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

You know what one of the longest-running ambition of this here blog here is?

(No, we do not mean:

• to have a million subscribed followers
• encountering people on the street saying, loudly enough to heard from our passing car, “You and what army, scott?” “Oh man, what a roger” “Your surroundings, dude! Come back to the planet earth, clark!”
• being included in the custom, stay-at-home-and-still-speak-every-language pack of both Rosetta Stone and Babel Fish
• earn a comfortable living and increase the value of the common stock in Wakefield Doctrine (NYSE: WD) from selling DocTees and Hats (“…for your damn head”)

We’ve finished our little list but wanted to be sure to have a place for the far side of the parenthesis.)

Well, if you search, wait, we’ll do it for you…

ah ha! a reprint for ‘the Perfect Wakefield Doctrine post’

…but before we paste it, lets just define the perfect Wakefield Doctrine from a contemporary perspective: a single post, of less than fifteen hundred words (more or less) that, if presented to a first-time Reader, would enable them to see the clarks, scotts and rogers in their everyday world. Furthermore, she, (this first-time Reader), would grasp the core concepts (i.e. three characteristic personal realities, the relationship of the individual to the world around them and the people who make it up, the Everything Rule and, finally, the value of having an additional perspective on the world and such) and find the fun and excitement of seeing the world as the other person is experiencing it.

What fun.

(Unsurprisingly, we found 344 posts in a search for ‘the perfect Wakefield Doctrine post’. We did say it’s a goal, like, from the very beginning. What part of “Hey! Are you still writing blogposts on your personality theory thing? What’s it been, eleven years? Two-thousand-how-many individual posts?!! Don’cha think you oughta give it, you know, a rest? lol)

anyway: below is one of the first, perfect Wakefield Doctrine posts:  oh yeah… Readers know we’re about nothing here if we’re not about trying to be as honest as possible** so, Full Disclosure: the links from the two music videos did not survive the years. The links here are contemporary links to the two songs with ‘Time’ in their respective titles. Think about it… 2010!! Hey, at least we’re sure what we were doing on a certain day twelve years ago. Well, part of the day. Ok, if you insist, the early-morning-hours of the day…. for about an hour or so… if you insist wait

damn! it was a Sunday, yeah…. hold on, I’ll try

jeez louise!  it (WeatherUnderground) said that the weather here on Sunday in 2010 was clear and the temperature ranged between 15 and 22 degrees F. calm winds and sunrise at 7:14 am

hokey smoke!! Thanks guys… this little exercise might have yielded some interesting information on my weak-tertiary rogerian aspect. thanks, a lot.

Now the time has come. There are things to realize. Time has come today

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.)

Mr. 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)

*