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

Denise mentioned something yesterday that reminds me of the thing that I most often forget about presenting the Wakefield Doctrine: using famous people (real and imaginary) as examples of the three personality types of this here personality theory here.

Adam:  roger ( first thing out of his mouth, when god catches him…”it was her fault“); Eve: clark ( I was going to cite her gullibility, how she fell for the scott or intended to do it for the good of the family, then I remembered… the Tree-of-Knowledge, risk abso-frickin everything…to know shit  (sometimes this Doctrine scares me lol), Satan: scott  (hey baby… wanna see what I got in my hand?); George Washington: roger (‘I cannot tell a lie’… jeez, every personality assessment since the Boy Scout Oath has included validity questions like this); Abraham Lincoln: clark (come on! …even those of you with more in-depth knowledge of his life and Presidency, have go to agree). Yahweh( or whatever is the proper name of the primary deity in the old testament, you know him, white beard, cool robes prone to raining trials and tribulations and such down on his creations): roger (do I really need to explain this one?) Thomas Edison: scott  Nikola Tesla: clark; George Harrison: roger; Maria Muldaur: scott; Prince: clark; Sylvia Plath: roger(?); Emily Bronte: clark...

…oh man! you should read this wikipedia entry on her…wait, I got it right here!

In 1842, Emily accompanied Charlotte to the Héger Pensionnat in Brussels, Belgium, where they attended the girls’ academy run by Constantin Héger. They planned to perfect their French and German in anticipation of opening their school. Nine of Emily’s French essays survive from this period. Héger seems to have been impressed with the strength of Emily’s character, and made the following assertion:

“She should have been a man – a great navigator. Her powerful reason would have deduced new spheres of discovery from the knowledge of the old; and her strong imperious will would never have been daunted by opposition or difficulty, never have given way but with life. She had a head for logic, and a capability of argument unusual in a man and rarer indeed in a woman… impairing this gift was her stubborn tenacity of will which rendered her obtuse to all reasoning where her own wishes, or her own sense of right, was concerned”. (wikipedia.org)

ok…that was fun!

what about jobs?  …physicians:

• General Practioner/Pediatricians: clarks
• Surgeon: scotts
• Oncologists: rogers

firefighters: rogers  while cops, on the other hand, are scotts (come on! your job is to chase people down and catch them, while driving real fast in cars that make a lot of noise and when you catch them you get to handcuff them and bring them back to the pack!)

Note: do not, I repeat, do not forget: ‘everyone does everything at one time or another’  of course clarks can be successful cops, (how else to explain why guys and un-attractive women get out of speeding tickets?)  and rogers can be very successful psychotherapists (how else to explain Oscar Meyers Briggs or psychoanalysis or Robert Carkhuff or even Bobbie Flay!) The point is this:  the Wakefield Doctrine does not take the position or otherwise maintain that there are ‘scottian jobs’ or  ‘clarklike interests’  or ‘particularly annoying social habits of rogers‘  there is none of that, so don’t even think about saying, “I know so-and-so and they’re a reformed nun who is a runway model, while during her off-hours she works at a homeless shelter for stray Labradors and is going to school for her PHD in  paleo-sociology.”

Thursday is tomorrow! not the day after!  It’s Thursday Guest Post Post Thursday!

hey, got this song in my head since last night,  maybe spreading it off will help

…you’re welcome