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

You do know/realize/accept that the tendency of this personality theory towards provocative/outrageous assertions/claims and descriptions is, in fact, proof of it’s validity as a description and efficacy as a predicator of traits and behaviors and such, right?

ed. ok, running out of time. here’s a RePrint that I picked (out of three) on the basis of a single throwaway line about rogers (will leave the Reader to find that line).

before we go, to the idea that everyone’s favorite personality theory is lacking in certain intellectual gravitas, we’d love to say it was by design. it was not. we will concede to a certain benefit to the Reader: if we say, “hey scott! they’re running away… oh, you’re already giving chase” that’s …not subtext… more an Easter egg in the sense of ‘yeah, we know you’re not saying I must chase anything that runs, but what is it about me (a scott) that makes that funny? and by illustrative contrast not being funny were you to address it differently: “err clark, for some reason they seem to be leaving at a dramatically quick pace” or “pardon me, roger, could you tell me why they are choosing to leave so dramatically?”

you get the idea (if you don’t, leave a comment and we’ll totally leverage your question/confusion into a post.

a quiet, (totally confusing) little Post the Wakefield Doctrine “shhh, there are new Readers, lets not scare…right yet“

March 11, 2014

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

so …these early-weekday Posts seem to be more and more difficult to write. Naturally, I immediately go to the Question of why?  [Allow me to interrupt myself.  clarks ask why, scotts ask what and rogers ask how, right?… well, actually it goes a little deeper than that, but I need to complete this here Post here.]

where were we?  the Question is, ‘is it true that these Posts have been more difficult to write’  [Wait just a damn minute!! Did you see what I just said? wtf??!  hey, if we didn’t all ready have a Wakefield Doctrine which includes three worldviews, i.e. reality of the Outsider (clarks), the Predator (scotts) and the Herd (rogers), I could have re-discovered clarks with that single, awkward (and incomplete) sentence there!  “is it true that these Posts are more difficult to write”?!? Holy shit!! what kind of person, in a sincere effort to discover some inner truth, proceeds by way of:

• starts with the pluperfect conjective form of a question and proceeds to stick about six layers of qualifications and conditions on top of it
• makes it sounds like a question, but doesn’t given the slightest hint who the question is being addressed to
• and…and! is this even a question!!??!  frickin clarks!   you know the worst thing about clarks?  the persistence in our attempts to secure validation from the world that we imagine we know is around us!  damn! if I had a nickel for every time I posed a secret question about what I thought I should be doing, I’d be a millionaire!  you know what I mean about secret questions…. like the characteristic smile of the clark:   press the lips together, aim it at the people you want to believe are being friendly and hope for the best

alright….sorry for the rant. (not really, but it sounds good to say).   and since were on the subject of apologies!!!  here:

1. clarks apologize too sincerely
2. scotts…. well, come on  seriously! who can stay mad at a scott…. they roll over, offer their soft under-belly  let you stand over them for a symbolic second and then its  “come on!! come one!! lets chase something!!!”
3. rogers… don’t even get me started, rogers  apologize the way a good hooker has sex,  totally satisfying and convincingly …until you get the bill

lol

hey that was fun!!   no,  there is no underlying rationale to today’s Post  ‘just a havin fun’ as Johnny Winter sang*…oh it must have been 40 damn years ago!

Hey!!  Experienced Doctrine Readers!!  you guys know this shit… why doncha go ahead and finish this Post for us (in the Comments, of course), I’ll even leave you some spare words (left over from the beginning Part iv)

 

 

: a) am I confused as to my audience and therefore conflicted in what to say? or 2) am I just at an ebb in the cycle that has existed since the very first Post was written? or c) am I just wandering, rhetorically speaking, in today’s Post, hoping to stumble upon an idea, a theme, a thought ….a hook for today Post?

the Answer is:

 

* yeah, down here:

*