Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
ruh roe
Ree…Print!
It is not necessary to understand this…M. Eckhardt
June 17, 2010The topic of today’s Post is: Discourse and Discussion (quick definition so we will not get any shit from people saying that this blog is amateur scholastecism),
discourse: from the Latin discursus; the act of running about. Sociologists and philosophers tend to use the term discourse to describe the conversations and the meaning behind them by a group of people who hold certain ideas in commonAlright lets start there people, the sooner we get through the “serious” part of the Post, the sooner we can get to the music videos. This the Wakefield Doctrine Lesson of the Day. The question before us is:What is the goal, the perceived object of the act of conversation/discourse for clarks, for scotts and for rogers? (and as a follow-up question), What does the Doctrine offer to aid the person trying to effectively communicate with a person of the other type (clark, scott or roger)?First up, clarks. clarks value knowledge information above all, therefore they will attempt to bring as much fact, knowledge, information, inference and implication as possible to the discourse (see?). You will know a clark by the fractured sentence structure. Their goal is to offer (the listener) the maximum choice in paths to take, because (to a clark), everything branches off everything else and each branch offers some information that is discrete from other (branches). That accounts for the (heavy) use (as opposed to light use) of parenthesis. It is a clarks way of saying “hey! by the way, had you considered this…?
Sample: “what is it that real people do with all the time in between sentences?”Second up, scotts. scotts need to know: are you predator or prey; are you dominant or submissive. For that we require a verb.
Sample: “Hey!” secondary example: “pretty simple, isn’t it?”Last, rogers. rogers are not using words to communicate or carry specific questions, rogers use words to exist. They live in a purely social world, one comprised of people, however these people, all being rogers do not interact. Instead the rogerian members of the herd are relating to each other…and s0 the only thing to talk about is the past. The past of each of the other members of a herd is the topic of all rogerian discourse. That is why rogers tend to be good at writing, they are laying out a world, not imparting information. It is a fabric of emotion.
Sample: “did you hear what she said about him…?”Now you know how each of the three converse/communicate/engage in discourse/run about. What good it this information? Glad I asked. So you can understand the other person, knuckleheads! There is this old saying, “clarks are crazy, scotts are stupid and rogers are dumb”
Why is it necessary to mention this?
Because the best tools in the world are useless without the skill of the person using (them). And skill in the use of tools involves understanding the material/the object that the tools are being used on as much as (understanding) the tools themselves.
You know that clarks are trying to impart too much information, so take what you need and ignore the rest.
The scott is barking aggressively at you, so decide if it is in your interest to be prey or predator/submissive or dominant and bark back or roll over.
The roger is spreading information throught your workplace about you, and you do not want that. Take a clue from terminex and contribute information into the network of your own, it will work its way into the social matrix and maybe surplant the bad information.That concludes the Lesson of the Day. Now to the entertainment portion of the Post. We have a mix, two music video and one movie clip for the scott, the roger and the clark. (In that order, in case, you are a new Reader)
*
About clarkscottroger
I love this distinction: “clarks are crazy, scotts are stupid and rogers are dumb” I use enough parentheses (I hope) to be a clark.
thanks Frank (now I gotta go provide the ‘this is not an insult on your people’ to Misky*)
fortunately she has that quality that people who are drawn to the Doctrine, the enjoyment of a well-grounded outrage… fun with creativity
I mean, when referencing clarks, who doesn’t go to ‘crazy’? ;]
Stupid in what way? And no, I’m not barking; that would be a pretty stupid thing for a predator to do — giving away its position to et al. 😂
stupid (from the Doctrine perspective) is to be intelligent and allow passion (and impatience) make a body reach for a hammer when the screw driver is missing just saying
(interesting insight: back in the early days we’d drive around on a Saturday night (in the actual Wakefield) and have discussions of the Doctrine, it the car with me almost always a scott on the phone other clarks and the night in question, the roger (the progenitor roger)…anyways it came to me at the time (the crazy/stupid/dumb thing) and zero surprise, the scott laughed their heads off, the roger got genuinely angry. the Wakefield Doctrine is such an amazing thing.)
Ah yes. Short story short (it’s almost bedtime). My husband was fussing about one of those plastic plugs for screws you stick into the wall or plank of wood, and the plug kept bending as he tried to tap it into the surface — at which point I picked up the screw, stuck it into the plastic plug, lined it up with surface, and hit the screw/plug with a hammer. The plug didn’t bend because the screw was holding it rigid — and I hit the screw with a hammer. Job done.
By George, she’s got it!
Now, once again where does it rain?
lol that’s the thing about scotts they live in the moment, get it done and then… where’s the next bounding gazelle? lol
— pretty well sums it up, yep.
I’ll admit to being generally nuts just not clinically nuts.
exactly
I will indulge in one of my favorite quotes that applies to clarks and the world (out there)
“And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.” (Friedrich Nietzsche)