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

Not having a direct bearing on our post, a time-travel story by the master himself, Robert Heinlein. (In our defense, today’s post contains the word ‘time’, a bunch.)

Time sure flies when you’re alive, don’t it?

Went searching for a Reprint and stumbled upon one the most satisfying of previous works: a post that is as close to being ‘on topic’ as is reasonable and…and! one that is Date Congruent*.

So, while I had originally intended to discuss either: 1) the Everything Rule or B) the ongoing effort to write the perfect Wakefield Doctrine Post¹, what say we proceed to the reprint.

(The title of today’s post? The reprint is from 2010, as in eleven (or so) years ago?)

ha

ha

(From January 3, 2010)

Time.

In the time it takes to write this, it is about time this subject is addressed, when will it be time to get serious….it’s about Time.

The un-marked Rolodex stopped spinning this morning and came up Chambers Brothers, which means the topic is Time. (I will say with pride  that I resisted the Pink Floyd and stayed with the original source.)

On with it then.  Everything can be seen in light of the Wakefield Doctrine, ever thang.  Even Time.  Especially Time.

(BTW I did make some New Year’s resolutions, and primary among them was to present the Doctrine in as effective a manner as possible, which means that every Post/any Post contain something of the ‘real world’ that will offer concrete and objective expressions of the Wakefield Doctrine.  And I will not stint to present the Doctrine in as many different ‘contexts’ as may make themselves available.)

Time to start?

clarks are of the future, scotts of the present and rogers of the past.
(for clarks) the future never arrives, (for scotts) the present is over too soon and (for rogers) the past is essential.

All very obvious, but what are we to learn about the ‘worldview’ of each of the three in this context?

clarks, as well known by now, live in their heads.  They inhabit the world as outsiders, for various reasons clarks feel the need to earn the respect and acceptance of virtually everyone else they encounter.  Implicit in this statement is the idea that they must make an extra effort, to compensate. Being clarks, they are perfectly suited to the task; come up with a plan, something no one has thought of, in order to do something to redeem themselves…in the future.  clarks are doomed by both the (false) premise and the un-manageable definition of success.  But clarks live in their heads and their strengths are their downfall.  They are trapped by an idea, false to the rest of the world, but true to circular logic inherent in a worldview of ‘me and the rest of the world’.  And as Time passes, the requirements of the gesture that earns the respect of everyone else, grows and grows. Impossible expectations become a way of life that trades effort for acceptance, surrenders any chance to realise the falseness of the original distinction in exchange for the illusion that one more plan might be the one to make it all worthwhile.

scotts, people of action, they are the ones that live in the here and now (without the serenity).  Actions speak louder than words? Actions speak in place of thought.  The very distinctive trait of scotts, their living in and of the present, imbues them with certainty.  If your mind is reflected in your acts and your acts are of the present then you will have a certainty of purpose, which is why, for good or (very, very often) bad, scotts are the leaders.  Most people, most of the time prefer to listen (and by extension, follow) the person with the most certainty, conviction, sureness.  That would be your nearby scott.
(There is a ‘test’ utilized in sales, specifically timeshare sales, in which the sales representative will meet the customers, talk about what they will be doing in the next couple of hours and then abruptly say “follow me”.  Without hesitation, without looking back to see if the customers are, the rep will walk off.  If they  follow a sale is a near certainty, if one or both people have not followed the rep knows there is work to be done.)
The negative aspect of Time to a scott?  (One word: ‘getting old’).  Age. scotts are not the ones who ‘age well’.  Since most of their lives are lived physically, in action/in motion the decline of health and physical prowess is anathema to the scott, both male and female, (for parallel but slightly different reasons).  Want to scare a scott? tell them they are getting old. (might want to be sure your exit path is clear first, though).

rogers? too easy. (Is there a genealogist in the house?) Call from the Department of Redundancy Department¹, for the first rogers  to pick of the courtesy phone…As we know the strength of rogers is the source of their limitations.  They organise and they preserve (for posterity).  But Everything a roger deems valuable enough to preserve is considered Perfect.  (As in, ‘improve on this? are you crazy didn’t you just hear the guy say Perfect?). For a roger, ‘if it is worth doing it is worth repeating,…without change or alteration’.

Damn, what a busy morning we gots here.

BREAKTIME!!!!

OK,  back to work.

Let’s consider the ‘point’ of todays’ Post.  Time is the universal, inescapable common experience.  Only problem is that we all live through it differently and more importantly, we all view the effects of Time in very different ways(or to be more exact, three different ways).  And the Wakefield Doctrine is nothing if it is not an effort to find new ways to see the world through the eyes of another person.

(Hey Slovinanss!, it’s snowing out.  Early class!  Go out there and step into the shoes of the others, have some fun.)

Messrs. Chambers, if you will…

 

1) phrase from the totally wonderful Firesign Theater (just find an old person, ask them), specifically from a line in the ‘I Think We Are All Bozos On This Bus’ album. (Album? hey I did say old person)

* not a ‘real’ term for time relationships**

** what? No, thank you! Some topics are more effective at triggering SOC-writing than others. Surely there is nothing more efficacious in stimulating a desired mood, not counting chocolates, a wall poster of something poignantly optimistic, or a bottle of sangria*** than mentioning time (and, without question, implying time travel).

*** provided the time and era was Middle College-dorm and one had just aced their MATs****

**** Why, yes! You’re correct, there was a time, in these pages, when that little aside would have been far more explicit and, for that matter, funny. But time do change some things. And, next time? Raise your hand and identify yourself for the other Readers.

1) the perfect Wakefield Doctrine post: one which a Reader, here for the first time, (and not hearing of or about the blog, the Wakefield Doctrine or any other tipoff from one of you people), reads it and understands the principles to such depth as to allow them to use our little personality theory that very same day. This would, of course, entail recognizing the clarks, scotts and rogers among the people of their world.