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

Hey! Before it fades, we witnessed a new rogerian Expression!* A character on a show (forget the show, remember the character) facing a situation that is challenging on all levels, says, “Well, that’s a tall pill to swallow.”

(something, something… didn’t want to step on the only, vaguely original thought in this post. Given the holiday, here in Oceania, later in this week, thought it best.)

* what are rogerian Expressions?!? sorry, didn’t see your ‘New Reader Leave Me Alone, please’ badge.

Welll… have a seat. Can we get you a coffee and something to nosh on? ok, we see you have the three name tags recommended for first time visitors to the Doctrine. Never a bad idea to leave your options open until it’s too late. Here’s the link to the original reference, just in case. If you’re in a hurry, scroll down to near the bottom of the Page in rogers,

Don’t go anywhere, gots to find a reprint and finish up the post.

lol!! damn! Sorry, I just encountered one of those, probably-only-because-it’s-the-blogosphere moments. We all have those times when we don’t recognize our own writing. Most often very old posts. The normal reaction tends to be, “Hmm, kinda basic, but clearly that was us writing… keep practicing!” but sometimes, like today’s reprint, there’s a line that makes one laugh and think, “Alright! Weird as you thought you might be, but still…kinda funny,”

of egos and empathy the Wakefield Doctrine (yes, I know! it’s already half past Monday! )

April 15, 2013

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) Sorry for leaving an undeniably out of date Post up there, after all, it frickin says ‘Saturday’ in the damn Title. So while we rack my damn brain for some fresh Content, here is a reprint Post, which is actually surprisingly germane to where our thinking is on the Doctrine. Don’t want to get into it too much but we will say this: a) the Wakefield Doctrine stands to become a very cool tool for self-development (for those so inclined) and  2) those rogers have been relaxing long enough in the wings…time to get this show on.

But for now, please enjoy:

Welcome*

…we know now, ( if you read yesterday’s Post, you know now ), the relationship between rogers and scotts is a very… intimate pairing. While easy to mistake the roger’s as ‘victim’ to the scott’s predation, we know that this is totally not the case. ( New Readers!  Go and listen to DownSpring Phyllis in Episode 13 of Video Friday), rather it is obvious that there is very much a symbiotic relationship binding¹ your rogers and scotts.  The Wakefield Doctrine is gender neutral, however it is often where gender is the central feature, that we can see the relationship between these two personality types in highest contrast. We all know a couple** where the guy is a roger and the girl is a scott. He is always pretty and she is always sexy. He is socially adept and she is socially aggressive. It is when these two are observed tant qu’ensemble,  do we see the interplay of each personality type.  With a roger/scott couple,  it is the scott who is quick with the jokes about (the roger), ” oh yeah,  you should have seen roger on our honeymoon! he was so nervous”  (this kind of comment actually serves two purposes: a) make fun of the roger for the amusement of the surrounding group and b) (serve) as bait to entice any rogers listening to the story). The roger, in this situation, laughs comfortably and watches the reaction of the female members of their ‘audience’.  Think:  Bill and Hillary Clinton  or  (for you older Readers), Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton   …hell, lets throw in  Bobby Brown and Whitney Houston!  In any event, you will find ‘this couple’  in most social gatherings where attendance of ‘couples’ is appropriate. It needs to be said that this type of relationship (roger/scott) is by no means exclusive to ‘couples’ in the romantic sense; anywhere there are people interacting, you will find the dynamic described here.  And, as Phyllis points out in her Video interview, the roger is not truly the passive partner. (From the rogerian perspective), the seemingly passive one is ‘leading from behind’ and reining in the scott, particularly in the public/social situations that we are using to illustrate the two personality types.

While the roger-scott relationship is relatively easy ( if not kind of…racy… dynamic… “ewww, I can’t believe she said that“…) to understand, what of the roger-clark relationship?

Before we continue with our discussion, a quick note!  You know how we have been accused of… making up words,  (neologisms, to get rogerian on it) for our own enjoyment?  ( No? well we do!) Real made-up words, not rogerian expressions, in any case, with Molly’s help we went and sent in a word to the Urban Dictionary just last evening. While not up to the sublime, subtly-nuanced standards found with most of the entries there, we are beginning to spread more and more into the ‘real world’.  Thanks Molly!

The roger-clark relationship is much more stable, less wildly dynamic than is the roger-scott relationship. As the ‘active’ partner in a roger-scott relationship is usually the scott, the roger plays the more active role in the roger-clark couple. This is attributable more to the patience of the clark than (to) the aggressiveness of the roger.  Lets just say that in the ‘natural’ relationship between rogers and clarks…

rogers are to clarks as:

• a diploma is to an education
• (the) record to the needle
• the ocean to the tide
• Thanksgiving is to Christmas

(As with yesterday’s Post, here is where we will relate an anecdote to serve as an illustration of some part of this Post.  So I was talking to the Progenitor roger just the other day, the conversation was great fun, ranging an incredible variety of topics. This is as much evidence of the rogerian skill at story-telling, as it is proof of a clarks ability to adapt to nearly any situation.  In any event, roger and I were talking and the topic came around to either:  a)dinner, b)body weight or c) both a & b, at which point, roger made the statement, ” of course, you would be eating tuna casserole…” Now this statement should not mean anything to you, (the Reader), however, what makes it so atypical of rogers is that at one time in the past (say …20 years ago) I was on a tuna casserole diet. Great meal, tuna…noodles…good hot or cold…perfect food! Being a clark, I could, (and did), eat tuna casserole for every meal. The point of this story is that roger mentioned this…menu choice, as if it were (still) true. What is remarkable about the sentence that he made was not that it was no longer true, rather that he made the statement with such certainty and conviction that, for a second, I could almost smell tuna casserole. rogers do that, they maintain a (certain) worldview that they have decided is accurate, the passage of time, (in this case, 20 years), has zero effect on how true the roger will hold their statement to be… This capability is at heart of the rogerian need to: preserve, to maintain tradition, to support their view of the world as lasting and consistent. This is perhaps the  reason that rogers are such effective story-tellers…they maybe be relating a tale, one that they totally make up, but when they tell it, it is ‘true’. The listener feels this (rogerian) conviction that the story is true, it must be simply because (the roger) remembers it so…)

• musical technique is to creativity
• machine operator is to a Teacher

Well that wraps up Chapter II.  Be sure to stay for the Video  (  isn’t George just so….dreamy??! )

1) lol…ask a scott

* the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers

** we mean it about gender neutral…the term ‘couple’ is not limited to simple heterosexual pairs… can include any relationship, sexual and/or friendship-based

*