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

We went searching for a RePrint post. We found one. It looked different. We felt a vacuum-breath of fear*. Mostly ’cause one of our trusted online systems decided to upgrade and improve their security so we had to re-establish our credentials.

The fear?

Two words: scrutiny.

Hey! yeah, last week we did a couple of clarks vs scotts vs rogers experience lists… lets do ‘fundamental, existenial fears’.

clarks fear scrutiny, scotts fear irrelevance and rogers fear shunning (by the Herd)

well that was kind of…brief

remind us Friday to respond to Mimi and Misky’s recent comments.

thats un savoureux petit Doctrine, miam miam

January 21, 2011

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

Lets talk.

The Wakefield Doctrine is a ‘theory of personality’ the same way that your grandmother or mother (or wife or husband) is a chef. What they can do is produce food that you and your family look forward to eating and of course, everyone enjoys and benefits from their efforts both as  food and (as) a social occasion. Not only that,  your husband or wife or boyfriend or grandmother uses most of the same tools and ingredients and equipment that Le Cordon Bleu chef will use. Both will work with food in a kitchen environment that is essentially the same  and (all) produce meals that are good and good for you, the only difference:

your grandmother will never be on television, your mom will never write a book that will be found in bookstores, your wife or your husband will never have a meal named after them (on the menu of a restaurant).

Who is the better cook?

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine.

Do not think that we are apologizing for our grandmothers or our lack of empirical date (supporting this here theory of clarks, scotts and rogers, here). We are not. But just because the techniques and tricks and recipes of your “family chef” have certain limitations, does not preclude us  from being determined to try and rise above the confines of the ‘novelty blog’ category with the Wakefield Doctrine. Point in fact, it is the goal of all involved with this blogsite to take what we have learned about human personality and behavior and, with no small amount of chutzpah, put it in front of as many people as possible. Our very immodest intent is quite simply to get people to see the world through the lens of our little Doctrine.

There is no “WHY?” question here. (The only possible answer would be, “Why not?”)  To take that approach would have the fault of being  un-necessarily modest. Our intent is, with all of the means available to us,  presenting/promoting/publicising/pushing the Wakefield Doctrine in order to have some effect on the world, if only 30 or 40 people worth. Maybe more than that, (perhaps 300 or 400) people will read about this thing and find the same usefulness that we do and these people will benefit from having come to this blog and learned about our ‘theory or personality’.
But hey,  everyone starts out as someone’s son/husband/brother/grandson/girlfriend/yeah,they used to live right down the street before they turned into a celebrity or an authority or a mover or a shaker (the Hollywood variety not the Pennsylvania type).
Take Martha Stewart (…”please”) she was someones mother at a point in time prior to becoming a valued NYSE listed commodity…might have been your mother, but probably not. She was Alexis’s mother

Be that as it may. Lets take a quick look at our “cookbook” so that  our more credential-dependent Readers can continue to enjoy this blog and still get something useful from your visit today.

clarks: quiet but always manage to get noticed, introspective but aggressive, creative and intellectual yet capable of blindingly stupid stubbornness when they believe they have an understanding of the situation;
scotts: free-spirited extroverts who feed on the discomfort of others, natural leaders who inspire confidence and will spring into action regardless of how ill-conceived the action or ill-prepared for the unexpected they might be;
rogers: precise and exact and they would have invented OCD (if it had not already existed), sociable, likable and prone to extreme prejudice, with the right tools they will build the infrastructure of the civilized world just so they will have people to pass judgement on

Thats a pretty basic set of ‘recipes’ or down-home culinary technique, isn’t it?
Don’t you think your grandmom had fun teaching your mother to cook on cold winter evenings? The food at your house? doesn’t it taste as good as the food you could learn to prepare by spending 5 years in a culinary school? No? You think the chef, by virtue of all their formal training  is better off?

 

*hey, if no one else has already coined this expression** the Doctrine claims it this morning,

**rogers don’t count without verifiable objective proof of prior use