Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
(*a little Doctrine humor to start today’s Post)
Apologies to the other participants to Finish the Sentence Friday today. This bloghop was my first (and) still remains nearly my favorite. But today, …remember how, back in the days when there were, ‘seasons’ to TV? …and how, at a certain point in the life of a series, there would be flashback episode? and how it was patently done as a schedule filler? Today’s Post is kinda like that….
(hey!! wait just a darn minute! I have it! (all I need to do, to pull this off is: dial down my clarklike need to be a people pleaser; (and) turn up my scottian drive for attention (i.e. any attention is good attention); (and) nudge up my rogerian aspect…a little bit of ‘why this is a heartfelt effort, how could you even dream of not applauding my effort?!’)
“I have absolutely no interest in…”
…..today’s Finish the Sentence Fragment!
(ed. note: Now go read what Kate and Stephanie and Janine have to say this Friday, you won’t regret it! …and Kristi yeah, go read her’s too.. (hey when you’re over at Finding Ninee… don’t forget to tell her we’re all sending positive vibes for her thing this weekend!)
the rest of Today’s Post is random Doctrine stuff. for those of us who can’t get enough Wakefield Doctrine!
for a clark… it’s hard to imagine, having no interest in something/anything. clarks, as we know (or as we should know are more):
curious, easily bored, interested in anything that poses a question, insatiable people-watcher, friendly when not feeling threaten, confident when discussing ideas, totally tropistic for any information, however useless and obscure that they (the clarks) believe will give them insight into how they should feel, aggressive when dealing with ideas, passive when dealing with real people, (except friends…who they value more than anything), fearful, un-afraid (not the contradiction it would appear to be), the hard workers you could ever under-pay and self-less to an extreme, egotistical beyond imagining and willing to do anything for a chance to be accepted, except be-themselves.
for a scott… curiosity as exhibited by (younger) animals and most predators, a scott is curious about the things that pose a challenge in their world, and, since the ‘predator’ label is simply a metaphor, our scottian friends and friendettes will find everything interesting, but a (much) smaller set of that group as engaging, ya know?
(The scottian child will enjoy hours investigating their immediate environment, gaining confidence in their ability to cope with new situations, assess threats and practice ‘hunting’ skills.)
This play practice is most suggestively demonstrated in the case of the pre-adolescent female scott, who as a rule is given to solitary activity, exploring the environment, finding entertainment in solitary activity. In point of fact, the term commonly used in describing this young, scottian girl is ‘tom boy’. A relatively innocuous label intended for use in the case of a young girl who appears to be demonstrating behavior and interests that are not the culturally approved gender behavior and interests. In this case, that of the scottian female, this term is most often used by to account for (and condone) behavior usually considered in the culture appropriate for the male child. Interestingly enough, the attributes that earn the scottian female the label ‘tom boy’, while understood to be a temporary phase in the girl, are considered appropriate for the male (child) well into adulthood. There is a tacit recognition that this behavior in the female will, with the onset of puberty, be replaced with the more culturally accepted role of the young female (as dictated by the culture in which the example is found. This, of course implies that the behavior that most cultures expect from females is grounded in biology as much as psychology. The expectation of (the culture) that the individual conform to and fulfill their biological imperative is clear, as a girl matures into womanhood; implicit is the role as mother, home-maker, care-giver. Modern cultures have expanded the range of additional activities, interests and functions available to the female, however, at the base of it all is this primary reproductive capacity.
for a roger… there is a world of things that they have absolutely no interest in, one might even be tempted to say, that rogers are interested in only that part of the world that interests them… there are however, exceptions and the most subtle, yet reliable, indication of this, is what is called, the rogerian expression:
A rogerian expression is an idiosyncratic statement made only by a roger. It is incorrect, but nonetheless, very powerful. A rogerian expression is not simply an incorrect use of words. Rather it is a deliberate use of the wrong words that results in a statement that somehow denies the listener the option to ignore it. You will know these statements when you hear them. There is a moment of disbelief, after which you laugh and shake your head in admiration for the sentence that was made. Examples:
-
looking at his paycheck, a roger was heard to say: ‘oh man! Look at how much they deducted for aggravated security’
-
…talking about a new DVD release for a movie: ‘no, I am going to wait until they release the un-abashed edition’
-
…about to talk to a client: ‘I know I have to give them the bad news with the good news, I just won’t baby-coat it’
-
…writing in a blog about how egotistical certain real estate agents tend to be an unknown roger wrote: ‘ I have to say that as a professional class, most agents are much too self-absorbent…”
…and that concludes my Post for Finish The Sentence Friday.
About clarkscottroger
Clark, sometime we all need flashbacks and reruns and I am all for it, especially after the long week I had. So well done my friend and huge thanks just for link with us today. Have a wonderful Friday and hope you get to relax even just a bit today :)
Janine
lol I am finally getting a chance to get and read the other Posts and reply to the comments (yeah, that kind of day)…but part of the good thing about this internet thing is I get to hear from people (like yourself) that reminds me to shift my perspective a little…thanks!
am I missing something? I liked this very much and am sorry I couldn’t comment yesterday.
today if someone asked me to finish the sentence “I have absolutely no interest in…” i would say,
“I have absolutely no interest in having no interest in anything”.
and you got me 100 percent as a pre adolescent except I was not exactly a Tom Boy. I was a girl and a person–person first. I was a loner and loved being alone, reading and drawing to music. .. unless I was hanging out with boys! And I was hanging out with boys because I LIKED and PREFERRED BOYS. My best friend was a boy, and he is still a friend. He lived next door.
jeh
Jean
hey! we should be doing a vidchat… (still at work, just now getting to the Comments and other people’s posts and such), love to have you stop in
…well, of course, you would! you scotts have that ability to be direct and all, I’ll have to tell you how much twisting and turning my brain went through for today’s post… but the good part is, with the Wakefield Doctrine, I could appreciate the parts of my worldview that was hindering me and which parts might help
dear Clark, you are preaching to the choir ! I am all about the Wakefield Doctrine!
jean
Hi: Interesting post! Not sure yet about Clarks, Scotts, or Rogers, but looking forward to learning more about this!
My FTSF post is at http://blog.fitfunner.com/?p=203
Feel free to stop by!
HAHA to having no interest in this week’s sentence! I eeked mine out at the very last minute last night (hey what else is new huh?) and was having a really hard time with it! Also you know we always love the Doc’s explanations. Always. And thanks so much for the shout and good luck vibes. EEEP. I practiced in front of the mirror today and cried. Such. A. Dork.
xox Kristi
‘ I have to say that as a professional class, most agents are much too self-absorbent…” still laughing at this one!
Hey, Ive been thinking ( theres a surprise Im sure) , A clark who most often in is control of a secondary roger is really just a less socially passive clark… I refer to “Zoe has a ro—-ger!” which came back to me when I congratulated cyndy on her new job.
interesting inference
(allow me to re-state: the effects of a secondary rogerian aspect in a clark will increase the sensitivity on the emotional spectrum, in contrast to a clark with a secondary scottian aspect, where we observed a heightened (simple) aggressiveness)
..I’m liking that (insight)
“curious, easily bored, interested in anything that poses a question, insatiable people-watcher, friendly when not feeling threaten, confident when discussing ideas, totally tropistic for any information, however useless and obscure that they (the clarks) believe will give them insight into how they should feel, aggressive when dealing with ideas, passive when dealing with real people, (except friends…who they value more than anything), fearful, un-afraid (not the contradiction it would appear to be), the hard workers you could ever under-pay and self-less to an extreme, egotistical beyond imagining and willing to do anything for a chance to be accepted, except be-themselves.”
I want to scream this from the rooftops – it’s SO PERFECT.
I’m so glad you decided to do a flash back episode, because I’ve never read this particular analysis and as usual it’s thrilling to find yourself hidden in the words of someone else. This: “insatiable people-watcher, friendly when not feeling threaten (…) aggressive when dealing with ideas, passive when dealing with real people, except for friends” WOW.
Thank you for this and for your wonderful comment on my FTSF this week.
Katia
I never get tired of ‘the recognition of another clark’ that happens, like this description, or when I say something to a person, something that I should not be in a position to know (or at minimum be able to identify) and see that flicker in the eye of the person (figuratively and literally).
Viva the real estate agents–or should I say “Bounty”?
So, do rogers laugh at the statements of rogers? If they don’t, my secondary nature sure finds those amusing.
good question…
any rogers out there willing to offer an insight? (I suspect they do not laugh as much as the rest of do and not so much because they don’t find it amusing, but because they (rogers) tend to be pretty busy all the time and might not have the time to stop and laugh)