clarkscottroger | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 2 clarkscottroger | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 2

and now a word from

February 14, 2010 By

Got a minute?

No, nothing bad.  Just thought we could kinda step back, try to see what progress we are making out with this little blog thing of ours.

And we are making progress on the development of other ‘sources of content’; both (the) Progenitors and Downsprings are starting to become confident and good content is the result.  Good content is defined as Posts that are entertaining and present the Doctrine in ways that help the Reader understand and apply the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers to their everyday lives.  The Progenitor roger,  is really starting to come into his own with his (Post) series CSR 101,  which is not only good content but is now a ‘premise/storyline’  that others can use to launch their own Posts.  The CSR 101 (storyline)  is where Glenn and AKH have begun in earnest to bring value to the blog,  both of them writing Posts that are ‘classroom presentations’ to (everyone’s favorite AP class at Millard Fillmore High) on the subject of the Wakefield Doctrine. 
AKH had already done a nice little piece on relationships and Glenn was pfg on his Interview Post, as was Denise (Downspring#1) who did a snappy little Post the other day.  In terms of presenting the Wakefield Doctrine and being entertaining, these guys are really starting to produce.  They deserve a big round of applause or a click on the link to their Posts and leave a Comment.
While still not sure what is going on, the Doctrine now (seems) to have Janie Sullivan and her friends. (Simply a name mentioned in one of the first CSR 101 Posts, Janie has somehow become a ‘voice’ in these pages.  She is the one in ‘block quotes’ and blue font).
There also seems to be a ‘Mr. B’ who apparently is the one who picks the music videos.

Anyway.  We are getting there, here at the Wakefield Doctrine blog, both in presentation and in content.  With the content now coming from other sources, we are now beginning  to have the time to look at the blog from the view of, ‘If I were a Reader here for the first time, how likely is it that I am going to ‘get’ the Wakefield Doctrine on the first visit?’

As to visitors and Readers, we are not doing badly.  We have Readers (about 20 or 25) who come here on a regular basis and we have a decent ‘visit rate’ every day. (Nothing like SewingintheNudewithYoungMissElliot.com or PoundingHammersHoldingNailsandManTalk.com  blogs, but we do alright).

Blah, blah, blah.  (Man, you should see me here at  the computer looking for a hook.  It’s been interesting (well maybe only to me) the kind of stuff I have been going to in the desperate hope of finding some music to inspire me, or failing that to hang this Post on.  I mean everything from ZZ Top to Leslie West to Joe Cocker…a line of youtube video search came to a total screeching halt when I read one of those Comments (under the video) that simply said: “my grandfather went to see these guys”  dit…dit…dit.. as Roger would say.  Oh kay, lets quietly turn off the museum videos.

Damn, but I do like the videos and since I still got nothing, let me put this totally fun clip of our favorite gospel guys.

So anyway, last night we were driving around Wakefield (yes, the Wakefield) and talking about how it is sometimes difficult to distinguish rogers from scotts, especially ‘strong’ rogers and (regular) scotts.  Glenn, he say “what is Howard Stern?” and my immediate (and correct, of course) answer was: roger.  Now Glenn, he gets like, forgets he is supposed to be the scott in the car and says, “really”?  I mean a ‘genuinely-interested-in-the-answer’ question from a scott!  (You tell me this Doctrine thing is not a productive way to change the way you live life.)  Anyway, I said, “yes Glenn, listen to Howard on the radio, he seems all aggressive and pushy and what not but it’s personal with him”.  That is the quality you hear, no matter how ‘all in your face’ Mr. Stern may seem, its personal.  With a scott it is never personal, they do what they do, sincerely and genuinely, but it ain’t personal.  Even in a conflict situation, a fight, scotts will be all action, nothing held back but then when it is over,  everything is back to normal, no grudges, no major resentment, just a re-establishment of pack ranking. Nothing personal.
Not with rogers.  So Howard Stern is a roger.  While we are on the subject, Lennie Bruce?  roger…George Carlin? scott.

Damn this shit makes sense.

And there it is.  The point I was looking for.  We are getting to where we can present content on reliable basis (nothing like Mel at the Spatula, that guy is a machine! the rate he comes up with good content, damn!), but regularly enough that we need to set the bar higher.

This Wakefield Doctrine is a ‘fun, unique and effective way to understand the behavior of those around us, at home at work at school and at play’ (as it says on the short discription on the blog directories) and this will always be true.
But we need to begin to understand that  the Wakefield Doctrine aka the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers is very much a tool that we can use on ourselves…

…so stay tuned.

Share
Filed Under: clarkscottroger, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , , ,

CSR 101

January 21, 2010 By

 

” Manifest” Destiny    

     Attention…Company! Order…Arms! Dress…Left! In Place…Rest!

    Just my quirky little way of bringing the class to order. And seeing as how Janie is coherent once more, we’ll move on.

     First off; sorry about the scrunched-up chart in the last post. It is indicative of my sadly semi-autistic capabilities with the WordPress Dashboard. ( Actually, being autistic might  serve as an asset in this forum… hmmm….)  And that, even sadder ( sadlier?) is the best I can manage for a lead-in to today’s topic; Self- improvement.

     Over the last few days, Your Eminent Instructor found himself  listening in on a radio program from the legendary Dr. Laura. She is a fully licensed counselor? chiropractor? criminologist? crustacean?   I swear on your mother’s eyes that she claims all that and more, so if that were a test question, the correct answer would be E), all of the above.

     In my typical semi-autistic habit of not really paying attention, I just sort of listen for the buzz words that seem to jump out, and if something interesting goes by, then I’ll swing around and try to actually focus on the damned thing. And on this program, I noticed the word ” manifest ” being bandied about quite freely.

    ” Manifest” seems to have become the ” word du jour” in the wonderful world of self-improvement. Apparently, you don’t just endeavor to improve yourself any more. We must now ” manifest” ourselves. Or was that “manifest ” other people? Not sure. Might be a critical detail, though. I would hate to just go ahead and blindly manifest something that did not really require manifestation.

      Anyway…all that manifesting led to Dr Laura’s plug for SelfGrowth.com ( I would provide a link here for your convenience, but being semi-autistic and all, I had better not try it ). And it turns out that SelfGrowth.com is a veritable fountain of  the touchiest/feeliest stuff you ever did see. If you read down the entire list of links, you’ll realize that the human psyche can be endlessly compartmentalized, and you’ll discover whole vistas of problems that you, binyon, never even knew you had. So you had best get to manifesting some of the big ones right away, and save the little ones for later. ( Note to Acolytes- the Progenitors will clue you in to all the cryptic ” Lady” references as soon as we can find a way to do it without scaring you all to death). ( Note to Clark- can we link the Lady to Dr. Laura? Woo-#%^*#-Hoo!!)

   And so; after you’ve all had a bit of fun with ” manifesting” stuff,  I would like to pique your interest with a predominantly philosophical and yet pointedly perplexing puzzler; ( this might be used as an essay question on the mid-term; and please try to visualize Rod Serling reading  this )

     If  you,  as a textbook Clark, Scott, or Roger, were to engage freely and wholeheartedly in the vast self- improvement arena, would the experience simply re-inforce your primary characteristics as outlined in the Doctrine; or might it cause you to venture forth into the pristine wilderness of …those Other Two? ( there’s a signpost up ahead… you’ve just crossed into… The Doctrine Zone…)

     All right, that did it…Janie’s eyes have rolled back in her head, indicating lights out. Responses in comment form are quite acceptable, but a full-blown Post on the subject garnishes an automatic ” A” for the course ,in my book. And, maybe even a hat.

Attention…Company! Prepare to Break Ranks… Break Ranks! ( Hardee,1862)

Share
Filed Under: clarkscottroger, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , , , ,

CSR 101

January 17, 2010 By

     Ok, class, let’s settle in… what’s that, Janie? Substitute teacher? We don’t need no stinking substitute teachers. Oh, right… the old “look into my eyes” bit… next time, Jane, just scream real loud, kick him straight in the bollocks, and call 911.  Jeez, if a Clark got you, you’d end up babbling about string theory and where the donut shops are in the fourth dimension for the rest of your life. What?… you already know?? He bought you two chocolate-frosteds with jimmies that don’t really exist, and a large decaf ( because caffeine was outlawed ages  ago in the “real” universe?)Jane! Jane, look at me!! No, not over my shoulder!!! Jane, you’re fading! Come back….come back….Jane…. come back…. Oh, hell. I just hate it when that happens. Another one tanked… All right,then. As for the rest of you, let’s pick it up where we left off….

     OK, then so who can tell me the difference between the WD and the BSO? ( see last class’ post ) Anyone? Anyone at all? No? Jane? ( camera pans to Jane, who is staring out the window and trying to do calculus on her fingers ). Ok, forget Jane. She’ll be out there for a while yet.

     That was a trick question! The answer is…there is no difference. Well not much, anyway.  Back in your seats, let me explain…and someone please grab Jane by the ankle, she’s apparently discovered mutli- dimensional weightlessness , and the window’s open…I think that’s due to the jimmies that don’t exist…Hey, do people outside of Rhode Island know what jimmies are? I had Del’s and clam cakes for breakfast, is that weird?

     Ok, enough. Back to work.

     The WD/BSO comparison actually struck me as being a good example of the WD on a big, big scale. Macro. Freaking huge. We generally assume the WD to be all about interpersonal stuff ( by the way, great job AKH- and a comment fron Denise that could easily be expanded into a few posts; yeah, that’s a hint, Girlie!). But seen on a larger scale, it actually works quite the same way. Let’s have a look;

                              The Wakefield Doctrine                                                                                                The Boston Symphony Orchestra

     Clarks- internally active, cerebral                                                                         Work Being Performed                                         

     Scotts- socially outward, good salesmen                                                          Conductor; co-ordinator/ interpreter

     Rogers- detail-oriented, socially inclusive                                                     Orchestra; Strata/sub-strata of specialists

      Well, there it is. Self-explanatory, yes?   No? Ok, then, let’s break it down a bit.

     To have the BSO function properly, there is an absolutely overwhelming level of coordination that must be maintained on several critical levels, all simultaneously. If anyone drops the ball, then the end result is percieved as a bad performance, a lousy conductor, a mediocre orchestra. In their world, that’s simply not going to happen. In reality, the actual difference between a first-rate orchestra and the others is probably very slight; the margin for error is almost non-existent.

     The largest grouping in this setting is comprised of the players themselves, and my analogy labels them as Rogers. Every damn one of them. They’re highly trained, highly skilled, supremely confident. They aren’t just great classical musicians ( a phenomenal accomplishment on its own), they’re the top percentile of those guys. They simply do not screw up. They are all machine operators. And, what amazes me the most about them; they do what they do, and  manage to stay focused on the conductor. Who, BTW, in this analogy…

     is a Scott.  A perfect salesman, he has full knowledge and complete, utter control of everything before him. He embodies all the player’s capabilities. He knows every nuance of what they can do, and uses that knowledge to interpret the music; he does a lot more than just keep everyone in tempo. He is using the big machine to make known the wishes and intent of the composer. He sees all this at a glance, and simply needs all the Rogers to be perfectly precise on his command. And, in this last segment of analogy, the composer is…

    the resident Clark. The guy who creates the entire thing in his head, and desperately needs a few good Scotts and a damn lot of Rogers to get the thing out to where the public at large can access it. He knows all of it. He has to consider the interpreters along with the machine operators; make sure that it gets out there the way he wants it to. Bach? Beethoven? Mozart? Just a tiny little bit eccentric, yes? No freaking wonder.

     And if all that works just like it’s supposed to, then we get to hear …the BSO. Or put in WD terms; if all the Clarks, Scotts and Rogers all read one another correctly and fairly, then the world should be just ever so slightly a better place than it was before.

     And since I’m in the mood, may I recommend ; Henry Gorecki’s Third Symphony. It starts with a repeating figure on bowed double bass ( one of my favorite instruments) and develops it into a hypnotic theme. It doesn’t really have a sense of time or tempo to it, it just hangs in space like the soundtrack to a prophetic dream. Gorgeous. Give it a shot, binyons. A little high culture won’t kill your asses. And someone wake Janie up, it’s time to shut the lights off.

ON THE NEXT POST: I have no idea.

    

   

    

Share
Filed Under: clarkscottroger, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , , , ,

scott/roger couples in love take 2

January 15, 2010 By

**Before we continue with our study of the rogerian male/scottian female Couple, a word about Comments:

We are seeing an increasing and relatively steady Reader/Visit rate from the UK as well as Central and Western US.  To these Readers we say:
“Welcome! The free ride is over.  If you are still following this blog, it must be assumed you are assimilating ideas contained in the Wakefield Doctrine.  That’s great, but we want more.  We want you to contribute/comment/feedback.  This is vitally important at this juncture. And don’t worry about asking stupid questions, you know the old saying1 . 
At the bottom of this Post is a place for Comments, when you are done reading today’s Post, click on it and Comment.  Hell, even if it is only in order to identify your ‘type’ (Doctrine-wise), it will be useful to know how many clarks and scotts and rogers are making up the current reader demographic.  In the words of the  Lady2  ‘You’ve been told’

To continue our examination of the scottian female/rogerian male that we started in a previous Post.  We left the discussion with the idea that the interdependency inherent in a Couple-hood like this would be quite interesting.  AKH (a Downspring) was gracious enough to spend her time in order to give a us ‘view’ of the relationship from the scottian perspective (or perhaps better to say, ‘from the perspective of one particular scott’).  It is invaluable for those of us (clarks and rogers) who simply cannot see this view.

(AKH, if you please):

This material contains matters which may be subjective as they apply to The Wakefield Doctrine.  Reader discretion is advised….
First of all, my boyfriend Greg (not established long enough to be considered “partners” yet) is predominately a rogerian guy.  Honest to God!! Being a scottian female myself, this post really hit home.  It elicited a rather loud Holy Shit! response to say the least.  From what I’ve learned to be the tell-tale signs of the clark/scott/rogers of the world you’d think that it wouldn’t have been such a surprise reading this post.  The fact of the matter is that I never directly applied this knowledge to my own relationship (stop shaking your head).  And you’re thinking “How the hell could you not?”  Don’t have an answer to that one.  So I will now attempt to enter (my) uncharted territory as it applies to the rogerian male in a relationship.
Ours is a well-balanced, harmonious relationship.  Our good sense of humor plays off of each other, often laughing at ourselves.  And we goad each other on.  And yes, we’re both smart and good-looking.  Don’t mean to sound vain, but it is what it is.  OK, enough re-iterating from the post (but it’s so spot on!).
To preface, from my female scottian perspective, Greg couldn’t be more suited for me.  He’s VERY attentive and puts me on a pedestal (what more could a scottian girl ask for?). When we’re out together I am proud to show the world that he’s with ME.  I gloat over the fact that this very handsome guy chose ME.  And he enjoys that.  Don’t get me wrong, looks aren’t everything, but they certainly don’t hurt.  He feeds my ego without even knowing it.  So, without further ado, on to the question at hand:  What’s up with those rogers?
Rogerian guys are usually very passive.  Never wanting to rock the boat so to speak.  However, sometimes that passivity can be misconstrued as laziness or even disinterest.  They are eager to please, but not at the cost of allowing another to take advantage of them.  They will and do venture from their herd-like mentality given it is worth it for the “right” person and as a result become more outstanding, more independent if you will. In my particular case I don’t feel as though he was necessarily of a strong herd mentality so much as just following the status quo.  Wait a minute, was that a contradiction?  Oh it’s all so confusing!  No black and white in the world of the clark/scott/rogers.  Because we all have some of each within us, it’s sometimes difficult to put things in a nicely-wrapped gift box.  Particularly in this response as I am honestly unable to be entirely objective given my relationship with my rogerian boyfriend.
Perhaps due to my limited scottian personality (did she really just say that??) I’m trying to express a need to be viewed as one in a relationship with someone who IS strong and independent. And Greg is.  A scottian female would not want to be associated with someone who is weak.  It would be too easy, if not downright boring.
Moving along, the rogerian guys can be the class clowns and laugh at themselves easily.  It doesn’t bother them too much to be the butt of the joke.  They also enjoy laughing at others, usually not with mal-intent.  They’re goal-oriented and when serious just might surprise you by their strong convictions. They are, for the most part, agreeable.  But not to the point of being submissive.  Rogerian men are non-confrontational which works well for the scottian counterpart who deems herself as being somewhat superior.  In a scottian/rogerian relationship the individual characteristics balance each other out quite well and is satisfying for both.  The rogerian guy is very loyal, caring, loving, unselfish and a good listener with a heart of gold.
All of this being said, a scottian female could not be happier to have a rogerian guy.  Am I babbling yet? I’ll quit while I’m ahead (if that).

Thank you AKH.

Speaking of scottian female (perspectives)…. you need to see the following vids.  Jesus Christ!  After what I said about understanding from another’s perspective and all that ‘walk-a-mile-in-someone-else’s-mocassins’ crap, along come the following two views of Couplehood.  (And this Post is about Couplehood/Coupleness/Coupleosity).

Watch and be amazed. (A free hat to any Reader who successfully explains the commonality between these two videos).

Now for something really suggestive…

click HERE

Come Slovenians, Comment!  Don’t worry about language differences, this is the damn internet, I’ll figure something out.

1. ‘There are no stupid questions, only your questions…

2. The Lady: if you work really, really, really hard and understand the Doctrine cold, you can ask again and maybe we will tell you about her. (She is wonderful)

Share
Filed Under: clarkscottroger, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , , , ,

You may find yourself in another part of the world, You may find yourself behind the wheel of a large automobile

January 11, 2010 By

Lets talk about COUPLES!   Yes, I’m talking about: two of a pair, walkin’ hand in hand, complete each other sentence(s)… let’s hear it for the destroyer of all (non-sexual) friendships the one, the only because we are so close we are a….can you hear it? …the world is saying it, as one, out of two….   the   Couple!

I know that (the) roger has you on CSR 101 (clarks, scotts and rogers) and this is the most correct approach to learning this thing.  Get the basics of the Doctrine down, look around at the people in your life, match description of each of the three types and your world will soon be populated with clarks, scotts and rogers; all acting and re-acting,  interacting and detracting…to your benefit and improvement.  …But is there more…? (Go ahead,  you know what’s behind this link.)

Of course there is more, how can there not be more?

There are/is/am the couple, the friendship that has sexual contrast as the primary feature/dynamic.  (Hey this is the 21st-damn-Century!)  Yes, we are talking about when 2 people are linked by sexual difference.  Male-female/male-male/female-female, does not matter.  The  sexual component does.  Make(s) the difference.  All of the difference.) (All) (OF) (IT).

They are not friends…they are a Couple!  (Here is a little mood music, courtesy of Joe Jackson.  Sorry, no video).

OK, fine.  What good does that do us?

I’ll tell you.  It gives us a very, very useful (teaching) tool for the Wakefield Doctrine.  Because the best way to understand the Doctrine is to see examples of the 3 types (of people) in your life.  And, as everyone past puberty knows, being a Couple brings out the best in us! (And so, totally the worst in us).

So, let’s begin (our little lesson) with the easiest of the Couples to identify: rogerian male/scottian female.

This is the most ‘attractive’ of Couples.  They are both attractive, in every sense of the word.  Although if you want to get technical about it, she has the ‘sex appeal’ and he has the ‘socialibility skills’.
She is hot and he is charming.  They look great together.  (Now, think about what you know about each respective type: rogers are social, herd based and will identify with the group, scotts are individualistic and will hunt alone, but will focus all attention on one person at a time.)

But how do you really know that you are meeting a scottian/rogerian Couple?  The interaction, what they do with each other and to each other.  She will be the more aggressive one, he will seem to be more relaxed.  One of the ‘primary characteristics of the scottian female/rogerian male couple is how they talk about themselves.  She will talk to and about her partner in a very noticeable style.  A style that everyone that is listening wants to believe is affectionate ‘criticisms’.
“Hey! You know what roger here did the other day?”  “You should have heard roger at the party the other night”…all of these comments and remarks are presented with an overall  ‘I really love this guy’ kind of vibe.  ‘Jokingly’ critical but still on a fairly personal level.  And all for the benefit of the crowd standing around our  Couple.
(btw.  And he does give every impression of enjoying this kind of exchange, the repartee. (The rogerian male), he laughs at her as much as she appears to be laughing at him.)

There is a clear dynamic tension with this couple.  As a Couple they both make an impression, they are not to be ignored.

(Damn this topic is way bigger than I thought…. Let’s find some music to close and we will come back in the next Post to finish (this) discussion of scottian females/rogerian males.) …And if we can through that onwards to other ‘couple combinations’.

But since Joe Jackson is the man today, let’s have him take us out….(ya gotta love the host of whatever British TV show this clip originated on).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SPogGqCgeM

Just a thought…

You know that this Doctrine is ‘gender neutral’, right? (You should know it is the first item in the column to the right).  I just had a conversation with an associate (at work) about the whole clark, scott, roger thing.  And she said, “I’ll only go to the blog if you add a name for a female scott”.  To which I replied, “No”

(Quick quiz: which of the three was this person and why is the only possible answer no?)**
(Answers at the bottom of the blog.)*

But to re-state the Doctrine on distinctions between male and female: there is none.  It is very simply a matter of using the terms properly, ie. a person is not a female scott, she is a scottian female; he is not a male roger he is a rogerian guy, she a rogerian female. (clarks…does it really matter?)

Hope that clears up any lingering confusion about the differences between the male/female versions of clarks, scotts and rogers.

 

You know….the more I read this (oh, I so read my own Posts)…the more I am thinking that Joe (Jackson) is only giving us a limited musical view of our topic.

* Hi clark.  Of the three you are the most likely to jump to the bottom before reading the actual Post

** Answers: she is  a scott and  ‘there is no need for a special name for female scotts because they are not ‘female scotts, they are scottian females’  see above

Share
Filed Under: clarkscottroger, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , , ,
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »