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

Would (it) be interesting to compare the content, if not the underlying intentions, of anyone inclined to take part in the pan-cultural practice of New Year’s Resolutions.(?)

Who just said, ‘Well, if your Doctrine is as useful a perspective on the world and the people who make it up, what can it tell us about how people might behave during this traditional time of reflection and projection?”

lol

Speaking only for ourselfs, the past year has been one of forward progress and increasing resistance (from within).

It seems incontrovertible, (if not inevitable), that the more we effect change, the greater the impulses to resist, or, failing that, to indulge in the romance of the past. (This, of course, is a deliberately fanciful way to describe the conservative element of our personal realities. It’s only natural. While the famous saying maintains, ‘Nature abhors a vacuum‘, we would suggest that, ‘The attraction of the past is directly proportional to the degree of novelty in the present.’)

whoa… wth?!?!

ok, ok, a little more elaboration, but then back to our typically provocative claims of insight and understanding. Our current proof-of-concept project, my participation of a live video weekly real estate series, is what our literary friends might refer to the inciting incident.*

Gone over my time limit.

Given that its still Tuesday, I have one more day before Thursday to complete our Wakefield Doctrine look at New Years and the tentacles of our past.

(to be cont’d)

*gotta break character for a minute. What roger convinced all the bros(and broinae) that the term should be ‘inciting incident’. I get what they’re going for, (and totally agree to its function), but talk about ‘more is more’!  Just so you don’t think we’re being unnecessarily sensitive on the matter of the rogerian view of labels and titles and words and such… a brief reminder of what is arguably the most obvious, (in the sense of being easily perceivable to people of the ‘other two’ worldviews**), characteristic and idiosyncratic qualities of the Herd Member. (I totally looked up the definition in a compare-one-to-the-other sense. lol they’re both appropriate. damn! is this Doctrine fun or what?)

rogerian expression: the passive-aggressive misuse of words and language, distinguishing characteristic (and total identifier), is it’s capacity to force the listener to burst into laughter. There’s probably a really cool, Greco-Klingon word for the state of being startled into laughter, but we don’t know it. Consider the following examples of rogerian expression and, if you haven’t heard them before and react as predicted (those with a predominant rogerian worldview not eligible to respond), and know the word, totally let us know.

First recorded rogerian expression. When asked at dinner one night by his wife, Camille, if he wanted more mashed potatoes, Roger replied, ‘No thanks, I think I’ll surpass on that’

(other 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’m 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’

(and the most recent recorded rogerian expression)…

…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…’

** clarks and scotts, of course.