Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
The last Comment/Reply to yesterday’s day-before-yesterday’s Post serves perfectly to start us off today,
“I’d totally be calling “shotgun.” ” ( Dyanne ‘Backsies‘ …scott )
“We knew that… (well, this is the Wakefield Doctrine!)” ( clark…. clark )
now, before you think, ‘well he knows her’… (or) ‘she hasn’t really said anything other than where she would sit’… (or) ‘but your answer it doesn’t really tell us anything that we didn’t know!’
Fair enough.
Yesterday’s Post was concerned with, ‘what the Doctrine is’, today we will address the question of ‘what the Doctrine does’
What does the Wakefield Doctrine do? Is that what you want to know? well, is it?! For starters it won’t: make your husband stop being so picky, (or) give you the power so you can simply change your child, (the one who has so much potential, but all he wants to do is read those books), to stop him being so hard on himself when playing with the other kids (or) your friend, who you love dearly, but every time you go somewhere public, there’s a scene (not such an outrageous scene, at least not anymore, back when you were all young…wellll! it seemed that the minute you’d walk into the bar…she would somehow do something that made you three the center of attention and what you had hoped would be a nice evening with your two best friends would end up with you: frantically waving down a cab/ telling her new friend’s buddy that you really aren’t interested and/or hitting someone on the head with a bottle)
so… you want to know what the Wakefield Doctrine can do? Ok, rather than go into a long list of what it can’t do (which I seem to have already made a good start at), I’ll tell you the two most valuable things that things that using the Wakefield Doctrine skillfully, can allow you to do:
- you can know the other person better than they know themselves, with insights into the reasons for their behavior, knowledge that you have no right to know
- you can ‘see the world as the other person is experiencing it’
- (for a certain percentage of you out there), you can begin to build a ‘place to stand’ a place (within) that might just be above the emotional water line… a place that is not periodically washed away by the horrible price of being …what you believe you are
There! is that enough for you?
(Follow up on newest Doctrine blogroll member, Val’s scenario in Coments:
- which of those three young ladies will be assigned photographer duties,
- which will be ‘the self’ in most of the evening selfless and…. here’s a really tough one! of the three…
- which of the three will ‘mis-remember’ how the evening went…at least when telling ‘the Evening’s Tale’ back at the office the next day?*
* no, sorry Lizzi and zoe are prohibited from answering the bonus Question… lets let the newer Readers have some of the fun of answering the questions (especially, the fun of that dawning realization and you start to answer one way and then it occurs to you…. ‘wait! she’s just like….”)
About clarkscottroger
FRIST!
Yes, love the post title.
Let me post this and then….read lol
I agree. Great title.
As for the answers…scott telling the story the next day…ummm…no clue. Perhaps clark is the photographer?
Christine
keerect! (on the ‘who is the photographer’… it is near-axiomatic that, at any social gathering where a photo of the group is a desired thing, it will be the clark behind the camera…at least until the scott notices… (it will be easy for the scott to notice, as he/she will be in every photo… and no, not because scotts are photo-hogs…. it is because scotts are the focal point of most gatherings (whether the participants so desire or not)…
the scott will not be the source of the stories the next day… they will, however be the credentials (for the story) being told the next day… (again, scotts are the active ones)
But scotts are the center of attention, telling the funny stories people! I’d be getting serious mileage around the water cooler! I guess it’s the “mis-remember” part that says it’s a roger?
Fabulous title, Clark! I wasn’t ready to read posts this morning, but this one dragged me over.
OK, it looks like I’m copying Christine’s answer, but (so proud of myself) I said definitely a Clark doing the behind-the-scenes thing of taking the photos. Always.
As for who is telling the tale…the Roger, since Rogers like to quantify things, would be a good tale-teller, but you used said who would ‘mis-remember’ so I want to say the Roger because by your words somewhere, they “miss the enjoyment of the unexpected and strange” so they will have missed a few fun details.
The Scott ends up as the self in the selfies.
Dang, Lisa! You’re good! I’ve been at this for two years and can’t get it right!
….so Christine…. (back in the day)…. when you went out on the town with your 2 best (girl) friends.. your fashion choices?
I never went out on the town. I was on the track team in college (meets most Saturdays and always lifting on Sunday mornings) and married immediately after I graduated. I know. Sad face. ;)
Commiseration face :} oh well, (insert your College’s name here) town’s loss
Christine, I don’t know about that…I’ve just been reading a lot and looking at others’ comments and really trying to ‘get it.’ I don’t like when I don’t get things. Surprise.
So Clark,
Totally off subject. You say we all identify our own primary personality perspective but… I dont know…I guess im just wondering about my best friend who said shes a clark but is a screaming scott…. you remember the one from the hat photo on Clark st.?
I do… (but….but! we were just about to find out what Christine used to do for party-ationing…. track stars were not known as monks, at least when I went to school… (no! that was not long enough ago for there to be actual, Friar Tuck monks around!)
Seeing how I’m getting a better sense of Post topic from your (and the other Reader’s Comment)… how do we frame (what I hear is your) question. It actually happens (consciously and otherwise on the part of the person), they (initially) perceive what they might think is the ‘cool’ worldview/personality type and tend to claim that… oh, wait! you said that she would be a clark… lol
Very good Comment/topic. You how we say (about the Doctrine for the new Readers)>? ‘you can’t get it wrong and you can’t break it’…still true. (Even if ‘deliberately’) claiming the ‘wrong’ predominant worldview, she will eventually come to realize the truth…or she’ll not get the Doctrine ‘to work like those people say it does’ and lose interest or, she will and then find herself in ‘sync’
ya know?
So she’s a scott and don’t even know it?
she knows it… she would just rather be thought of as ‘one of those clarks, like zoe’ nothing nefarious, but I’ve found that sometimes people Read the Doctrine and think that scotts, as predators and such and leaping out of tree and running down wildebeests and all are not as cool as clarks*
* btw you’ve opened the door on a topic that is way interesting and equally difficult to describe in a Comment forum… thanks, thanks a lot!
lol
Is there a written form of charades? lol What a cliff hanger! Clues! No, never mind the clues! Tell us straight out – what topic is on the other side of that door? Hm?
being primarily, what is it of the other two does one covet the most?
of course…my pleasure… any time… You would do the same for me I’m sure.
I think the first clue to her Scottian nature was she lost interest in the Doctrine as soon as she removed the hat!
(I would tend to agree)… this (also) provides us with some pretty interesting insight into (how) the Wakefield Doctrine is perceived by others, i.e. people who did not find it/learn it themselves… not that recruiting and proselytizing isn’t effective, but the ‘effects’ on the new person is semi-predictable… I suspect
A clark and stormy night….so clever..
So, the Clark would be taking pictures with a regular camera of other people, the Scott would be taking selfies with her phone of herself and others at the party?
That was my guess.
Dyanne
…almost!*
we started with the very useful scenario (has anyone seen Val? she did start this discussion) of the 3 personality types out for an evening on the town… but while it is true that the clark in the group would be the one behind the camera, it would be to take pictures of her two friends, not photos of the total strangers.
the scott would be taking selfies and be included in pretty much any other photo being taken in the vicinity (including, but not limited to: the band playing in the bar that night, the bouncer (after interceding on behalf of a person being thrown out for excessive rowdiness, the bartender (who would put the photo on the edge of the mirror behind the bar)…etc
Surprisingly (or not), the only (of the three) who might be inclined to take photos of other people, places the three are going etc, would be the roger!
Partial explanation:
the reason that the clark takes pictures of her friends? to prove it to herself! ( lol…. prove what? ask Denise or Lizzi or zoe….)
the reason the scott takes selfies? why the hell not?!?! it’s fun… come on!! lighten the hell up!!
the reason for the roger: come on, this is a serious hobby, this is art, this is for the ages
capiche?
hey! I kinda like this discussion, I may have to promote it to Post status
* no! I’m not just being difficult**
** well, yes there are times when I do enjoy it***
*** being difficult, but this is not one of those times…
I know where Val is…whooping my butt at Words With Friends is where she is. I’ll tell her to pop over.
I am so enjoying this…making so much more sense.
So, Denise or Lizzi or Zoe…clue us in on what the Clark has to prove. I think I know, but Clark did say to ask…
(in the true spirit of the fun of the Doctrine) allow me to say this about the riddle above…i.e. the ‘other’ ‘real’ reason clarks will end up taking the photos of her friends, ‘so that she has proof!’
****yeah right. ..SURE it’s not one of those times
lol
OK. I am here . I think the Clark will be behind the camera but the photo will be requested by the Roger. I commented on Facebook, thinking of several people I have worked with in the past – Clarks pretending to be Scotts, pretending to be Rogers. All very personality disordered folks from my past employment. I might have the fashion thing down, the camera yes, but the water cooler???????? First thought is Scott, but maybe Roger wants to include everyone in the fun. Or does Clark want to let everyone know there are friends????? Where’s that translate button?
water coolers aka oasis’s in the desert….watering holes in the jungle clearing… clarks, scotts and rogers be there, but the reason they are (or at least one of the reasons they are) there depends on the worldview… and this, if I may say so, is where we separate the mildly curious from the ‘I just love to imagine things… the more detailed and outlandish the better!!’ Readers.
(back to the water cooler at work)…
now, the real people you know? put their heads on…. predators…herd members and outsiders…. or leopards and lions, antelope and wildebeests, wombats and (some other odd marsupial)…. that is the Wakefield Doctrine at it’s most useful and fun and totally self-regulating… no! I’m totally serious.
Sure, we know people who are aggressive and who follow the crowd etc… hell any personality theory can provide that! (here’s where we answer your second question… posing and faking and such?)… you know what a lion/leopard/predator is like, does the person you pick as a scott… how do they seem to be carrying it off? (in your minds eye…animals at the water cooler) I’ll wager that if they are not a scott… then when you imagine them being the predator at the oasis… you’re sure to notice the…. not fitting
same for the rogers and the clarks….
go ahead, take your time and then come back and tell us about what you saw (from your perch in the giant banyan tree overlooking the watering hole)
Ah, a Clark definitely snapped that….pure Rogers may comment on the flattened landscape as he loves the exactness of detail…a mixed Roger-Clark like me would enjoy the twist!
definitely agree
WHAT IS IT? If you can tell me what I’m asking you win.
It is (one of the only ways I’ve found) to provide an alternative to the awesome (and toxic) power of the knowledge of being ‘the Outsider’ (aka a clark)…
this is a new thing ’round here, so the language is still way rudimentary… but, like those precious cn u rd this ure a insecure roger, if you have to ask, you probably won’t understand…