Welcome  …etc

I want to apologise to any Readers who have found themselves saying, “hey I’m not looking for a comedy blog or a music appreciation site, I don’t really need the wryly witty musings of a frustrated writer!”  This morning I find myself sitting at this computer saying to myself,  “where did I get off track“?  Vanity apparently is so more insidious than I would have thought. Staring at the monitor, drinking coffee and while waiting inspiration a Post to show up (…a lot like taking a copy of the New York Times into the bathroom, you really hope that it will not be necessary, but are resigned to the fact that it will), I caught myself critiquing ideas in such terms as, “nah, that’s not funny“, ” yeah but, they’ll never get that TV show reference“, and “I think I might get away with that“.
The question rose in my mind, quite without welcome, “just when did I stop trying to present the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) as a new and exciting way of thinking and instead decide that every Post that showed up on the site had to be amusing“? Now don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with being amusing.  If we were to meet in person and hang out, you would find yourself laughing at least once;  but the question I cannot avoid asking myself  is, “What is that I think people are coming to this blog for?  Funny/wacky/weird Posts or are they here to learn about the Wakefield Doctrine?   Well, the ‘sign on the door’ says that this is the Wakefield Doctrine,  it does not say ‘the Entertaining and Random Musing and Literary Stylings of…”
I realized this morning that the Readers who have come to this blog over the last 12 months did so because they were interested/curious/intrigued by (this) idea  of ours. The idea, quite unique and definitely worth investigating,  that there really were three personality types and that the description of the three types was kinda fun and funny, but mostly, this Wakefield Doctrine actually worked, it delivered the goods.

The problem may not been all strictly the price of vanity, ( “hey! great Post!” “where do you come up with those videos“, “that picture on the front? funny!”), in my own defense I will say that a part of my motivation for trying to be amusing and funny  is simply that I am  a clark. And we (clarks) like nothing more than to know things, lots or things, different things and most of the time useless things!  It did not take long to see how well received some of the funnier Posts were and it only made sense to try to write more of those and to try and not be so…dry…pedantic…clarklike! But in all fairness, a huge  part of my drive to write whatever I thought would get read came from the fact that the Wakefield Doctrine  is fun.
We (Progenitors and DownSprings) do laugh when we get together! People who learn about the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers do get excited about seeing it work in real life.
In a way, glenn was half right (as usual) when he complained recently that these Posts have lost the spirit of the early days of the Doctrine blog, that in losing this supposed spirit of subversiveness the whole thing was in danger of losing relevancy. To a small degree I agree, the early days of the Doctrine did have a sense of stick to basics, i.e. clarks create, scotts sell and rogers gather the masses. That, by the simple fact that none of us had ever tried to create something like this blog,  everything was new and exciting and risky. (Of course, life is like that its ownself! And while one might argue that uncomplicated, unencumbered and un-restrained child is the epitome of spontaneity, I would just as soon trade in some free spiritness in exchange for not thinking that reaching into my diapers and throwing feces at asserbys is the height of humor. But that’s just old clarklike me).
In any event, it is time to get back to the basics. This is not to say that  we  be returning to the writing style of the first Post(s). There have been changes in how these Posts are presented, changes that not only make  reading them more enjoyable, (the the photos and the videos), but also make the writing of these things less than a total chore.
Sorry for getting dazzled by the bright lights, the fame, ‘you like me, you really, really like me’… I believe I understand now where I have gone off track.

My job is to tell you about the Wakefield Doctrine (theory of clarks, scotts and rogers).  The goal of this blog is to show (a) way to view the behavior of those people (in our lives) that will help you to make sense of their behavior. I will present the theory and the Doctrine and you will find it helpful and usable and fun (or not).  We will leave the charm and  psychotic-affability to the rogers and the scotts can take care of the leadership and seduction-as-an-end-in-itself. Both are blessed with talents that only they enjoy.

But it is Friday Saturday. Enough with the lessons ‘n learning. Well, maybe a little learning.

Here is a quick ‘elevator-ride’ description of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers):
…picture a large parking lot, maybe one quarter of the spaces are taken, mostly towards the stores…there is a red ball in the middle of the open space the ball is rolling with the wind, stopping, rolling again with each vagrant breeze…
a scott will notice it first and be immediately on the alert, he/she will simply stop in their tracks and look around, trying to see the cause of the ball’s motion; they need to know  is it a threat or not? that is their priority. (If it proves to be harmless and they have the time and/or an audience,  the scott will pick up the ball and throw it)…(thereby establishing their dominance, lol)
a roger will eventually notice the ball, if there is a pause in their conversation with whomever they are talking to, they too will look around the parking lot, but unlike the scott they will look only at the other people, does the ball belong to them? do the other people fear the ball?, who seems to be in charge of determining the ‘threat-level’ of the red ball? If no one emerges as being in charge (a scott) or the other people are not showing any interest, the roger will put it all out of their mind and get back to their busy lives, (if asked they will blame the ball for making them late)..
a clark will notice the ball………. eventually, (once they notice it) they will immediately try to determine how the other people in the parking lot are regarding the ball, the main concern for the clark is determining if the ball belongs to anyone in the parking lot or if there is a danger that someone will blame (the clark) for taking/stealing the ball, if a crowd has gathered (rogers) and if there is no one in charge (scotts) the clark will speculate aloud about the possible origin of the ball,  if however,  the clark comes upon the ball and the parking lot is totally empty, the clark will still speculate about it’s origins (aloud or silently, depending on mood) will look around to see who is secretly watching, consider taking the ball home but will leave without it.

The Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) can tell you about people in everyday situations. You will be better able to predict the behavior of others using the precepts of the Doctrine. There is a bunch of information relating to a description of the three types that you need to know, but for today this little example will serve to answer the question: ‘what good is this thing, this Wakefield Doctrine’? In the coming days we will try to present descriptions of what makes the clarklike person a clark, a scottian man or woman a scott and how to identify the rogerian personality.