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

While we wait for the questions to begin, consider the concept of ‘fluency’.

No, wait. How about this?

Totally advanced Doctrine discussion followed by an easy, fun and rudimentary* description of the (principles) of the Wakefield Doctrine.

* the use of this word will help illustrate the three worldviews, in two contrasting contexts:

as the writer:

1. a clark will, should the word come up, take a moment to look it up (including the inevitable comparison to ‘elementary’) and enjoy every minute of the process.
2. a scotts already done with the post and is out the door; if that particular word was handy it went in, of not, he/she assumes we’ll figure it out
3. a roger, with a core vocabulary already in place before sitting down, will use the word if it fits (think: jigsaw puzzle piece); they will, in all likelihood get upset if you ask him/her if they’d considered ‘rudimentary’ as opposed to what they did use*

as the reader:

1. a clark will breeze past it, confident in their ability to apply the context which will serve to smooth out the comprehension process. (think: the chain on a bicycle, maybe it has a shiny-new link that’s not as broken-in as the original links. Not to worry, as you pedal, (the new link), will make the journey over the sprocket or hub or whatever-the-hell the round-toothy part on the wheel is and, soon as pie** any roughness or hesitancy is immediately eliminated
2. a scott will actually remember (your use of the word) and, (when you finally caught up them), would laugh and (probably) punch you playfully on the shoulder “You fricken clarks you!”
3. a roger will worry, and, depending on whether or not they thought anyone was ‘watching’ they might go look it up. (Those ‘watching’ can, and often do, include the 3,290 other people who ‘the Kindle’, says have read and possibly highlighted the word).***

* almost for sure ‘fundamental’

** a semi-rogerian expression

*** In keeping with ‘the Everything Rule’ in the matter of intellectual confidence¹: a clark is to a roger or a scott as

• a scott is to clark or roger in matters of personal, one-on-one nose-to-nose dominance or
• a roger is to a clark or scott in comprehending the precise interaction of small parts that make up larger mechanisms (this, by the way, includes culture and society).

1) for our advanced Doctrine discussion: it is accepted that a male scott is not intimidated by intellectual prowess however, quite frequently, a scottian female is.

For extra credit: Compare and contrast the typical manifestations of the predatory character of a male scott and a scottian female. (Examples encouraged)

Times up! Pencils on your desk, please.