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

Like a Sunday evening book report, this is the Monday RePrint post… ‘written’ at 10:15 on the previous evening.

(Full Disclosure: Well, this is ‘accurate’ if you count Saturday as a pre-Sunday.  But we did write this intro section on an actual Sunday.)

It’s been said the Wakefield Doctrine is the best pleasure augmentation since (fill in the blank with your own funny: product/event/beverage/ointment/religion/political theory) … ok, since sugar on Raisen Bran*. And it is! The  first video in the reprint was no longer an active link. We somehow figured out what the classical piece was and found another version. The filmography is outstanding and we were mesmerized by the opportunity to study the members of the orchestra as they performed. ok… not earth-shattering. But if you’re one of those who enjoys people-watching and you have the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine, this music vid is an excellent practice. You know, trying to determine the predominant worldview of the musicians?

From July 11, 2010 (that’s 28 years in the past!) (yow!)

Yeah, it is Sunday again.  And no, there is no rule that we have to get all weird (alright, weirder) on Sunday Posts.  But the Doctrine allows for virtually anything, as long as there is something (in the Post) that advances the understanding of the Wakefield Doctrine.
The Wakefield Doctrine Lesson of the Day:  talking yesterday to a person who has recently encountered this blog.  She expressed some concern about knowing for certain which of the three (clarks, scotts or rogers) she was, which is appearing to be a rather common experience among new Readers and as such is important to us here at the Doctrine.  We want everyone to immediately get the Wakefield Doctrine and then conribute to the blog through Comments.  As to the un-comfortable part,  I suspect there is an element to the writing “style” of these Posts that imparts some kind of “you better get this right” vibe to the First Time Reader.  Damn.

Hey Readers, yo. (No you’re wrong, I am totally entitled to affecting any (writing) style, slang, patois, pidgin, dialect or any other form of projectile cool (including a delusional perception of sounding cool, inevitably limited to my own imagination) if I want to cause I am the one writing this Post and who is anyone else to say that I am not in fact a dreadlocks-sportin, surfboard-on-the-car drivin’, pants-worn-down-about-mid-thigh wearin’ scott or roger or, for that matter clark(except the part about the surfboard and pants and dreadlocks but otherwise, I’m there) Sorry, lost control of the parentheseses.  Besides, the job is open, anyone got a Post you want to write then step right up.  Let us know in the form of a Comment and we will be too damn happy to let you write one of these rascals.

Anyway, the important thing here is this:  the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and roger) proposes that all of us start life with the qualities ascribed to  three (‘personality’) types (clarks, scotts and rogers).  Further, at some relatively early point in life, we begin to experience the world mostly from the perspective of one (of these three).  At that point we can say we are a clark or a scott or a roger.  Having said that, we always retain the qualities/capabilities/capacities of the other two types; but except for you Readers, we all seem to forget that we have a rogerian side or a scottian aspect.
The reason you are reading this is that you have the intellectual flexibility to imagine that which is not. (Yes, I know what you clarks are thinking at this point, but let’s just keep that to ourselves for now, shall we?)
The short form (lol, as if) is this: you already know this shit.  The Doctrine is a productive, unique and fun way to look at the behavior of those around us and understand why the people in our lives act the way that they do.  Pretty simple, isn’t it?

So, New Reader…relax take a deep breath (not too loudly, scott) (not too dramatically, roger) (breath! clark, breath!).  There is no rush.  Since you are already all three, deciding for yourself which of the three you are predominately will take care of itself.
The most frequent experience of new Readers is to say, “Yeah, I get the theory, but sometimes I am like  one type and at other times one of the other two. Almost as if I am all three”.
To which we say, “Very good!  Many of us feel that way when we start, then we frickin read what is written about being all three and it being predominately one of the three and we get over it!”  Jeez…come on, people I know you have an extra capacity to understand new shit or you wouldn’t still be reading this, you would have long since moved on to crocheting-with-emily.com or wrench-and-sports.com.  Relax, trust your instincts and get over it.  Have fun! (clarks, see us after class and we can help you apply an overly long, convoluted, tail-eating definition with complete instructions on how-to have fun).

And write a Comment.  Win a hat (for your damn head).

You want pressure?  I give you pressure…watch the following music video and tell me (through a Comment) if the Conductor is a clark or a scott or a roger…(come on scotts, some of you must like classical music)…but the challenge is identifying the type.
Not easy, of course, but I don’t want anyone to feel that they should not submit an answer….there is a hat (for someone’s damn head in it) for the correct answer!

…put down your keyboards, your time is up…answers are in…remember what we say here at the Doctrine,  “there are no stupid questions, just your questions”

(Come on Readers, lighten up.  Take a chance, clark; don’t feel threatened, roger;  hey scott, you can do this)

* yeah, we agree, kinda lame, but …but!! when was the last time you had a bowl of Raisin Bran (with the top layer carefully soaked with milk) and, two brimming table spoons of Domino sugar, coating the top layer; one shiny crystal short of sinking the whole, now delicately dry, top layer?

Never let it be said the Wakefield Doctrine doesn’t commit to an allusion (or allegory or metaphor and synecdoche or whatever the cool term is, here: