Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers )
Wait! Don’t ‘click through’, we want you to read today’s Post!
Don’t let the Title (of today’s Post) keep you from spending 5 minutes with us. The goal here is to present the Wakefield Doctrine in a continuing variety of ways. ( I’ll let you in on a little secret)… the Titles of these Posts are as much a stimulus for the author as they are an invitation for the Readers. Sometimes a ( Wakefield Doctrine ) Post is written and then a Title must be found; other times a Title is created and the Post follows. This is one of those times.1
Today we will present: the preliminary outline of an overview of a section contained in the (first draft) Outline of a book. ( Working Title: the Wakefield Doctrine: a uniquely effective Toolset for the Practising Clinician. )2 …as most of you already know:
the Wakefield Doctrine is a unique, engaging and fun way to look at the behavior of the people in our lives. Through the use of the tools that comprise the Doctrine, we will at long last be able to answer the question, ‘Now why one earth would they go and act like that? I really thought I knew them better!’ With the Wakefield Doctrine as a tool, you will know more about (that) other person in your life than they will know about themselves. And if that is not enough, with the Wakefield Doctrine, you will be able to change those things about yourself that you have been wanting to change for years. You will have an edge on (nearly) everyone around you in virtually all life situations.
Exercises for assessment and everyday application:
People Watching. A basic tenet of the Wakefield Doctrine is that we experience the world as (does) one of the three personality types, however we retain the capacity to see the world (and therefore act) in a manner characteristic of the other two. When it comes to our individual sense of fashion, how we dress ourselves, the dominant personality will totally call the shots. As with all other aspects of the Doctrine, fashion choice (as an indicator of personality type) is only one of quite a few different ways that our
clarks: we should totally start our ‘Guide to Personality by Fashion’ with: clarklike females. Often referred in a humorous manner, ( Fashion from the Annie Hall line, courtesy Androgyny House Paris, Miami NY) the fashion choices of the clarklike female are not only un-mistakeable, they are an illustration of how the Doctrine itself works! In very simple terms, when we see the choices of dress and clothing that are characteristic of the clarklike female, we are actually getting a glimpse of the world, as seen by this person. This applies to rogers and scotts equally.
(Let’s re-affirm that the Doctrine is gender neutral the male counterparts of the clarks, scotts and roger will show, in their manner of dress, which of the three they are, however in the current culture, fashion remains largely a girl thing.)3
The point is that when you spot a clarklike female, the person with the variety and mixing of fashion elements, you are being afforded an opportunity to see the world through her eyes. (And as with clarks of the male type) what you are seeing is a world in which (our clarklike female) sees herself as an outsider, but feeling that she must fit in as her contemporaries appear to be doing, brings to bear the creativity of the clark… in a sense, she will dress with everyone in mind. The fashion choices of our clarklike female not only show this creativity but also clearly shows the strength of ego that while twisted by the fear of being excluded that all clarks are heir to, will not be repressed. As is said of all clarks, they feel that they do not want to be the center of attention but they will, under no circumstance be ignored. So the clarklike female shows us how they see the world (and their place in it) in their choice of dress and appearance.scotts: in this context (fashion as an indicator of how a person perceives the world) scotts, both male and female are kinda easy. In fact, for these two: a) little black dress; b) baseball cap and tee shirt
pretty simple, isn’t it?rogers: as we saw in the case of the clark, there is a clear indication of the personality type in choices of dress. In the case of rogers, it is the male roger who shows his ( colors? stripes?…logos!) rogers of the male persuasion love hats! and they love to wear function-related clothing, i.e. those latex things that bicycle rogers wear, those shower cap things that swimming rogers insist on (if they don’t just go and shave their damn heads) and any other clothing that is meant to enhance performance in an activity or sport but, in actuality end up being a way to paste logos and labels all over themselves, the better to be identified with the herd.
There! 45 more re-writes and I will be ready to sit down with my colaborator, Lise and see if we can’t add to our opus être
Thanks for stopping in! If you have any input or thoughts regarding clarks, scotts and rogers and (their) respective fashion choices let us know! And, like they say at the end of those really stupid Public Service Announcement-type things. ‘ and if you find this topic interesting you can learn more just by going to… ‘ In our case if you want to learn more about scotts go to AKH’s blog or for a (slightly more distaff view, lol) try out DS#1’s excellent blog or if you are feeling like taking a break, reading for the sake of the eyeball-exercise, mosey on over to the Dishrag (tell ’em the Doctrine sent ya!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-LJEnQ2JB41) blog writers may identify with this feeling, …you stand on the sidelines of an incredibly large ice skating rink. You have your skates on (and padding… why the padding is not clear, but you sort of not bother wondering why) and you see the vast expanse of ice so large it disappears into the distance. You know you need to get out there and you fear that when you are out there you will not know what to do next. So you make up a reason to slide away from the bleachers… and you hope for the best. sort of like that.
2) too wordy, yeah we agree but if you have any thoughts (on titles, lol) send them in.
3) of course you disagree… write a Comment already
About clarkscottroger
Lots to contemplate there, as to the clark-like female’s dress. I don’t think I’ve ever given it that much thought before… yet it is sure that a clark-like female rarely dresses just for herself. If she did — lol — scotts would never have to guess.
The fun/interesting/’holy-smoke!’ aspect of this topic is that, if our thesis is correct* then a clarklike female is ‘doing’ the exact same thing as (female) scotts and rogers.
Perhaps it would be a better framing of the question to say, ‘allowing that innate drives and desires do not vary greatly among people, the choice of fashion is done with an aim (or aims) in mind’. If a clark and a scott and a roger have similar drives and instincts and motives and the indicia of their choices in the strategies (to accomplish these goals) are so varied and disparate, then how different are the worlds/realities that they are reacting to?
…tell me how different is the world that a clarklike female sees each morning in comparison to her scottian sister? And this applies to males and females alike, but as mentioned in the Post, current culture allows different standards of dress for male versus female.
* of course it is correct!
Uhmmmmm…………… You lost me.
people are people…drives and instincts
it is the world that is different (for people)…one of three characteristic ways clarks, scotts and rogers
so, when a person picks out the clothes they want to wear (a ‘drive to stay warm and un-naked’) the choices they make allow us to infer the world that they ‘dressing for’
Molly I think that you might be getting too caught up in the specificity of a “dress code,” if you will, for each type (clark-like, scottian and rogerian females). Of course we all want to look good. It is a matter of taste. We’ve all seen each type with both good and bad decisions.* But that is based on personal opinion. So whether it be functionality or “I want to look hot”** I have to say to each her own. And that “own” is how we want to be perceived physically to the world. . And while there are some generalizations according to the Doctrine about how each dresses, they are just that: generalizations. Not to be confused with “Written in Stone.” Individual tastes are as different as there are favorite ice cream flavors.
.
*that is to say how we, as individuals, judge their attire
*Of course the hot ones would be the scottian females. Gotta be alluring to their prey. You know, the siren effect.
It is not so much the specifics as the why…
For this clark-like female, it has always been a balancing act to find something I like that does not push the costume ‘envelope’ too far. Remember Blossom? Remember Mimi? Yeah. I always admired their ‘ability’ to dress for themselves and no one else.
I loved living in a ranching community. Square dancing skirts were not out of place at social gatherings — unless the gathering was a branding. ;)
is that not the why? ‘a balancing act to something that I like that does push the costume envelope too far’
It is not about specific reasons or situations, it is what does the world look like to you (a clark) and what does the world look like to another person ( a scott or a roger)… in the general sense clarks choice of fashion reflects the reality that they exist in…as do the scotts and the rogers…
For clarklike females, appearance is an aspect of creative expression. Whether it be the hair (ears are included with the head!), shoes and/or the clothing. It is accepted that clarks (male and female) feel “different” from early childhood onward. (hence the “outsider” reference) Having said this, dressing “oddly” or “weird” or “different” is not, as some might suggest, a self fullfilling prophecy thing. To reiterate, it is simply an instinctive expression of self. clarklike females can no more dress without some form of “deviance” than a female roger can wear doc martens with a skirt or dress out of the Talbots catalogue.
This in contrast to rogers, who will always dress in the “style of the day”. More often than not, rogers have good style sense. In no uncertain terms would a roger dress in such a way as to garner anything but approving looks. (from the herd). rogers will conform with the majority in all things, fashion included. To stand out from the crowd is anthematic to a roger.
scottian women on the other hand… (yes), sex figures into things. LOL What garners more attention than alluring decolletage? Simple and to the point, no?
P.S. To all female readers who suspect they are a clark. If you can identify times when you were made fun of (good naturedly or not) by friends and/or family, husband or boyfriend as a result of what you were wearing then most likely you were in the company of a roger. Example: in the early days of my relationship with my rogerian SO, there was a gentle attempt made at getting me to look more, how do they say…like everybody else! I had a pair of hightop NIke sneakers only they were black. Didn’t I know that I should be wearing white “tennis shoes” (like the rest of the world?!) With those little white socks that match? Yes, that looks “attractive” but…..I tried it for awhile but damn if I didn’t feel out of sorts…..”yes, honey, I did wear my biker jacket with that skirt – yes, the black lace leggings (the slit up the side isn’t that high, besides the skirt is below the knee and….yeah, my docs….. to the law firm today…..gee, no one said anything to me…..
Remember: The attire of a female clark is not necessarily always “shocking”. Oftentimes it’s little nuance things that give us away.
…”For clarklike females, appearance is an aspect of creative expression. Whether it be the hair (ears are included with the head!), shoes and/or the clothing. It is accepted that clarks (male and female) feel “different” from early childhood onward. (hence the “outsider” reference) Having said this, dressing “oddly” or “weird” or “different” is not, as some might suggest, a self fullfilling prophecy thing. To reiterate, it is simply an instinctive expression of self”…
…and that is the point (and a piece of validation) of the Wakefield Doctrine…it is all about (and always about) ‘what world do you wake up to in the morning’?
(At the risk of repetition) …a clark and a scott and roger wake up and stand in front of their closet, preparing to dress for the day; it is the nature of the world (as they perceive it) ‘out there’ that informs their choices and decisions.
clarks: to blend in and be unique…to being provocative while hedging ‘their bet’
scotts: to maximise their chances as a predator to decrease the likelihood of being seen as a threat to other scotts while luring in the rogers and clarks and other scotts
rogers: to mark themselves as part of the damn biggest, most powerful and influtential herd in the damn world…to proclaim center position in said herd by wearing clothing that seems to make them standout ( spandex on men…fashion from magazine covers and berets) and yet, at the same time proclaims uniformity!
In each of the three types: they all must make a decision/judgement as to what clothing serves them best in the world as they see it!