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

Despite Mondays, of late being days when we reprint old posts as jumping-off points, we’ve never been at a loss for inspiration or topic or ideas whenever we sit down at the keyboard of our solid-state Electrola. This a direct product due entirely to the nature and reason of the Wakefield Doctrine itself.

… lets state the statement that you, if a New Reader, should latch onto at your earliest convenience:

‘...the primary benefit of employing the perspective that is afforded by the Doctrine is to better appreciate how we relate ourselves to the world around us and the people who make it up.’

Of course, this represents more the ‘Why’ as opposed to the ‘What’ of our little blog.

(ProTip: the coolest thing about the followers/readership of the Wakefield Doctrine is that they/it  are, for the most part, clarks. No, we amend that statement! The cool thing is that we draw and attract scotts and rogers who are hobbled/burdened (lol… predominant worldview joke) with a significant clarklike secondary aspect.

No!  Wait… the actual coolest thing is there are Readers of this blog, there is a readership that has endured since we started writing this thing.

Where is the time going?!@?

lets find something that turns up when we search ‘demographic’ and ‘readership’:

quick morning Post the Wakefield Doctrine (“…you do know that Thursday is the secret Friday of the Workweek, right?”)

March 6, 2014

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

Good discussion in the Comments section, of late. And the Official Doctrine answers are: yes, yes, no, well, if you mean with clothes on, no, are you out of your fuckin mind, yes, yes (and lastly), I’m sorry, you must be at the wrong blog, I think the one you want is over at http://www.ammobroads’nbeer.com … or maybe you need to stop at http://www.crocketingcondomssayingIloveyouwithtwopointysticks.com

alright, now that I have that out of my system. lets get down to the basics:

the demographic of Readers here is beginning to show a trend to the scottian, a surprising but welcome development. the core Readership remains (female) clarks (and possibly male clarks, but they choose to remain unidentified… for reasons still not understood.) I suspect I know why, of course, but I will refrain from saying what I think (well, duh!).

Well, if that’s the case, then clearly we need to address our scottian Readers!

To begin with, we all know that you have to decide for yourself which of the three worldviews is your predominant, in other words are you a scott or a roger or a clark. This Rule was originally intended to prevent Readers from getting all….rogerian on new Readers, like  “well, look at the new clarklike females! woo hoo  hey girl you want to come over and watch some Ken Burns documentaries sometime?”  The Rule still obtains, it is not only for each of us to decide which personal reality we are in, but it is also part of the process of Learning the Doctrine.  However….

…seeing how we’re talking about our scottian Readers, this Rule is not quite so necessary. lol  not that you can’t make scotts do things, but ‘needing to be protected from rogers‘??!!   not so much.

OK enough of the intro. Lets talk about scotts:

• mercurial  as our friends over at Free Miriam say:  “…characterized by rapid and unpredictable changeableness of mood”
• natural leaders… this is an often overemphasized quality. the reason why scotts are considered good, natural leaders is because they are not given to ambiguity, they make a decision, done! people believe that ‘certainty equals correct choice’… god bless ’em.
• scotts act, clarks think, rogers feel
• confident (see: ‘natural leaders’)  (there’s an old saying at the Doctrine: ‘scotts are often wrong, but they are never un-certain’)
•  (keeping the ‘everyone does everything at one time or another’ Rule in mind): scotts make excellent surgeons but not good physicians, cops but not firefighters, madams but not working girls, Teachers of the very young or the hormonally be-sotted (pre-school or high school, of course), a rough carpenter but not a finish carpenter, a Defense Attorney but not Prosecutor, a soldier but not a politician
• the social identity of the scott is the pack, as a predator, scotts prefer to work alone but will, should circumstances dictate, gather with other scotts for a common (albeit) temporary purpose
• you can spot the scott in any social gathering, they will ‘work the room’… the scott will challenge everyone ‘in the room’, literally (in the case of male scotts) pushing them on the shoulder or figuratively as often the case with scottian women
• (at a party): the male scott will have a circle of people around him and he will be telling one funny joke after another, becoming more and more outrageous with each joke, the female scott will have a circle of male attendees, accreting like layers of coral… mostly rogers, of course  they will have a clarklike female friend nearby. this friend will not be a part of her immediate dynamic, rather she (the female clark) is used to shed the rogers and re-assure the scott that there is something that she has not thought/said/done a thousand times before… she makes the rogers laugh, her clarklike friend makes her laugh…. (sort of a Le Trou Normand  in a social sense of the word).

Ok that’s it for today

*