Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
Hey being the First Day of Summer School here at the Doctrine, what say we start with a Q&A?
Here, from the early, no, really, early days of this blog* our FAQ page
I think sometimes I am (a scott) then other times I must be (a clark). Whats up with that?
You’re a clark.
Hey, wait you can’t be that sure on the basis of one question!
Yes I can. (I’m a clark)
The question you should be asking is, ‘why does it seem that sometimes we are one form, other times others’. And the answer is that we have the potential of all three, we just get in the habit of seeing the world one characteristic way, i.e. clark, scott or roger.
Is there any scientific basis for the Wakefield Doctrine?
No. (see the ‘About’ page.)
When I read this site, it seems like there is really only one person writing. Can that possibly be true? What happened to the collaborative thing.
Nothing.
I thought this was a FAQ pages, I don’t see all that many Questions.
…I’m waiting for a question… ‘what part of ‘Frequently asked questions’ are you brainiacs missing? There would be useful information if some of you scottian adhd cases or you middle-of-the-herd rogerian mouth-breathers would conquer your fear of anything that doesn’t already have a DYNAMO brand embossed label stuck to this blog letting you know that it was within your admittedly limited range of initiative and realise that you would not be struck down by Jethro were you to actually reach out and turn on your computer and asked a question.
Will there ever be new FAQ questions?
Yes, yes there will.
I heard that you have been doing this for nearly a year, what have you learned about the Wakefield Doctrine that you did not know when you started?
Which part of your statement are you calling a question? Rather than wait for you to move your lips as your try to re-phrase the question, I will answer this way. The Wakefield Doctrine appears to have an appeal beyond my immediate circle of friends, in fact, it appears to have sufficient appeal to out-weigh my meager writing skills. By presenting the Doctrine in a blog, the virtue and value of this thing is put to the test. And it seems to be passing that test.
What a well-thought out question.What?
Never mind, you would not get it. Other aspects that you would not get is that the Doctrine is proving itself to actually be an effective tool in aid of an effort to change life habits. (Given the unlikelihood of your comprehending this answer I will continue), and say that anyone reading this with a true desire to ‘change their life’* should read this blog and do whatever they must do to get actively involved in it. This includes, but is not limited to: writing Comments.
*Is it true that if I have to ask the question, I will perforce be unable to understand the question?
Yes.
oh…kay! This is probably where we should do a Person of Interest** timeline slider thing from 2009 to 2026. But let’s just get us… well, first off, what’ with the ‘tude? ;p
As both Reelika Pedak and Frank Hubeny alluded to in this week’s TToT conversations, the first/earliest posts one writes can be the most difficult. Given that the tone of the FAQ was a bit aggressive if not a touch strident, let’s chalk it up to Opening Night(ish) jitters and let it go at that.
No, not necessary to Update/Refresh or otherwise edit this Page. The Wakefield Doctrine is, as are many things of the mind, kinda alive. We can say without fear of contradiction that the early years were conflict free for us. In point of fact, despite being a clark, the mantra of ‘if that last post sucked, then write another and bury it’. See? No problem.’ One of the undeniable examples of the efficacy of this here personality system here lies with its effect on us. Hard to convey, but compared to the clark we were before committing to this medium, theys surely something going on.
Rambling now.
There is much to the early days of this blog that still strikes us as remarkable. Not so much the content, rather the attitude we had towards going public and, through each post (now in the mid-3k in numbers) reaching out to the virtual world to say:
“Hey! Wanna hear about a really cool and useful perspective on the world around us and the people who make it up?”
* hokey smoke! this was written July 21, 20….09!! as in, ‘Well, it’s been a month, where’s the Nobel Committee?!?”
** most excellent of ‘TV series’
hey, chance to head off a mind worm of a song from that Little ‘Ol Band From Texas
About clarkscottroger
I think I’m going to change my life and become a clark. If I’m already a clark, this should be easy. If not, well, there are always miracles.
you are totally welcome to join the fra-sorority of Outsiders.
ed. one of the first (and few) Rules established in the beginning was that no one had (an) authority to designate another person as being a clark, scott or roger. (From a clarklike perspective that would be presumptuously rude. That being said, in company a discussion of public figures, like most libel laws is acceptable. As long as it’s constructive aka eduncation.
The principle as always been: you can’t get this Doctrine thing wrong. After all it’s about the nature of the relationship we maintain with the world around us and the people who make it up.
As curator of this here personality system here, it’s been my experience that ‘you can’t get it wrong’ is that were one to claim a predominant worldview other then their own, this thing of ours would simple not be enjoyable (or productive).
…ok, if you insist! lol If you’re uncertain to any degree I will share one of the fundamental aspects of life as an Outsider: when I wake up in the morning (and, for that matter, most of the rest of the day) I think in terms of ‘the world’ being out there. A gap. A space. A difference between who I am and what everything else is.
Of course, there are self-admitted clarks who would be happy to discuss this in private. They are, after all, clarks. lol but no matter what imo this thing is useful and fun and we’re glad you have you join us.