clarkscottroger | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 5 clarkscottroger | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 5

can you say ‘Doc trine?…sure, I knew you could

(“…jeez he was being such a roger“)

(“we’re not being too scottian, are we?”)

(“…it really is a simple decision, how clarklike are you going to be about this?”)

You might be thinking out loud, or mis-overhearing a passing conversation, but it is hard to deny that the world we find ourselves in today (and then again, maybe tomorrow) is so very easy to alter.  And when I say alter, I don’t mean it in the ‘to try and make other people do things differently’ way, and I am not suggesting that we would instruct the people we work with and play with to behave in an unfamiliar manner and I most assuredly do not mean that we should take our friends aside and tell them that there are certain things we want them to do differently from now on…

(Secret-Sharing time now), everyone is trying to change the world. All the time and everywhere,  people are inviting us to join them in decorating (and re-decorating) the world according to their tastes.  What is funny is that even though a statement like the one just made, if manifested in a different circumstance, say, for instance,  a shopper waiting in a checkout line, grabs the microphone and  announces to everyone in the local supermarket, that the world was changing, and they were the agency, now that that would be strange.  What really should be considered odd is how you can read this Post and be thinking. ‘OK, interesting idea, I wonder where they are going with this alter the world thing.’

(“the herd is restless, the gossip is rampant, how rogerian can an office break room be?”)

We are born and (most of us) raised by others, others who help us through the world until we are able to survive alone. No one would reject the notion that, as we are taught to live and act in the world, we are also taught what the world is like.  (Nothing  aluminum foil hat-wearing  crazy),  just:  “listen to your mother… when I was your age, I had to go without all the things you take for granted”;
                                                          “no hold my hand when we cross the street, look both ways…if anyone stops the car and offers you a ride…”;          “if you are too sick to go to school, you are too sick to go out and play in the afternoon…study because to get into college you will need good grades…how can you expect to get a good job if you don’t have good education”

And it is not just telling us what the world is like, no, they are telling us what people are like:     “never talk to strangers… the early immigrants worked really hard to establish themselves… what kind of accent is that?”
                                  “a nice girl simply does not act like that… first impressions are the most important thing…respect your elders…honor you father”
                                            “do unto others as you would have them do unto you…early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise…when a man loves a woman…”

Most importantly, those who teach us about the world tell us about ourselves:    “don’t put that in your mouth, you don’t know where it has been…you are so much like your father…don’t feel bad when people say you look like me”;
                       “you will never amount to anything…how can you do that, after all we have done for you…if you don’t respect yourself  how do you expect others to respect you…a good wife’s first duty is to the family”
                                        “don’t be afraid…god loves you…you can’t believe everything you see and hear”

And so we practise living in the world and the more we practice, the more our beliefs are reinforced and the more ‘unchangeable’ everything becomes.

Here at the Wakefield Doctrine we say:   “hey you know how rogerian the spirit of organised religion is?… be careful young lady, you know how scotts can be, he is after only one thing…hey, if you have insomnia, you can always hang out with that clarklike friend of yours…that roger is such a girl”

Altering the world is not really such a radical concept. Simply a matter of adding to your description of the world. A language, a way of seeing what is already there in a new and better way… that is what the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers really is, a view of the world that we can benefit from. (Sure thing,    clark).

Share

Ladies and gentlemen, we have started our descent/in preparation for landing, please make sure your seat backs and tray tables are in their full upright position

dit..dit…dit…”  (a rogerian expression meant to connote the momentum of history and the irresistability of the future)

So, why start with this little chatski found in a back bedroom (or maybe a musty old library) in the  Wakefield Doctrine?  Truth be told, I don’t actually know.
More and more frequently, these Posts are being created in an ‘automatic writing’ 1 state of mind. A ‘state of mind’  that is both exhilarating and anxiety-laden. (Not such north pole/south pole qualities are they?)  At any rate, there must be new Posts  collecting here at a rate of at least twice a week  and  very often, lacking any coherent plan or topic, I will simply sit and start typing.  And hope for the ‘best’.

This Post is being driven by an increasing awareness among the Progenitors and Downsprings of the forward momentum that appears to be developing here at the Wakefield Doctrine.  To be more specific, lately there has been an increasingly diverse  visitor/reader demographic  coming to the blog, reading the blog, and (leaving little red dots on the map).
Ah yes, ‘the map’! Our ‘older’ readers will notice the addition of some features and the elimination of others in the blog; a global map showing points of origin of visitors and, (more recently a ‘widget’ that gives a fairly precise location of our Visitors.)  One of the most common requests we hear from readers and other is the need  for an ‘overview’ or guide (to the Doctrine). Anything that will help new visitors grasp the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers as quickly as possible.  To this end, we have a little section at the top of the right-hand column (‘Tips for First time visitors’) that should help. (Any suggestions for tips to be included, do please Comment at the bottom of the Post.

(Had enough self-referential, angst-laden ‘reflection of the soul of a writer’ bullshit?) (Huh? Well have you?) (“Hello Sloveniaaannnssssss!”)

(Thats much better! Let us do this thing…)

This Post begins with a rogerian expression and if the Progenitor will not get his stone-washed, all-natural, tastes like tree bark, pants wearin ass up here and write some shit, then I will simply be forced to write in his stead. 
So, to the topic at hand.

What is the deal with : ‘dit..dit…dit…’ and why make such a fuss?  Because, like so many rogerian expressions    this little phrase is symbolic of the power that we have, each according to their individual form, when properly applying the Wakefield Doctrine.  An example:

‘so even though I studied all night for the final exam, including the extra material that you gave me, the exam itself was still a surprise,  ‘dit..dit…dit…”

Now what is being expressed here? The fact of preparing for an exam? or (perhaps) how much extra preparation that went into the study? Is this about disappointment or elation? Yes and no. To properly understand what the use of  dit..dit…dit… that is being illustrated here is, we must don our rogerian hats. (Though the term rogerian hats is redundant on an order of magnitude greater than ‘cute as a puppy’, still we must try. So get out those berets 3 , mon Frere(s)

(The) roger, living in a quantifiable, tradition based reality (as they do), looks upon school as a desirable (and necessary) part of growing up. School, for the roger, may not always be a pleasant experience but it is always a familiar one. And familiar will trump pleasant every single totally solitary time. After all, school is where one roger tells other (younger) rogers that there is history. All instruction and education is a presentation of history with a goal of creating the future. (WTF? stay with me here…) Rogers make up the majority of the teacher demographic because it is so natural to them. So regarding test preparation, test taking and test scoring, the heart and soul of the rogerian world can be found here, where the past, the present and the future come together, ‘dit…dit…dit…’
It simply is, and for a roger that is all that is necessary, a present supported by the past.

You know, this whole damn blog is nothing if it is not an effort to find a way to see beyond our own self-establishing limitations. But then you knew that already, didn’t you….clark

Damn! the scottian reader has got to have chewed off their own tails, most of the nearby furniture and every dog bone within a 50 metre radius. Scott! (whistle noise), scott come on in, its over now, the strange dusty man has gone back to the place he came from. Come on, I think I saw some rogers wandering by in search of a sale. (Lets walk down and get them all…)

So watch this space, there is no way that we will not see a Post from our Progenitor (roger). Stay tuned, binyons.

 

1) automatic writing : writing allegedly directed by a spirit or the unconscious mind.  Sometimes called ‘trance writing’ because it is done quickly and without judgement.

2) rogerian expression: that ability of rogers to take words change them slightly and force upon the listener an entirely new meaning (of the word or phrase) see rogers

3) berets: is there any article of decorative clothing that is more rogerian than a beret? tell me, come on someone tell that it ain’t so.

Share

we of the university majors at Los Angeles, California who had a Harvard University Dean come to teach us

…(That was a refreshing little naplet, blogorically speaking. But now, back to the work at hand…)

Welcome! Especially to our new friends in Australia, and Israel and of course, our friends in Slovenia!

Today we have kind of a special treat. Two of our  Downsprings1  are helping us out by participating in a little… T&A? err, PTA?,  I got it! Q&A!

We have had people tell us, after a recent Post(…breaktime…), that they felt they got a better understanding of the Wakefield Doctrine when it was discussed in a context that was ‘applicable’ to everyday life. (Yeah, like in everyday life people decide to sneak up on a certain class of person and do something indefinable to them and then report back a score). Sure thats an everyday application in, maybe say,  Zanaxville.

Anyway, we have a set of questions about the Doctrine that was presented to Joanne and Glenn (our Downsprings) and their answers are recorded in the following interview.

A little background first.
Glenn is probably the leading scott in terms of possessing both knowledge and (a practical) understanding of the Wakefield Doctrine. As a matter of fact, he helped instigate the process whereby the Doctrine was taken out of the realm of  oral tradition and brought into the ‘real world’ of this blog. You will have to make allowances for him, after all he is a scott.
Joanne comes to us from the interested observer category, she has been witness to over 25 years of discussion and development of the Doctrine.  Enhancing her position as a Downspring, Joanne offers as much a normal persons interpretation and application of the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers as we have in the group. She is a roger, but with a skepticism of the whole thing that helps us stay in touch with the thinking of the everyday person-on-the-street, in terms of applying the Wakefield Doctrine.
(They are both behaving quite well and are deserving of our respect and admiration.)

(To the interview):

Which of the three are you?

[Glenn]     Scott
[Joanne]    I am predominantly, a Roger.

 What is the ‘best’ single positive trait or quality do you have as such?

[Glenn]      I’m wicked funny
[Joanne]    I am sensitive to other’s feelings.

The most negative single characteristic or quality?

[Glenn]     I can be reckless—verbally and behaviorally
[Joanne]     I pay too much attention to detail, although, sometimes that is a positive trait.

 Which trait or personality quality do you have that you feel is most mis-understood by people of the other two forms. (For example: clarks don’t get this about me; or rogers don’t get this about me.)

[Glenn]     Clarks don’t understand that I act mostly out of a desire to have fun—not out of a desire to hurt anyone. Rogers don’t understand anything. They eat the grass and wait to be killed. They LOVE to feel like victims, so they perceive everything a scott does as “cruel”—and then they have a feelings festival—hurt, angry, sad, –the equivalent of a roger orgasm. Fuck them.
[Joanne]    The attention to detail is always misunderstood by the Scott that I am around often.  Just try observing me and the Scott trying to put something together.  We were putting a shed together one time, and I was standing in the corner frantically reading the directions while the Scott was banging nails.  I kept telling her to stop..and finally convinced her to read the directions first. I seem to be less sure about discerning clarks from the other two.  I’m not sure which people I know are clarks, so I can’t comment on how they misunderstand me.
   

If someone were to ask, ‘what is the surest way to spot one of your kind in a crowded shopping mall?’ what would you tell them?

[Glenn]     Anyone talking to more than one person—and holding their attention.
[Joanne]    I’m not sure about that one.

You are at the funeral of a friend and are asked to say a very few words, complete the following

My friend was a clark and I felt

[Glenn]     that he mostly enjoyed my company—and was more loyal than your best dog ever.
[Joanne]    ummm…let me think about that for a while.

My friend was a scott and I felt

[Glenn]     an attachment to him based on competition—which evolved into respect as the years went by.
[Joanne]    I will miss my friend for her ability to just wing it in life

My friend was a roger and I felt

[Glenn]     guilty that I didn’t indulge his incessant need for emotional validation and support. I feel bad. He thinks I found him to be a pain in the ass. He’s right.
[Joanne]    I will miss my friend for … so many, many, reasons.  There were so many wonderful things about her..thoughtfulness, empathy, sensitivity….etc.

Finally, tell us what you think the practical value, if any, of the Wakefield Doctrine is.

[Glenn]     When rogers piss me off, I remember that they are rogers and cannot help it. They are doing the only thing they can do.
[Joanne]    It’s entertaining and I think if we know which type someone is, it may help us to understand their behavior and possibly not take some of their behavior personally.

(Now say good night to the Sloveniaannnns)

[Glenn]    How do you say “fuck you” in Slovenian?
[Joanne]    Good Night, Slov

Wellie, wellie, well. Was that not nice? There is much here that can be discussed and elaborated upon. But the primary goal was to help the Reader ‘hear’ the Doctrine actually applied to a situation that all of us might experience. I am sure there will be questions.

There is a space below (this Post) for your Comments. Do not, I repeat, do not be shy or bashful. We would love to hear your thoughts or questions. If you have any ideas for an extension of the (above) series of questions to our Downsprings, by all means ask.

1) Downspring is a term to designate a member of the group of people made aware of the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers by one of the Progenitors. In the context of this blog, there are three Progenitors and four Downsprings (Glenn, Joanne, Denise and Phyllis) all seven people have full access to the blog and creation of the contents.

Share

you tell me that it’s evolution, we all want to change the world

This promises to be a brief Post, as there is much activity ‘behind the scenes’ at the Doctrine.

Had a Comment from an actual Reader! (Yeah, I know I should not sound so surprised), but there it was the other morning a readable if not slightly scottian Comment submitted by a ‘AlmostKatherine Hepburn’. While I never get tired of writing in the self-referential perspective of the Doctrine, I did get a kick out of reading something that was not written by any of us here (Progenitors and Downsprings).

Anyway, will be looking forward to contributions from Ms Hepburn going forward.

Speaking of contributions from Downsprings,  had an interesting and challenging discussion with Phyllis the other morning regarding rogers. For some distantly related reason Phyllis said that ‘rogers are mean’. Out of the context in which this sentence was made, this statement, ‘rogers are mean’ demanded consideration. For if a statement is true about one form, what does it tell us about the other two forms? So from that Phyllis’ single statement we jumped to the following:

rogers are mean, scotts are cruel and clarks are heartless

So, lets consider these statements.
We start with the premise, i.e. when one (of us) chooses to be unkind to another, what is the characteristic of the behavior relative to our type. (Or may I could just say, why are clarks heartless and scotts cruel and rogers mean, instead of say, clarks are cruel and rogers are heartless etc)

‘Rogers are mean’ because when they want to negatively affect someone, they do it within the context of the herd. They will gossip and talk among each other about the target (of this negativity). They will never go up to the target(person) and say ‘you are a slut’. Instead they will say to each other, ‘isn’t she such a slut’? It will be the group opinion that will constitute the negative effect. In other words, if an outsider comes on the scene and and needs information reagrding this person, the herd will make a point of offering an opinion.
(Now class, why is that so rogerian?)
(God, I so love to lecture)

The answer is, of course, because the effort to affect a non-herd member is always done among and within the herd. No single member (of the herd) could or would approach the ‘target person’ directly and certainly would not say anything to their face.

All right, then how about scotts? Why cruel instead of heartless or mean?
Because it is the nature of predators, to act alone. Granted scotts will gather in packs when the occasion rises, but for the most part they hunt alone. And when a scott is being ‘negative’ it is expressed in a manner that can only be called cruelty. Part of this is the result of the fact that scotts will act directly but impersonally. They enjoy the efforts of the prey to resist, hey that squirming and trying to get away is the damn relish. But its nothing personal, the scott is hungry and the prey is food. So in the case of scotts, this cruelty is the ‘way of nature’ cruelty.

Clarks? Heartless? No! Say it ain’t so!! If any Reader needs it explained, then you need to read the content in these Pages a bit more.

Well, lets end it at that.

Big news, though. Working on a Post with two, count ’em two guests. The last Post with roger helping out (panic in Detroit…) got rave reviews and feedback. So, if it is worth doing, it is worth over-doing.

Look for it end of this weekend/beginning of week coming.

Until then…..goodnight  Sloveniaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!

Share

it’s the first ‘find the clark’ day, hooray, hooray!

Thursday and it’s ‘find the clark‘ day already. Where does the time go?

(Being the First ‘find the clark‘ day a little bit of guidance and ground rules….HEY! look out! hes going to try and teach shit again. ‘what a clark‘)

Hey! rather than tell you what you are looking for…(clarks, I need you to leave the room, stop reading this thing. We want you to act ‘naturally’ (ha, ha) today.)… First lets look at some quick film clips:

Woody

Flo

(Arent they both so precious?)

(You might get ‘lucky’ and have a clark in your environment who has not yet figured out how not to be a ‘blue monkey1)

The rules are simple: find the clark in your world today. Don’t do anything (…scott, I’m talking to you). Just learn spot a clark. Male or female does not matter.
The obvious point (obvious point? no! tell me it ain’t so!), is that the clarks comprise the least visible of the three types. They wear protective coloration the way that lesbians wear leather. But this blending in is very different from the homogenous look of a herd of rogers, or the loud and flashy colors of the lone scott.

Anyway, here are some quick tips for spotting the elusive clarks: the clarklike females love their shoes, the bigger, the clunkier, the better. Also something strange with their heads. (The video clip of Flo is perfect. She seems normal enough from a distance, but then you see the shoes, and when she starts talking, her eyes go all, ‘hello out there! how is planet earth today?’)
As to the male clarks? Damn, just walk up and talk to them. (Eye contact? We don’t need no steenkin eye contact). And also look for the ‘hunched shoulders’. Acquired as a result of years as a ‘young person’, anticipating the spitball from the back of the room. (yeah, scott, nobody spotted who the adhd kid was, did they?).

So, go get ’em.

1)’Blue Monkey’ was a famous experiment where some scottian psychologist (yeah, like that would happen) convinced some rogers that it would be fun to take one monkey from the group, paint him blue and send him home. You can guess the outcome. (Love the schadenfreude streak, scott. Wait till ‘tag a scott day!”)

Share