Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
Hey! got a minute?
You heard about that vid chat we had here at the Doctrine last Friday evening? Well, I’m of a mind to do it again. (You know what they say, ‘if it’s worth doing, it’s worth over doing) So how does Friday at 7 pm EST (note! earlier time… Lizzi will be calling in her pajamas as it is…but damn, weekend night or not, girl needs some sleep) hows that sound to you?
Hey, you people ever stop to think that these DocVidChats are, in essence, live blog Posts? well, they are. I think that this is a perfect example of the clarks and ‘the arts’ I will save my reasoning until Friday…
In the meantime, here is a reprint Post that I really think you’ll enjoy. Don’t forget, ‘you’re invited’ (questions and such, write a Comment we will totally hook you up).
(Hey!!! Melanie!! come on, it’s a Friday night!! you can sleep late in the morning…. your virtual friends is all gonna be there…)
(following an excerpt from a Post appearing on October 27, 2010)
‘Wakefield Doctrine Field Guide’
( …”so if we establish the outward more obvious characteristics”… )
Oh, hello! Did not see you come on line…be right with you ( …but the “fun factor” got to find a way to present the damn fun of this thing… ) just one more aside and we can get today’s Post started ( …good frickin job there, you just telegraphed your last remaining hook… goddamn it… ) Let me just try and put this little journal down. There.
Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)!. This week we are starting to present the whole Doctrine in a simple, logical and easy to understand manner. ( …sure keep up with the asides…is there nothing you won’t resort to in order to get through one of these Posts?…they know what you are doing, they ‘get’ it, dude…this is so over done…) Yesterday we started with a clark, as subject of discussion. But let’s keep with the topic a little longer… ( …’cause they are sooo interesting. )
clarks are the creative ones and as such…
( …Hola Miguel, ¿qué pasa con el director Clark? No se ve tan bien, y creo que él está hablando a sí mismo … vamos que el hallazgo señorita Sullivan y Britney… ) ( …man! are you so totally shameless! roll out the ‘Spanish exchange students’, just to keep this Post limping alone? )
I believe I was suggesting that we continue to look at the personality of clarks. Hell, since this Post insists on slouching towards ( …Yeates, I can’t frickin believe that you are so desperate to get done that you will pad this thing with a literary allusion that a sophomore high school student would be too embarrassed to use… but hey, who am I to criticize ) Well, let’s get the words on the page, put in some pictures and get the hell out. ( …the way this thing is going you are likely to pander to the scotts and put some frickin childishly exuberant music just to draw a reaction. )
Ahem! as we have said before, the clarklike females are fairly easy to identify. Outlandishly dressed, creative with the make-up (with special attention to the face/eyes) and to a woman, something fairly strange on their feet. If you are trying to identify which of the three types a person is and you are thinking possible clark, then concentrate on their eyes. (The eyes) of the female clarks are quite distinctive, mostly in an unmistakable ‘not-of-this-world’ intensity. Often (and unfairly) characterized as either the ‘ditsy broad’ or ‘snooty/aloof/what-does-she-think-she-is-too-good-for-us?’, the clarklike female projects this image simply because they are distracted. A state common to all clarks, there is simply so much going on inside their heads that they barely have time to keep track of what is going on in front of their noses. If you find yourself talking to a clark, watch their eyes. If you pay attention, you will see as (mentally) they go from topic to idea to implication to ramification (back to the conversation taking place) to how to conclude the interaction to implication…etc ( …they get it! stop with the word salad… )
In the spirit of turning this train wreck into a valid Post about identifying clarks, let’s cut and paste some of the characteristics (found on the clarks page) and get some music and get out… after all there is a real world out there and it is totally full of clarks, scotts and rogers. And there is nothing more fun than going out there and seeing the Wakefield Doctrine “demonstrate itself”.
New Readers? It might seem difficult to figure who is which today, but take our word for it, this Doctrine thing is a lot of fun.
Just to get you started, here are some photos of known clarks
or
or maybe
…ok, we’re sure you get the idea, now get out there and find ’em!
(DS#1 says we should stick with the ‘topic’ of female clarks) because they are out there in the everyday world and you can spot them with only a little practice. And who are we to disagree with the DownSprings? (the DownSprings are the life of this Doctrine, whatever they want they will always get), so let’s try to come up with a “Field Guide”:
Wakefield Doctrine Field Guide
scott (male): picture that Tasmanian devil on the cartoons……or Joe Pesci in all of his movies
roger (male): they’re frickin everywhere, water cooler? check…Fireman? check…look for the easy-going comfortable smile, inviting conversation…
scott (female): Ginger on Gilligan’s Island, the green chick on Star Trek (the 60’s version)
clark (female): read the damn Post! you can find the clarklike females
clark (male): the office geek except without the marketable technical skills, probably near-employed, very funny, usually interesting (in small doses) cannot do enough for any person who merely recognises their existence, never mind actually be nice to them
roger (female): tough call under the best of circumstances, examples Kathy Bates, most wholesomely attractive women (with an agenda), think Carrie Nation in SUV…There you have it, the Wakefield Doctrine Field Guide (to spotting) clarks, scotts and rogers.
About clarkscottroger
Great timing for me for this repost. Thanks!
Kate
excellent! how is this Friday @ 7pm looking for you?
So far, so good!
Kate
cool… while I haven’t talked recently about scottian or rogerian fashion choices (females… guys, have other ‘quick-and-easy- characteristics). Reminder: the indications, signs, characteristics and ‘oh-my-god-you-re-not-going-out-with-just-that-on’ are guides and hints. Doesn’t need to be 100%. That’s why we have secondary aspects.
From what I hear, you’re doing great on the ‘which worldview are you’ project. Nice! if you get to a point where the characteristics seem to be getting increasingly complicated, not to worry. It’s perfectly alright to give it a rest and start looking at the people around you… good practice (and fun) because that’s where you’ll find the initial RL benefit from using the Doctrine.
Wait…I’m that easy to spot? Must be the purple glasses, long black fuzzy sweater, black hat and boots I’m so fond of wearing. It’s like my classic outfit. Hmm…maybe I’ll get the courage to post a photo. lol
Cyndi
well…duh lol
you guys, (clarklike females), are the most fun to try and spot ‘in the field’ there are some interesting ‘focal points’, personal adornmently speaking, of course.
in order of where best to check: the eyes, then the face(at a certain age this is where the metal starts to show*) then the head in general (now here’s and interesting thing clarklike females, given the choice between a very expensive, understated set of earrings and a feather from a free range-domesticated-and-genuinely-happy-donating-the-occasional-spare-feather-that-they-otherwise-would-have-shed-over-some-nameless-canyon-in-the-desert eagle/condor/other cool bird of prey’ she will immediately go for the feather) and finally, after adorning the head region of the body, she will naturally focus all her attention on her …..feet.
lol
*certain propensity for nails and studs and shit
Why do you say tough call on Roger females in best of circumstances? they seem a lot like the male counterparts. Not sure?
that last part should say, not true?
zoe
well, the current view is that the rogerian female will be the perfect reflection of the prevailing fashions (keep ‘everyone does everything’ in mind here)… for a rogerian female (as for all rogers) fashion is about the herd…celebrating the herd, affirming membership etc
so a scenario:
clarklike female, scottian woman and rogerian female are put in the middle of the mall what do they buy?
on one level this is easy: whatever keeps the Outsider outside (she is convinced that the mini-skirt over the long johns and the tie is simply asserting her creative view of life) (while paradoxically calling attention to her sexuality) the clarklike female will ignore the name brands and the ‘looks’/styles
the Predator will …dress for success Christian Louboutin thanks the scottian women of the world… there will be fashionability but only by chance the intent of the choices have little if anything to do with current fashion
now…our rogerian woman/girl that is who buyer (fill in current hot brand) and puts it together so you can’t tell the difference.
(I apologize for my lack of specific knowledge of brands and designers and such), the point is what we are calling ‘fashion’ the lingerio-socio-couture expression if the individual is a function of how the available choices manifest in their worldview.
like I would know a name brand if it slapped me in the face…
I am clark… hear me roar…
zoe
lol
…and yet, as with most of the …creative issue of a clark’s mind, the fashion statements made by clarklike female often end up in the mainstream.
a word about creativity
clarks are the truly creative of the three (that which has never had existence)
rogers are the successfully creative (skilled re-assembly of existing elements)
scotts, when being called creative, are in fact, forcing the other person to ascribe to (the scott) their own qualities
Scotts tend toward creative persuasion yes?
totally… consider: basketball coaches (lol)
Tony Robbins
first impulse is to agree, but I went and pulled up images of Tony
… tell me that you don’t see fear in his eyes.
I will now go and pull up my initial thought of (scott as creative) Pat Riley
you know that’s true Tony’s personal history may have kept him from being a true blue Scott and not just having it as a secondary personality trait whereas Pat …
zoe
Tony is cool (in his images) cause that fear/pre-plaintiveness is in nearly everyone of them. Now the thing about ‘the fear in the eyes of a clark’ is that it is non-specific, we are not saying, ‘looking afraid’ rather it is fear of the most existential sort. (since we’re on the topic of the eyes of a clark), the other characteristic (in clark’s eyes) in ‘the distance’ as if they have withdrawn from the assumed focal point by maybe 1/3 of an inch back….into the head. YOu can spot in an instant with this look.
now Pat. there is a scott I like the photo here because even though you don’t see his eyes and (even though) the player is twice his size the postures are unmistakable. ( you know our saying, ‘how a person relates themselves to the world around them’… “ok Pat whatever you say” lol)
I will be at a fancy Christmas party on Friday night, so no vid chat for me. I’m sorry I’ll miss out on driving Lizzi crazy by making her walk me through signing on again. :) Have fun!
Hey! Your comment box remembered me!
Oh, and forget I was ever here. I’m still on hiatus.
too late. You must suck at hide and seek.
Christine
we won’t tell.
Promise! let’s just hope no one can read! Lol
so someday when you go to market this theory of yours, will you be able to objectify your theory of the eyes? I think I know what you’re talking about but of course you know I keep thinking about what we were talking about before and you taking this here doctrine on the road…and well you’re very specific in your subjectivity it seems one of the few places that’s open to real interpretation….but then again I’m a little zoned tonight so who knows?
zoe
good point. I know that everyone will recognize what I am talking about when they see the photos (will add Tony, straightaway). But what I’m hearing you say is, ‘that is a subjective interpretation of a physical expression, another person might look at the photo and see/interpret the image differently.’
I don’t disagree that there is a degree of subjectivity but I would maintain two things: a) it is consistent with the other characteristics which are, in turn, consistently supported in behavior of the individual…according to the worldview attributed to these various ‘characteristics’
I really hope your’ zoned tonight, as my rhetorical skill is slipping away faster that a scott in a nunnery.
HA…be careful what cha wish for….lol