Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers ).
Seeing how everyone reading this has a firm grasp on the Core Principles1 of the Wakefield Doctrine, we should just proceed to the ‘practical application’ discussion, or as the late Lou Collins would have referred to it as, ‘the beauty part’.
So keep this in mind today. Warning!! This business of different realities? The following may apply:
- if you are a clark… yeah, like we’re telling you something you didn’t totally already know
- if you are a scott… nah, nothing you need worry ’bout except it might convince you to sit in the back of the break room, a little while after the others have left
- if you are a roger… you know, you are right! This separate reality thing totally suits you and once the other two gets the message, you will (finally!) be allowed to get things more…organised!
We are bringing this to our Reader’s attention simply because we are getting more and more feedback, mostly good and some not so good. For example:
Hey! this Doctrine is fuckin great!! tell us again about how them rogers is so lame that they stand around like that and wear hats!!
I read and then I re-read your blog and I am forced to say that it simply does not hold together nor does it make sense. Further when you try to apply it to people, it does not hold together nor does it make sense. I think that you are wrong and should simply accept that you have nothing to say of any value and that your premise is flawed. Keep up the good work :)
Shit. I hate this fuckin job. I hate they way they look at me, you know what I mean!! ( I meant ‘I mean?’) I think that you have a part of a piece of something that is only lacking just a little, but if I could just get a little more mome…memnu….energy I’d fuckin show them…damn! I hate this shit… (sorry about the language (but) sometimes I get soo) later, dude (dudettes) lol
1) Coreus Principalius
- all are born with the potential to see the world as a clark or a scott or a roger
- at an early childhood age, one (of the three) worldview becomes dominant
- when we say worldview-1, we totally mean it, like the damn reality that each sees is totally real
- we all retain the capacity to see the world as does the other two, but mostly we don’t
- the Wakefield Doctrine is gender, culture and age neutral
-1) head note*: some people talk about worldviews of clarks, and scotts and rogers as if it is how they choose to see the world. That is so totally wrong that I can’t express it. When we use the word worldviews, we are talking about individual realities. ( “hey someone lock that door, the scotts are getting spooked by the talk of reality” ), but we are talking about reality. Nothing mystical (well, maybe a teensy bit metaphysical). The thing is, none of this Wakefield Doctrine thing works if you are not willing to accept the fact that, in some cases/situations/at times people experience different realities. ( No, nothing cool, like talking refrigerators or that our fingers have eyes (hidden under the fingernails, of course!) or weird shit like that. But when we say that a roger sees that world as a herd animal or that a scott lives in a reality that is based on a predator-prey paradigm, we mean just that. They are not making it up!
As a matter of fact, were it not for the Wakefield Doctrine, no one would realise that a scott at a dinner party is simply not going to stay seated any longer than totally necessary and that a roger put in charge of office supplies will re-create medieval European culture. Why? Because that is the way the world is to them.
** opposite of a footnote***
*** yeah ha, ha ha ****
**** sorry, I meant: lol/lmao/lmfao/lshItu
About clarkscottroger
Talking refrigerators = weird shit? Since when? Not that I’ve heard one talking… but hey, isn’t anything possible? I mean, understanding other people’s way of thinking, without having to consult charts and graphs and doing a detailed analysis ahead of time… Isn’t that what this doctrine is all about? The Impossible?
I’ve been reading here for little more than a month, and though I think I get the basics, I’m having trouble finding rogers to ‘experiment’ with. Especially rogers in their ‘normal’ settings. Or maybe, I am still not seeing ‘it’ when it comes to rogers.
Well…my refrigerator keeps asking me how they kept things properly cold during the Middle Ages. Clearly, I have to do more research.
Hi Molly! I’m the resident roger. Nice to meet you. If you’re having trouble locating any rogers, try this. Make a list of the people you might consider telling about the Doctrine. The ones that are the least receptive to the idea are probably rogers.
@Molly funny you should mention …”trouble finding rogers to experiment with”, this past Saturday Night Drive the discussion lurched over to the topic, ‘Once the Basics are Understood, What Should One do with the Wakefield Doctrine’. (I don’t think I should have been surprised), but AKH and DS#1 both insisted that a person should apply the Doctrine to themselves and (before anything else) totally understand their-own-damn-selfs while glenn and ‘yours too truly’, we be saying, ‘hell no! the first thing you do with the Doctrine is get out to the mall or school or any other place there is a lot of people not paying attention to you and have at it!’ Look around and see how might be a scott, watch for the people that you suspect are rogerian….try and spot them clarks (in the shadows). Fun like that.
‘course the correct answer is: both. The Doctrine is a tool and (while) there are some people who can play a ‘song’ on a saw, other people like to follow instructions. The main thing about the Doctrine is that you can’t break it, you cannot mess up the other person*, all you do with it is try different things.
* this is because the Wakefield Doctrine is for you, not for them,
how rude of us!… I know you have been introduced at some point (or at very least, someone pointed vaguely towards a corner of the room piled high with fabric swatches, encyclopedia, woodworking tools, some old Briarwood pipes and ‘the Complete Works of Pat Metheny’ and said, “yeah we have a roger. He’s usually over there…)
roger is being too modest, he is, in fact, the Progenitor roger. I make a point of this in order to convey that he is ‘very up on’ the Wakefield Doctrine. And though subject to (the occasional) fit of aposty, the roger will be very helpful to you as you take the Doctrine and find it’s value to your situation.
I’ve identified a few rogers in my life, but it’s the setting thing that is getting me. All I have to go by at the moment is past experience. It is not that I don’t get out, it’s that I keep identifying clarks and scotts most places I go. A few rogers for sure, but I usually don’t have any excuse to talk to any of them.
I guess that is not entirely true. There was a young man at cowboy church last weekend… his use of personal pronouns was quite amusing, after what I have read here. Before, I would have just thought he was trying really hard to be accepted.
I think what I am failing to see is the herd behavior, as described here. I don’t really see any groups where everyone acts like they belong. I can’t recall seeing that since college, except in larger extended families… but who doesn’t like what is familiar?
BTW, that pile of fabric swatches and encyclopedias sounds interesting. What publishers and years are they?
Molly! You get all the attention today:)
As a clark it is of course easier to spot another clark and since there is a “proximity” of sorts to scotts they be the next easiest to identify. rogers, once you get the hang of them….become easier to spot. In conversation, a roger will, in all liklihood (sp?!), be the one talking the most and …it will be about them in some fashion or another. There will be reference(s) to events in their past. Not necessarily in a simple, literal sense. A roger will reference a tidbit from their portable storyboard (this thing has been mentioned within these halls on other occaisions) as if it was yesterday when in fact it could be a story from 20 years ago. It is about them, always about them. HIstory(s) and backstory(s) And you know, rogers are never without a story. Truth be told they are usually darned good storytellers
The Doctrine requires a strong stomach. And it is true that it is about you. It is for your understanding of your own self and your own actions/reactions to those around you. Really, who doesn’t want to have a heads up on the other guy?
To thine own self be true. Knowing the basic contructs of another’s reality is to own the responsibility of acting/reacting accordingly. Which is to say, you don’t back down to scotts and you don’t allow rogers to make you feel bad about something and goodness knows don’t ever let them get away with taking the credit when it was all your idea!!
“I’ve got my own life to live
I’m the one that’s gonna die when it’s time for me to die
So let me live my life the way I want to”
Jimi Hendrix….a clark
P.S. “cowboy church”?!
…if the roger stops by today, I am sure he will give substance to the ideas (expressed by) DS#1
rogers are the conservative ones, conservative in the proper use of the word:
con•serv•a•tive
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
so, despite what (you may hear) scotts say, rogers are not bad lifeforms…but they can be…just like the rest of us.
That should be the next Post: clarks: the dark side (or) scotts! (can they be more destructive?)
Oh…I get it.
Welcome to the home of the Wakefield Doctrine! the personality theory with it all…exotic jargon…disguised names…and a live blog call in show (on Saturday Nights).
If you have any questions, ask away…there are a bunch of clarks, a couple scotts and (even) the Progenitor roger who are kind of active here and they would be more than happy to make up a credible-sounding answer to any of your questions.