*Tutorial Tuesday* the Wakefield Doctrine ‘worldview of the week: spotlight on ‘the roger” | the Wakefield Doctrine *Tutorial Tuesday* the Wakefield Doctrine ‘worldview of the week: spotlight on ‘the roger” | the Wakefield Doctrine

*Tutorial Tuesday* the Wakefield Doctrine ‘worldview of the week: spotlight on ‘the roger

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

(sure, there's a connection… but it's really kinda…totally obscure, even for the Doctrine)

(sure, there’s a connection… but it’s really kinda…totally obscure, even for the Doctrine)

Today will we repeat what is implied throughout the Wakefield Doctrine: there are three worldviews that we are all heir to, that we all find ourselves growing up and developing in from a rather young age: the world of the Outsider (clarks), the reality of the Predator (scotts) and the life of the Herd Member (rogers). Each of these three have qualities that good and admirable and each of these three have weaknesses and indulgences that are not so good and admirable. None of the three is better than the other two. Observant Readers will detect a (slightly) overlapping symmetry to the three worldviews, that when balanced would result in an healthy and life-optimising person. (yes, that is a made up word). But that’s not important now, what is important is that we make sure all our new Readers understand that, rogers are not the ‘god-I-hope-I-don’t-turn-out-to-be-one-of-them’ personality types of this here Doctrine, here.

So to review:

rogers (adv rogerian; pronunciation: ‘roe -jeer -riann’)

The ‘initial metaphor’ for a roger is that of any animal that naturally associates with it’s own kind in a ‘herd’. The primary characteristic derived from this metaphor is one of ‘belonging’, being a group member, similar in all important aspects to the others in the group (herd). ( In contrast to the clark personality type, a roger, especially when in the context of the herd,  is never, ever an Outsider.)

The predominant characteristic that is attributed to the rogerian personality type is that rogers experience the world as an ordered place, the nature of the world, (to a roger), is that it is quantifiable, definable and predictable.  To a roger the world is, basically good  and it is a place of Rulesprovided, of course,  the rules and guides and laws are recognized, expressed and followed.
This perception is paired with a drive (within the personality type)  to impose order, through rules and laws on the world.

While clarks ‘gather by themselves’ and  scotts organize ‘as a pack’, the characteristic grouping of rogers is the herd.

  • rogers are the friendly ones, of the three personality types, the person you will mostly likely recall having a long, pleasant, you-know=I=can’t-really-waht-we-talked-about, conversation with
  • rogers are the warp ( or maybe the woof! lol) to whatever social fabric you might care to consider, be it civic, religious, scientific or other cultural expression
  • rogers require rules and traditions, they are, in fact, the only ‘reason’ that  human civilization has any continuity whatsoever
  • rogers are behind the creation and perpetuation of, virtually all human institutions, religious, civic, political
  • rogers do not create, they maintain, they assemble, they are the machine operators
  • rogers are the engineers, accountants and physicians
  • rogers are the judges, the firefighters and high school teachers (except for gym teachers)

(from: the Page on rogers)

And so, there you have it, rogers in all their hail-fellow/gal-well-met, bonhomme, ladies and gentleman! may I present:  the people person, Mr Precision, the pain in the ass, the woman who’s dinner table looks like a page from a gourmet magazine (and is equally tasty and enjoyable), the man who carves ships and manages to put them in a damn bottle (without anyone even hinting at a necessity to do so), the Mom who makes sure that her Child and those other children all wear the latest in Elementary School Fashion (provided the elementary school is in Calgary and the year is 1957), the father who promises to teach his son to work on cars but forbids him (the son, not himself…he has other things he forbids himself, much to the dismay of the Mrs.), to even touch the tools that are totally clean and (some) hanging on the pegboard over the spotless workbench, matching perfectly to the silhouette outline, the girl elected Chairperson of the Yearbook Committee two years in a row!, the linebacker, the catcher, the girl who will become an engineer because it is such a stable and reliable line of work, the friend you had that was your best friend up until a scott enters the scene and then, depending upon gender (of the scott, not the friend) you would end up: beat up and ignored or ignored and beat up!  rogers represent the majority of the population and we would not have the user-friendly and increasingly impersonal conveniences of life without them.

lets try this:

  • Court Room:  the Judge is a roger, the Clerk is a clark, the Bailiff is a scott (the Prosecuting Attorney is a roger and the Defense Attorney is a: clark if mostly unsuccessful or a scott is often successful(when not being barred from the courtroom)
  • Operating Room: the Surgeon is a scott, the Nurse is a clark and the Anesthesiologist is a roger
  • Construction Site: GC (general contractor) is a scott, the finish carpenter is a roger and the guy who does the cleanup is a clark
  • Local gas station/repair: the Owner is a scott, the mechanic is a roger and the kid who keeps trying, unsuccessfully to get a job there is a clark
  • the Best Date ever, before the age of 23, she is a scott and you are not, the Worst Date ever she is a roger, and you are not
  • the King and Queen of the Prom: (Junior Year: she is a roger and he is a sc0tt   Senior Year: she is a scott and he is a scott)
  • ….hey! I’m doing all the work here… you want more examples?  write a damn Comment and request or better yet, give us one that we don’t have yet

That’s enough for today.

You know Musicians right? the ones that are exceptionally skilled at their (respective) instruments… that’s right! rogers!

 

 

 

Share

clarkscottroger About clarkscottroger
Well, what exactly do you want to know? Whether I am a clark or a scott or roger? If you have to ask, then you need to keep reading the Posts for two reasons: a)to get a clear enough understanding to be able to make the determination of which type I am and 2) to realize that by definition I am all three.* *which is true for you as well, all three...but mostly one

Comments

  1. How dare you imply that musicians are rogers. and I know I am not supposed to say this … but…ROGERS. !!!
    ps: YOU state under your photo above: “sure, there’s a connection… but it’s really kinda…totally obscure, even for the Doctrine” …IS IT THAT THERE IS, WITHIN EACH TYPE the potential to run looking like a total dweeb? –that is what I am bringing away from it. jehy

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      good morning!! Jen-nay

      lol (actually since the Rule of Everyone does everything thing at one time or another applies to music and musicians) we can say: clark: John Cage scott: Jon Bonham roger: John Philip Souza no, seriously, everyone can be and is a musician but it is how the person relates themselves to the (act) of being a musician that tells us about worldviews and the worldview (conversely) tells us how ‘musician’ manifests in the three individual worldviews grok?

      in today’s post the qualifier (for rogers) is a musician for whom the technical proficiency is the important aspect…. I’m thinking Al DiMeola as an example of a rogerian guitar player

      why yes, I would love to post a clip of Al!

    • jny_jeanpretty says:

      I can’t see your comment here yet, but I see what you are saying with that very fine video–the perfection –it is amazing! and the concern for the group making the music together as a troop. — a group, NB: Did you read the discussion below it? One guy thinks there is no emotion in the music and everyone jumps on him. Interesting.

      I don’t see the same way you do though–you are correct– and boy is this one time I am really stretching to get this. However, thanks for some good insight.
      With a son who is a musician/rock star and really, really, really !!! good (in fact he is always being approached and asked to play with other people and to join other bands)… I know his personality. THAT KID IS NOT A ROGER. no offense to the rogers here. seriously. He just isn’t. In fact, he is almost a category you haven’t yet discovered. Possibly Aquarians ARE FROM A DIFFERENT PLANET, because his bro Dylan is quite a lot like him, despite the autism. I know you think astrology is a bunch of hooey, but those Aquarians…wow. They are really different.
      jeynh…just thinking out loud.

  2. zoe says:

    Some of my best friends are Rogers…lol…

    I stand on my last comment from yesterday…

    Does this mean you won’t be referring to the rogerian grouping as those F****** Rogers any longer?

    Very nicely written BTW.

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      zoe

      no! you are correct, I won’t (lol)

      I am sometimes slow (or simply don’t appreciate the fact) that I set the tone..at least some of the time around here and, while I am not saying that we must always be kind to the rogers… the simple fact is that there is no good type or bad type, all three are essential to a balanced life.

      thanks

  3. Al. Loved him so much back then. Yes, a roger. I mean, he even looks like one!
    One of my old favorites https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhccIfevjCU

  4. Kristi says:

    Does that worst date thing go the other way, too? As in, I’m a roger, he was not? If so, you nailed that one! (To be fair, though, the date wasn’t the worst due to personality per se, just bad planning–restaurant full, movie sold-out, that sort of thing.)

    As for the tone of your blog, it’s definitely more “Ollie Ollie Oxen Free” now.

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      Kristi

      yes, it absolutely does! the Wakefield Doctrine is, at it’s heart, gender neutral.

      …thank you (it may be surprising to hear, but I often do not have much of a sense of the ‘tone’ of the blog (as it comes across to Readers), I take your remark to mean that we’re back to a ‘hey! this thing is fun, outrageous, useful…and fun!’ thing.