Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
So you have more ‘friends’ who are rogers than friends who are scotts and, not possible to accurately account for them…than clarks
Why would this be?
To start, statisticually, in any given population the ratios of the three predominant worldviews are: 69% roger 21% scott and 17% clark
(We good so far?)
For our purposes today we identify ‘friends’ as those people you might think of when, outside of the workplace, classroom, schoolyard or the interior of your parent’s car, you would trust with a personal secret and/or potentially embarrassing aspect of your private life.
According to industrial science experts, you’re more likely to have two other people in your car than four (other people).
So who are your friends?
From the perspective of the Doctrine it breaks down like this:
- clarks: 1.5 rogers and 1 scott
- scotts: at least 18 rogers and 1, maybe, 2 clarks
- rogers: rogers don’t have friends, they have a Herd.* Not that there is anything wrong with that… the sense of belonging, relationship and fealty to others in (a) Herd is considered the equivalent (by rogers)
So get out there today and count the clarks, scotts and rogers who persist in hanging out with you.
Hey! We promised, at the beginning of this blog in 2009, that if you study and learn the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine you would be in a position to know more about the other person than they know about themselves.
…you’re welcome
*while rogers don’t have friends, they are friends of others (pretty much limited to clarks)
About clarkscottroger
> you would trust with a personal secret
Do you remember when everyone used to add that little whatsis carrot doodah to indicate they were quoting something? For f’s sake, I was telling a person the other day that I can remember making DOS batch files, and they thought it was a bakery term. Anyway, I drifted off topic….
It’s no longer a secret if you tell it to someone.
no!?!! what carrot?!?
lol you know what they say, ‘Age is a lit fuse with the fireworks meant for everyone else.’
true about secrets (from etymonline). “noun from secretus”set apart, withdrawn; hidden, concealed, private.” This is a past-participle adjective from secernere “to set apart, part, divide; exclude,” from se- “without, apart,” properly “on one’s own” (see se-) + cernere “to separate” (from PIE root *krei- “to sieve,” thus “discriminate, distinguish”).”
damn! they are right!!! you are talking about baking
Secrets are only safe if you keep them to yourself.
I might suggest, not even then.*
*but if we’re gonna get dangerously subjective, secrets kept to oneself can be more destructive1 than those shared
1 ’cause there is a voice (within all of us, granted louder in some than others… but the volume is not the thing that makes this tonal/inner critic so dangerous it is when it is the only voice. for most of us, a solo is far more compelling than a chorus). we’ve said too much already! burn this after reading!!**
** lol yeah, image/visual