibble?) it is possible to alter the behavior of scotts…but you cannot change them…who would want to?
scotts (as well as ) rogers are necessary…
But that is a whole Post in and of itself…but let’s focus on what scotts contribute to the world…
…as to diet, they do prefer a diet of rogers, but don’t forget that there is something within the relationship (between scotts and rogers) that is fairly symbiotic…sort of: “(boy am I hungry, there’s roger…)
“Hey roger! do mind holding these salt and pepper shakers? Ok…now let me just hand you the A1 sauce…what? Why nothing, not doing anything at all….don’t you have the greatest eyes….” (now where the hell is that condiment rack?)
So, if I am getting this scott/roger thing, the point is scotts have ideas, but need rogers to carry them out? So, somehow they have to convince the herd to join with them, by laying out the nice neat set of rules (aka ideals) that the roger can adhere to? Or am I completely missing the boat here?
Molly, (if I may)
…Step back from the gallery a bit…too much definition can be worse than not enough…
clarks think
scotts act
rogers feel
clarks are the ego
scotts are the id
rogers are the super-ego
clarks are the scientists
scotts are the salesmen
rogers are the machine operator
…remember that the real genius of the Wakefield Doctrine is that, unlike the run-of-the-mill personality theories, does not try to make the person fit a description, it does not even ask the person (the individual) to describe themselves, rather the Doctrine says:
we all have the capacity to experience the world in one of three (characteristic) ways: as a clark or a scott or a roger, and that it is the character of these worlds (that we find ourselves in) that inform our personalities, not the other way around.
A clark is the way they are because they exist in the world of the outsider
(the) scott lives as a predator would in the world of predators, i.e. here and now, concrete, un-ambiguous action/reaction
rogers live the life of the member of an organised herd, where all things are quantifiable and knowable
…it is when we think…”so that person seems to want to blend into the background, but they keep turning up with a curious persistance, and while they seem to be averse to joining the crowd…they contribute to the conversation with the oddest of suggestions, so thats what a clark looks like”!
and for scotts and for rogers… consider how they must see the world and you will know more about that person than they know about themselves….
Thanks Clark.