Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
(…ha, ha)
Hey! just as a Treat for our Readers… lets just go with a bullet-point Post today! (yeah, that way you don’t have to read anything that is not:
- funny
- clever
- insightful
- did we say ‘funny’
- yeah, ‘ha’ ‘ha’
Apparently I forgot that there was no FTSF this week. (Holy shot! Did you hear what I said? The manner in which this simple admission of forgetfulness has been expressed? If you can identify with it, (as in, ‘well, of course, how else would you say it?) then you are certainly a clark. Of course, if you cannot or have an immediate objection to it, then you might must be one of the other two, in which case, you would be more likely to identify, if we phrased in one of the following two ways: a) “damn! totally forgot the FTSF, hey you wanna do something?” 2) “what? no I didn’t! you were supposed to remind me! how could you let this happen?”
Apparently it is Easter this weekend. Being in the business I am and being a clark, I am not overly aware of holidays, secular or religious. However, being a clark, I am willing to offer a perspective on holidays (religious or secular), which I do in a reprint/re-phrase/mash-up/block-quoted Section at the bottom here.
Friends of the Doctrine who are still doing Battle with the Alphabet
zoe: it’s about her dog, how could you not like it? a Skip by any other name….
Jean: today, from her excellent Fictionary a thing about stars and sisters and (though she did not intent, an oblique reference to Castanda…)
Dyanne: out of the Plains, riding a fiery…. sorry! wrong fictional metaphor our scott in the Midwest has a fairly depressing cautionary-ette tail (ha ha) (well, you have to read the post to get it)
Lizzi: last, but hardly least our own Sammantha Johnson… (the first covert operative of the Wakefield Doctrine) lets give it up for Lizzi
Tonight is Friday. That means it’s vidchat night at the Jetsons!! as in…
the Wakefield Doctrine presents
Lizzi and Michelle’s Awesome bloggers Vidchat!
on google+ hangouts
the link to the party will appear just before the start time of 7:30 right here: https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/7ecpirr699b0n1ltv57mn9qrhc
Hey! what’s the deal with the double-neck Strat?! New Readers asking this question are advised to address their inquires to the Progenitor roger (while not necessarily an ‘expert’, he is a roger, therefore will speak with such conviction (and supported by voluminous footnotes that are focused on real people in the real world having real emotional experiences with the issue) and authority, that you will surely feel that your question has been aptly and amply answered!
In honor of the Easter holiday, we offer, a ‘reprint Post’ that has footnotes and corrections and abridgments.
We say with complete authority that the Wakefield Doctrine never challenges or otherwise criticizes (an) individual’s religious beliefs, unless it forms the basis of a really good Post. But since you raised the question, lets look at what the Wakefield Doctrine tells us about religion and it’s appeal to each of the three personality types.
When it comes to religion and the three personality types of the Wakefield Doctrine, the answer boils down to two words: rogers! It is not just that rogers are the personality type that is drawn to religion, they are the one who invented it! The link between the rogerian personality type and religion is so strong as to form the foundation of the description of the rogerian worldview.
As we do know, that it is integral to the rogerian worldview there be organised religion. This is true simply because rogers have the need not only to establish rules and order for everyone, but to have these rules posess a degree of moral imperative that can only derive from a deity or deities
(
The rogerian nature of organised religion is so clear and well-established, we will not spend any further time in today’s Post examining it. The link (‘we do know’) will take you to a Post that goes into more depth on the subject; if you have questions about rogers and religion, write us a Comment and you will be answered.) (Ed. “we have come to be more….er, ecumenical about religions and our rogerian brethren. Simply put, rogers are religious, clarks are spiritual and scotts… well, that’s kind of a long story… lol) (no! not a bad thing, it’s just that for scotts religion and spirituality are more about the features of the environment and therefore can be good or bad. We also need to address the life of the pack, when trying to understand scotts and religion. (the Doctrine is gender neutral!) …we usually will see religion (as encountered as a feature of their environment) being perceived as positive more often with scottian females than scottian males. and the reason you are all surely jumping ahead of us… her pack! Exactly! scottian females are ridiculously/ferociously protective of her pack* and this protectiveness extends well beyond the simple ‘against outside threats’… it includes what she perceives as learning to be a good….lifeform. (Yeah, you’re right! we have stumbled upon a topic of scope that really needs to have a Post devoted to expressing the idea, remind us in the week upcoming to write a Post: scotts and their own packs)If rogers have the baseline lock on organised religion, where does that leave our other two personality types? The genius of the Wakefield Doctrine, is found in the fact that the answer…lies in the perception of the world that clarks and scotts. If you consider the nature of the world that the clark or the scott is perceiving, you will apprehend the value and role that a major life feature such as religion holds for them.
clarks?, they’re easy! clarks believe in the unbelievable. Unfortunately this capacity prevents them from ever having complete faith in anything. In regards to religious dogma, clarks will give convincing lip service, particularly the clarklike females (who have a slight edge over their male counterparts in terms of protective coloration); a clarklike female, especially those with a family unit will conform to the local norms for religious activities. But the odds are, even these devoutly religious clarkmoms will be filling their downsprings heads with all sorts of apostolic nonsense at random points in their upbringing. If backed into a corner, most clarks will confess to a definite spiritual tropism, but you better have a thesaurus and a comfortable chair nearby! If you read the page on clarks, one of the primary characteristics of this type is the love of knowledge…useful knowledge…useless knowledge, knowledge for good and knowledge to anger people, does not matter to your typical clark. So as to organised religion, lets put the clarks in the woman’s auxiliary section.
scotts now, they totally relate to religion, even organised religion! scotts relate to the ‘product’/ the result/ the ‘output’, if you will, of organised religion. (Ed note: this section is written more to the male scott, though not inappropriate, as the Doctrine is gender neutral, it might leave a new Reader with the impression that all scotts will view religion simply as an opportunity, as opposed to a skill, which in the case of the female scott, it can be… I’ll leave the bullet-points in place, but check back for a Post on the scottian female and her pack.)
There was a ‘restaurant’ called The Automat, it was sort of cool for us suburban kids in the early 60’s to hear about a restaurant that was totally mechanised. (This was all pre-fast food as we know it today). The Automat’s ‘hook’, was to offer a variety of choices of foods to customers with no intermediary such a waiter or waitress, everything there was available and purely the choice of the hungry customers.
….Throughout history, organised religions have basically served as Automat for scotts.
- hey scott! bored and want to stir up some excitement?….we got your Crusades, right here!!
- hey scott, stuck in a agrarian culture, nothing to do…why not pitch a tent and have a ‘ole down-home’ revial meetin
- oh, scott! you are soo stuck in a modern civilized society…had you given any thought to perhaps joining the priesthood?
OK… damn! I so need to go back and re-write a lot of the Posts… not for content or anything, but just for directness and readability. oh well, I read once that the Beatles thought that they should go back and redo ‘Revolver’ but everyone screamed and, besides, the acid started to kick in and so they forgot about it.**
* not that the other two are not also very strong in this regard, clarklike mothers especially! but there is a characteristic difference ‘tween scottian and clarklike and rogerian motherthings… the scottian mother will be wary from the beginning and therefore less likely to find herself surprised and then her response is simple: fight or flight fight being, of course, no holds barred…. the clarklike mother will often be caught by surprise, especially if ‘the attack’ appears to be directed at her, but if the children are involved there will be a ‘no cost too great response’ up to and including her own well-being. (there is a distinction: a scott will be willing to suffer injury or death in the process of defense/attack but the clarklike mother will consider guaranteed self-destruction as simply one of the options… it’s a distinct of style as opposed to substance).
** yes, yes you read that right… I did compare the Wakefield Doctrine blog to the Beatles
