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

There! That does it.*

So not to get too metaphysical. (yeah, right If metaphysics were imaginary food, we’d either weight six hundred pounds or be on a permanent intravenous drip of Rao’s Caramelized Onion Sauce over extra broad egg noodles.)

No, seriously has anyone ever wondered why the clarks in their lives have so much difficulty with the simple things while achieving more effective results with the unnecessarily complex topics?

Well, damn! If we knew you were going to be tossing the softball Doctrine questions, we’d a waited to more of the last minute to answer.

Two words: emotion. (No, it’s not that clarks are not emotional/bereft of emotion/emotionally-impaired or otherwise disadvantaged. The problem for clarks in the execution of the ordinary challenges of normal, day-to-day living isn’t that they are trying to compensate for a lack of emotion. The problem for clarks is the perceived excess of said emotion. Or, more precisely, the potential of emotion to create chaos and otherwise push the car down too steep a hill. ya know?)

Alright! If we were in a classroom and a pop-quiz was announced, you’d totally hear the word ‘define and refine’.

lol

Hint (for the ambitious rogers (with significant secondary clarklike aspects)… the scotts… nah, they’d be drawing crude life figures to illustrate and clarks?

Welll. This is actually something more of a challenge for you clarks out there than it would occur to you to admit.

Chill. Not to worry. It’s not like you’re going to be asked to come to the front of the room and read what you wrote in response to this essay question.

...much

oh yeah? I’ll step in yer frickin river as many times as I

July 11, 2010

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 androgers).  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!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZwgLrVEw84…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)Hey! Who said, ‘What we really want is a pleasant melody with near-incomprehensible lyrics? Here ya go, clark!

* the writing prompt effect of a RePrint post eliminating all that blank space. As always, ‘It’s way easier to edit than it is to write fill an empty page.’