- Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine early Sunday Edition…
Short Post this morning and Qualifying Questions for Readers:
a ) Did you understand the (inferred) Question in the Post Title?
- Yes (it is alright if you go back and read it through…)
- No (it’s alright…we will wait )
b) Did you laugh?
- Yes
- No
If you answered Yes, you may continue reading. If you answered No, you may continue to read this Post but it is suggested that you read: this Page, this Page and finally this Page. (Don’t worry we will wait).
For the first group, ya shoulda called on last Night’s Saturday Night Drive! These Drives are getting more and more useful and interesting, the point being to have people discuss issues and answers relating to the Wakefield Doctrine, all in a comfortable, realtime setting. So anyways..
The best part of the evening came when the discussion turned to rogers, specifically what some of the issues are that a clark must confront in a clark-roger relationship? While it was apparent that for clarks there is a higher level of… required of the clark in this pairing, scotts also have certain issues that came of interacting with our furry friends. ( The difference is that scotts always find a quick, direct efficient way to deal with conflict…and they usually keep the body count pretty darn low, too! )
In any event, we had a very constructive, informative and productive discussion centering on why rogers seem to be so prone to lash out at those around them, especially in times of stress. The effect of excessive stress can provide a reasonable explanation for a reaction like this, and it is not limited exclusively to rogers. scotts are prone to nipping, especially if you sneak up on them when they are not expecting it, or try to take away a favorite toy or maybe their food…but, there is a qualitative difference between the reaction of a scott and that of a roger.
The key difference between scotts and rogers in how they react to stress is that a scott will react from an instinctual, and therefore impersonal level. With rogers, as we know, it is always personal. The rogerian need to lash out is limited to those rare times in a clark’s life when they say the wrong thing, or interrupt (their roger) while he/she is in the middle of a very, totally critical session on ‘the FaceBook’, or if they (the clark) somehow forget that the eating utensils go tine-up in the cutlery holder in the dishwasher or even that egregiously inconsiderate attempt to ask (the roger) if there is anything (the clark) can do to help. It is during times like that, that all clarks identify with and was Molly’s key question: “Why do they feel it necessary to lash out?” to which DS#1 added: “and what can a reasonable person do in order to minimize the damage of this interaction?”… fortunately we also had our scottian Ms. AKH in the dashboard and she concisely and elegantly re-framed the consensus opinion with: “Yeah…Fuck ’em”
…yeah…fuck ’em indeed! Actually there was some inspired insights from Molly and DS#1 on the question of why rogers lash out at times when you are trying to help…they (Molly and DS) both came to the conclusion that it had to do with the ‘box’ that rogers exist in…and that when a clark thinks they are being helpful and/or nurturing, the roger perceives it as a ‘challenge’ to their defined universe. Molly went further to include the rogerian tendency to want people to not change, unless it remains totally consistent with their view of how the world should be….the “box”, again.
As I said, ya shoulda been there.
…as a matter of fact, I asked those attendees (attendettes? attendarini?… privlačno in dojemljivi ženske? yeah thats it!) to give us the benefit of post-game analysis. First up, Ms AKH:
A stringent, organized world is a rogers’ perception of reality. This organizing principle constitutes their lives in a
box. It is this stringent, organized world that is the rogers’ manifestation of their characteristic perception of reality. Anything
that will not “fit” into this box might be a threat to their orderliness and regime.
rogers are the ones (of the three personality types) who will lash out at you if they feel that you are messing with their
neat and orderly world. But this lashing out is not to be taken personally. It has to do more with the idea that the rogers feel threatened by the idea of someone trying to change the compartments in their box.As advice to the clarks :
we all know that clarks need to figure out the meaning of things. When confronted with a roger lashing out, do not
try to over-think or read too much into it. They are just feeling threatened that you (or anyone) is messing with their box. It’s mostly out of fear that their box might be compromised. We all know that you clarks need to know why and there is your answer,
don’t put too much stock in understanding the why.
scotts? Just don’t give a shit.
For another post-Drive perspective on the subject of roger-management, Molly has this to offer:
I don’t know what in the world to do with a roger that lashes out… I’d love to be understanding, but even with the ability to see the world through their eyes, I am at a loss.
In ranching, a herd animal (the roger) that takes after lashes out at the rancher (the clark) is not long tolerated. The cow that kicks at the dog (the scott) is understood — it is natural that there is conflict there, and the dog understands that too
(and seems to enjoy it)… but the relationship between the rancher and the herd animal is a working one. It is one of mutual benefit (and BOTH understand that).The only mean animal a rancher can afford to have around is a breeding bull or stallion, but you had better bet that as soon as that animal’s usefulness is gone, so is his possession. (Plus, he better be damn fine stock, producing very fine youngsters!)
If I had an animal that treated me the way my rogerian friend has (no matter what their value to me was), the relationship would be over. No ifs, ands, or buts. So why is it so hard to do the same with a person?
And to DownSpring Numbero Ono? tell us like it is, yo:
The challenge of rogers. (because they are so high maintenance. lol) Once you have a full understanding of why they act the way they do, then you can enjoy life in general a whole lot more ….by ignoring them (at the proper times), not indulging them (for their own good, most of the time. ok. some of the time), telling them what it is they really should be doing (not that they asked you what you think they should do but rather what you would do if it was you (in the scenario you two were discussing).
In general, it is important that a clark not lose sight of their own self. clarks, being the totally selfless ones of the 3, can easily be overwhelmed by the emotionality that accompanies relationships with rogers. I know, I know – a no brainer to some of you but for a lot people it is easy to get sucked into a “feel good” vibe when in the company of rogers…..as long as you don’t rock the collective boat that is.
The Saturday Drive Call In Show is a great place to talk about such things.
…..more later
Is this a Doctrine, or what??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ5WPXxNzPU
About clarkscottroger
All so very… interesting. I’ve been away from here far too long.
The discussion of/understanding of (the) rogers is somewhat of a, shall we say, hobby of mine.
A thought about the “box” rogers build and maintain. It is true that anything a roger is exposed to that does “not fit” which = “not interested in” = “not understandable/not relatable” is often perceived (by them) with negative connotation(s) attached.
Ex. I was engaged in an activity with a roger, one in which this roger has a huge interest. After awhile I say, “damn, I really wanted to get a post out today and look – it’s getting late. I have to go now and work on my post”. My statement was met with a simple glance. No words. No reaction. And truth be told, no words were necessary. For this roger, the idea of “writing a post” was not a thing contained within the aforementioned box. Nothing personal. Just not there. I think I am getting it……..
The difficulty arises from a roger not realizing that sometimes other people have boxes of their own ( yes, you do… we all do…) that are larger and can actually supercede and contain their own. This is the heart of compromise, and will likely be a roger’s most difficult life lesson to learn. Tantamount to being told that the world is not flat, the universe is bigger than our solar system, and the friendly people with the shiny teeth mean you no harm.
LOL. Here’s a roger anecdote for you. Lest I forget from whence I came.
Yesterday at work, I have an NPR station on the radio. They’re playing obscure Christmas music from everywhere, and as a certain piece starts playing, two people standing near my desk look at one another and say ” What the hell is that ?” With no hesitation at all, I turn and say, ” Cool. Never heard that on the radio before. That’s the Boston Camerata, from the Medieval Christmas album, ” Dominus”. 13-th century French nuns.” They both respond with the dog’s-head-turned-sideways thing. In the same direction, which was …synchronized…weird.
And I knew that …how? Because I’ve had that disc for almost 30 years, one of the first discs ever made, bought at Lechmere and played on a Technics SLP-1, one of the first cd players ever made. It’s been played on lots of cd players ever since. A little personal roger tradition. Hell, it’s in my cd changer right now.
LoL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKndjKIur6c
…Warwick…middle management insurance guys….how else could they respond
Well said RCoyne. Well said.
Then it is your clarklike aspect that enjoys such things as 13th century nuns singing just for the heck of it? LOL… Confirmation/acknowledgement of such by your use of the adjective “obscure”. No wonder you are the Progenitor, eh?
You up there! clarkscottroger! Thanks for that link. You can include me as one of those”middle management insurance guys” in this particular instance.