clarkscottroger | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 6 clarkscottroger | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 6

unh!…good god! what is it good for?

November 2, 2009 By

(Thank you Edwin, great question!)

[The following Post is another in the continuing effort to present the Wakefield Doctrine (aka the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) in a manner that is accessible, enjoyable and will cause a First Time Reader to go into the Pages of this blog to get more information. The hope and the goal is to write ‘in 25 words or less’ a description of the use and the benefits (of the Doctrine.)]

Thinking, reflecting, considering, having an internal dialogue, call it what you will but the inside of our heads is an always interesting, often busy place. We are, to one degree or another, self-aware. It is this internal environment that we are concerned with today in this Post. To start, a question:
What is the good, the use, the benefit of what goes on inside our heads? 
Most of everything that goes on inside our heads, is our efforts at trying to make sense of the world that we find ourselves in each day. We try, and in doing so, hopefully are able to live out the day as comfortably/profitably/virtuously as possible. 

Set aside the ‘yeah, but you don’t understand how or why my life is the way it is’, for now.
You’re right, no one understands your life.  (Damn! you exist as a pre-supposed Reader! Tell me about understanding another!  To mis-quote Firesign Theatre, ‘how can I know what you feel, thats metaphysically absurd, man!’)
It is not necessary to understand the particulars of a person’s life in order to talk about how we live and act in life.

For the purposes of this Post, lt is agreed that no one can know what is going on in another person’s mind, at least in terms of the personal-reality-specific details.  What we can agree on is that whatever the process, it is probably very similar among all people, young/old, female/male, this culture/that culture, (not counting some fundamentalists and most people who think that  ‘America’s Got Talent’ is great entertainment).  But most people share a similar interior/mental environment.

The thing is we all seem to feel a need for, be attracted to, or require ourselves to create a Doctrine.  A doctrine or a religion or a belief system, the Golden Rule, logical empiricism, call it what you like, all self-aware humans seem to share this need. And what people seem to need is a map.  A map to use to try and make sense of the world.   Everyone, everywhere, has a map in their heads.
These maps are made up of assumptions and values that serve as a guide to ‘getting through the day’.  Examples of assumptions that make up the map: ‘you can’t get something for nothing’, ‘nice guys finish last’, ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’, ‘damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead’, etc, etc. You get the idea.

All people acquire and use a ‘map’ (doctrine) in order to make sense of what they experience in the course of living each day. Which is to say inter-acting with other people.  And ‘interacting’ means behavior. Lets say that the common elements in how we choose to interact with other people is a product of following our individual maps. And over time, these common elements become routine and stylized. This will be referred to as behavior.  But first a question that must be resolved before we can continue, the question of…why?

The ‘why’, does not matter in this Post.  It does not matter ‘why’ we all have maps or doctrines or any other term.  Further the ‘how’ of all this doesn’t matter much either.
We can spend the rest of the day or an entire lifetime describing how this doctrine thing manifests itself.  Again, not mattering so much.

The ‘what’ is where it is at. The ‘what’ is the list of elements, landmarks, on your  map.

This is topic of this here Post here.  We are going to look at the Wakefield Doctrine in the context of it being a map, no different from religion or philosophy, morality or practicality.  The question that we need to answer is, does it (the Doctrine) offer us something as a map, that the the other maps do not?  How well does the Wakefield Doctrine serve this purpose and how easy is it to use?

The Wakefield Doctrine (aka the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) is a simple, fun and useful way to look at the world.  Just like any of the other ‘doctrines’ mentioned above, the Wakefield Doctrine serves as a guide/interpreter of the world we experience,  but without out the excess baggage of  mainstream doctrines such as religion, morality, good citizenship.

What advantage does the Doctrine offer?
Well, for starters it is fun.  Now fun is pointless without value, (stop right there! which of the three thinks that)?
OK, lets set that aside for now.  The Wakefield Doctrine will provide  a map that allows you to see the world as other people sees it.  Even a people you do not know. 
The theory of clarks, scotts and rogers is predicated on the notion that we all have a predilection as to how we view the world at large and these predilections tend to gather themselves into three distinct groups: what we call the clarks, scotts and rogers. 

The rest of this blog addresses the characteristics of each of these three ways of seeing the world. Three distinct maps.

Read. Learn. Comment. Buy a hat.

Pretty simple, isn’t it?

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

Britney Spears, Obama, foreclosures, viagra, teenage vampires, take that, search engine motherf*ckers

October 29, 2009 By

(…Ahem)

Alright, lots to of ground to cover, early morning and not a lot of time to write. Real good news though, I just learned to single space! As in: ‘damn I should be putting this sentence on its…
own Line!!  May not seem like a big deal, but you try writing when all you can do is paragraphs.

The current ‘tempest in a teapot’ or ‘Excitabat enim fluctus in simpulo’1 (for you clarks out there) here at the Doctrine is all about Presentation or how do we come up with an approach that will reliably hook-in you, the New Visitor/Reader? Not an unimportant question. In fact, the (correct) answer to this question is the difference between all this effort being either ‘oh yeah, those guys had this blog thing for a while last year’ and ‘she was one of those Wakefield Doctrine writers, man what a roger‘!

The ‘visitor count’ is running only about 15 a day on average, but until we complete Remedial Writing 101, I suspect we should be grateful that it is low. I would hate like hell to waste a perfectly good ‘reader visit’ because this damn thing is written like we were on drugs or were scottian. The Wakefield Doctrine (aka theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) is, in all seriousness an original and interesting ‘thing. 
Not on par with ‘Das Kapital’ or ‘The Golden Bough’ or even Sheldon’s ‘Constitutional Psychology’, the Wakefield Doctrine is a way to change how you look at the behavior of the people around you. The Wakefield Doctrine supplies a perspective on the reasons that people act the way that they do and more to the point, the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers offers an explanation for the behavior of the people we (all) have to deal with at home, at work, at school.
Most importantly, the Wakefield Doctrine provides insight into the minds of those around us. We have all heard the expression ‘you should walk a mile in his moccasins before you judge him (or words to that effect). The idea is that if we can see the world as another person sees it, then their behavior and actions and attitudes becomes understandable. (and predictable2)

Since this is the Doctrine and the Doctrine sez there are only 3 personality types I will address each of the three, the clarks, the scotts and the rogers. (In no particular order, you will know which statement is for you.)

The following statements are true:

This is the Wakefield Doctrine. It has something of value that no other blog can offer. The Wakefield Doctrine is fun, it is educational and it is a way to get the upper hand on your enemies.
This is the Wakefield Doctrine. It is not for everyone. It may sound familiar, in parts, to what you already know but it is now a product of more than one viewpoint so it has an advantage that your  system does not have, and that is acceptance by others.
This is the Wakefield Doctrine. Read it. Laugh. Pretend you made it up yourself.

The pages that follow should ‘fill in the blanks’. Have fun, leave Comments/Replies, buy a hat.

(The sub-title? Oh yeah. mid-life crises guys here (and) here, younger folks here, political junkies here, and crises groupies here.)

1)”He was stirring up billows in a ladle” (Wikipedia, of course)

2) What the hell good is any knowledge if it does not let you predict the future?

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

and after this brief word from the roger, we will continue our discussion, Where the hell is this thing going

October 24, 2009 By

(As previously noted, the Progenitor roger is more comfortable using Comments as (his) preferred form of communicating. While respecting that, I claim the right to edit, to the extent of copy/pasting (his) Comments into this Post.) (Other than ‘cut and paste’ and formatting as a block quote, there has been no change, alteration or modification to the Comment. It is, as the rogerian expression would have it, ‘complete and unabashed’).

 

From the Roger:
On my way home from work, I generally listen to a radio program called ” Fresh Air” on NPR. Interviews and articles on a wide array of stuff, hosted by Teri Gross. Today, she was interviewing Tracy Morgan, who was an SNL guy and is now on “30 Rock”. She has great skills as an interviewer, and always seems to get something good out of that scenario.
Sadly, even she was at a bit of a loss with Tracy Morgan. I can now honestly say that I have never heard a more hopelessly Rogerian Roger than this guy. OMG. Completely mesmerized with himself, absolutely awash in self-indulgence. Lots of dead air in this interview, because Tracy had to keep fighting back tears as he ranted about the only truly important thing on this Earth.
This sort of thing can send a Progenitor screaming in search of the nearest cliff. It is acutely painful to have to witness. I felt simultaneously angered and embarrassed. Angry, because these people are out there, and likely doing massive damage to anyone who has to interact with them. Embarrassed, because I see elements of myself clearly. This bad of a Roger should be simply cut from the herd and made to learn to survive on his own, or not. Whatever.
I’d like to offer a point of clarification, also, to people who may be new to this blog and it’s main idea. Yes, Clark-Scott-Roger are all somewhat static personality types that may seem almost stereotypical. But- and this really is the Point, if you would indulge me- as Progenitors, we all three have grown astronomically above and away from those one-dimensional caricatures. The ” original” Clark could never have dreamed of piloting a blog. I could never have gotten out of my own way enough to ever consider contributing to it. And even though the “original” Scott hasn’t said much in this forum, that in itself is quite telling. We have all…evolved. I myself could only quote a few significant particulars that may have caused such a dramatic and yet gradual change. Maybe just basic human nature; if it doesn’t kill you, it will make you stronger. I am still fundamentally a Roger, but now have the bittersweet capacity to see the horrific learning curve that a fledgling Roger has to get through to survive. The poor bastards. If they could see all of that at one glance, that in itself would crush them.( Either that, or they’d get a gig on a network sitcom…)This would hold true for all three types, of course. But we all seem to have found our particular ways to change and still remain the same.
So, now we have Progenitors ( Clark, Scott, and I) and Downsprings ( second-generation cadre). Some of the Downsprings are actually better examples of us than we are. I sense that we might need one more descriptive term just to fit the newbies, though. Anyone have an idea? Or does “downspring” serve that purpose as well?
And just a last bit of field advice for those Rogers who are just awakening to these odd and awkward Clarkscottrogerian gems of truth; aim low, conserve your ammunition, and for God’s sake, stay off the radio.

When this blog first came into existence, most of the discussion centered on, ‘no way! You actually did it! Hey, let me try!’ You know, that kind of far-reaching, insightful thought. This should come as zero surprise to anyone reading this, because if you are reading this you are one of the 100 plus million blog writers that are out there. (And the beauty part, the fatal attraction of this world of blogs is the tendency to think, ‘jeez, I know I am not (fill in your favorite writer), but if I get only one tenth of one percent of those other guys to read my Posts, I’ll be famous!’)

The fact is, the internet is clogged with good ideas. The blogsphere has a tendency to look like a bus station from the sixties; busy, lots of interesting people, ‘hey is that guy throwing up over there?’ But hey so what?  Afterall, the Beatles spent years playing in basement night clubs in Germany and went through 18 drummers before they were an overnight success.

Rogers’ contribution today brings home the idea that no matter how good, how original an idea might be, without a clear presentation, it is worthless. Roger speaks of the fact that we,  (the clark, the scott and the roger), have all evolved. Have changed. Does that mean the title of this blog should be  ‘the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers and the people that they have turned into and the other people that seem to act like them at times and not like them at other times’)?

This is a serious question.

The thing of it is, the Doctrine, while it has become a public exposition of the personal experiences of three friends, seems to have legs in the real world. Allowing for the possibility of self-delusion/illusion/allusion, (NO! say it ain’t so!), We will persist in this effort to carry the message of the Wakefield Doctrine to the world at large, one Post at a time.

To the discussion at hand. Should the Doctrine include a new term or description to account for the change and development that we all go through in life?

No.

(Now that was simple enough!)

(What do you mean, more explanation than that?) Alright. As to why it is not necessary to add categories or further elements to the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers. Two reasons:

a) the foundation of the Doctrine. clarks, scotts and rogers represent ways of interacting with the world, and we are all born with the complete range of qualities. There is no purely scottian people or rogerian or clarklike. We have the potential (at a very young age at least) to become any of the three. It just seems  that people develop into one or the other or other;

b)by definition, the Wakefield Doctrine contains the elements of what (roger) is asking, i.e. what happens, what do we become if we, (as clarks, or scotts or rogers) develop? That answer is contained in the Wakefield Doctrine.

You know, in a stomach turning way, Roger’s question is a sign, a signal that we are reaching a point in this thing of ours where we must change. Grow. Do something useful. But, you say, shouldn’t we wait until we have readers, followers,viewers, hits, page visits, inclusion on many other blog writers blog rolls?

Again, no.

If the metaphor of being a garage band blog holds, then it is time to get a bit more organised. (You all remember that there came a time for the endless jams, pointless solos to end. Time to get a set list.  Stop the silly antics between songs.) So lets start to discuss practical application of the Doctrine.

uh, how about next Post? (meanwhile let me play this blues riff, its really something…)

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

from the top

September 29, 2009 By

The Wakefield Doctrine is fun way of looking at personality types. We say there are three personality types: clarks, scotts and rogers.  If you know that your spouse is a roger, for instance, then you will understand why they act the way that they do.  If they are scottian personality types then they will behave thusly or will like to do this or do that.

Everyone  loves a good ‘personality type’ system.  Be it astrology, body types, or birth order we all have a desire to understand why the people in our lives act the way that they do.  Personality (type)  systems be it EPPS or ENTMP,  axis of civility(AOC) or the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers, are entertaining because they are mirrors.  They offer us a different way to look at the familiar.

There is an old story/fable/lesson that tells about how a traveller to a new country asks the first person he encounters what are the people in the Village like ?  He is told ‘everyone is very suspicious and hostile’.  Then, a day later, a second traveller does the same thing and this time he is told, ‘everyone who lives in the Village is warm and friendly’.  A year later these two explorers meet and talk about their adventures.  One says to the other, there was one place where everyone was really mean and distrustful’ and the other explorer, recognising the landmarks says, ‘I went to the same Village but everyone was friendly…’!

We have all heard a version of this story at some point in our lives and the lesson is, of course, that  “expectation will determine our experiences with people”.

The Wakefield Doctrine takes this morality tale a step further.  We say that each of us begins life with a predisposition or bias to what can be expected from life and that becomes the life we live.  If you believe that the world is inimical, hostile,  a place of predator and prey, then the world is like that.  The Wakefield Doctrine approaches personality types from the position that if you know the bias a person has towards the world at large, then you will know how they will act and react, without ever meeting that individual.

Here we talk about a person being a clark or a scott or a roger.  Three ways to view the nature of the world.  This is not about gender nor it is about age or culture or even race.  It is simply ‘did you start your life believing the world was like…? ‘

Then you are a roger or a clark or a scott.

Everything else you would want to know follows from that.

This blog is new, not so well organised, but the information you will find here comes from people who know about the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) and if you read through all the pages you will come to understand and you will see the world (and the people in it) in a slightly different, but very interesting way.

Ed Note: The best place to start reading this blog all depends on which of the three personality types you are. But, you ask, how can I know which I am before I read this? Congratulations, you are a roger. If you read this previous sentence and said, ‘no kidding’ to yourself, you are a clark and everyone else is a scott. So, clarks and scotts head on over to the ‘By these names…’ Page and you rogers had best start with the ‘You might be a …’  Page, if you find the Ken Burns bit funny, your type is confirmed.

Good Luck!

Do me a favor and write some Comments. I have been told that my writing style is a bit stiff and formal, and it is taking every ounce of willpower not to use a parenthesis, but if you Comment and say, ‘Hey! Let go and use them parentheses(es)(s).‘ I really will appreciate it. And as a reward, I recommend that you go to the Post titled ‘the Wakefield Doctrine (a Prehistory)’1 it is fun and uninformative to read.

 

(1) Doesn’t count as using a parenthesis, it is the Title of the Post, dammit

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

socratic dialogue? I got ya socratic dialogue, right here

September 18, 2009 By

…for those of you just tuning-in1here is the backstory: new to the blogosphere and hampered by limited writing skills and website design ability, the authors of the Wakefield Doctrine are struggling to shape a message that will entice visitors and readers into delving further into the content and becoming fans of the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers (aka the Wakefield Doctrine). Lets see what those scamps have come up with now…

(…So maybe the best approach to presenting the Wakefield Doctrine is to write what would be said in person.)

The Wakefield Doctrine says that all people can be divided into three types or groups. These groups are named clarks, scotts and rogers.

Is there a reason for these particular names?

Only in the sense that the Wakefield Doctrine originated from observations of three real people. But the names are not important.

The three types have clearly different ways of seeing the world and clearly different ways of reacting to situations and the characteristics of each stays consistent, from individual to individual within that type.

Could you repeat that using the English language?

Sure. Each of the 3 types act a certain way. Watch how they act or look at them or whatever and then match what you see to one of the 3 and you will know all about that person. Spot a clark by their posture or lack of eye contact and you will know a whole lot more about them, (same for scotts and rogers).

OK. This is like one of those TYPE A or you are an introvert/extrovert personality things?

Kind of.

Alright, what am I? And what can you tell me about me that you should not be able to guess?

Depends. If you are a roger, then we know that you like geneology, you think that those re-enacters (Civil War) are not overly weird. You like to believe that you behave in a way that would make your family proud. If you are a scott, you crave activity, action, competition. You love a party and are good at telling jokes and making people laugh. A clark will read this and already know where this is all going.

These are mere parlor tricks2  the Wakefield Doctrine is about  understanding those around us. Why they act the way that they do.

What? Why would I need to understand those around me. I know how I act so why would I care?

Because, you have read this far; if you did not care or were not curious, this blog would be 2 clicks behind celebritymoviearchives.com (or some other equally incisive site).

Alright, make your point. Tell me what I need to know to understand (other people).

No.

(My feelings are hurt. I know you are just humoring me. I can see you snicker and wink at your friends, when you think I am not watching…)

If you want to learn about this thing, then you, the overactive one, drumming your fingers because the computer is limited by the speed of light3 go to THIS PAGE  and read everything there, after you finish go to THIS PAGE.

You, the one with the ‘I can’t wait to tell my friends about this silly site’ smile on your face. You go to THIS PAGE and then go to THIS PAGE.

Finally, both of you go to THIS PAGE.

 

…Let me know how you make out.

 

 

 

 

(1) tuning-in an old persons reference to the days of radio when there was only analog and a rotary dial used to move from one station to the other.

(2) parlor  from the days when some homes (the larger ones) had a room used just for entertaining guests, pre-cursor to our modern living room (which, in turn, is being replaced by the ‘family room’).

(3) speed of light equals 186,000 mps (at least thats what everyone but the rogers think it is.)

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