Uncategorized | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 6 Uncategorized | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 6

the Wakefield Doctrine ( CSR 101)

Yes, this is a CSR class. Without a fake classroom or imaginary students. No window dressing of any kind. I guess George Clooney is on his own.

Today, I need to address a particular anomaly in the Doctrine that has had me rather at a loss for some months now. And to quickly touch on one of my favorite personal aspects of life in general; synchronicity. Because I had no sooner decided that it was time to finally begin writing a post that addressed that anomaly, when the damned thing fairly fell from the sky. I find myself, once again, astounded at the sense of presence of …something extraordinary. I just wish I had the presence of mind to get it, whatever it is, but alas…

I”ll be referring to the last post’s mention of an affinity that exists between clarks and scotts. After presuming that I had somehow uncovered something heretofore unknown in the annals of Doctrinism…. the very thing itself is casually mentioned in today’s post. Astounding and amazing. Sometimes the universe will just grab you by the neck and shake you around like a sock puppet, as if to say… you’ve sat on it too long, it’s time, now get on with it. Well, then.

I suppose that this affinity is pretty common discourse to clarks and scotts ( I have been calling it a symbiosis), but let me assure all of you; to rogers, it is quite occult.We simply don’t see it. Not to say we wouldn’t understand it, if illustrated. We just don’t have a nature that would necessarily notice it. I strongly suppose that this symbiosis is very much a second nature to clarks and scotts.

So what’s the big deal, you ask? Well, an understanding of this would greatly enhance a roger’s perception and therefore his practical application of the Wakefield Doctrine to any situation. It might clear up many a misunderstanding, and it might just save your life in the extremes.

At this point, I’m sure the purer scotts have shut this off to go get a sandwich, and there might be a camouflaged clark monitoring this from a distance. So I suppose that my reader’s circle is down to just the rogers. That’s fine, because those other ones already know this; and if you’re a roger at heart, then you don’t. So here it is. And you’re not going to like it.

The affinity/ symbiosis is based on a shared disdain for rogers. It is the common groundwork for all of their perceptions of rogers, and serves as the springboard to all their interactions with us. They each have a particular personal mythology that tends to define them as a clark or a scott. Nothing new there at all; you have your own too, and it leans you towards being more a roger than not. The critical difference occurs precisely here; theirs tells them that they are vastly superior to rogers. And that colors all of their interactions with us; they have it completely in common. We tend to be the shared object of derision, the obvious target.

By way of comparison, a roger would tend to a very eclectic view of this personal mythology business. We would go with an inherently pacifistic universal model in which clarks, scotts and rogers all live in a balance of power with a shared sense of respect. Diversity, man…

Well, #%*# that. It’ not real. While we’re busy singing ” We Are The World” and trying to figure out how to feed the planet, they’ve already got it solved. If they kill you,then they eat well for a few days, and screw the planet. Actually, to be specific; the clarks also have to eat, but don’t have the stomach for the kill. So they find a way to get the scotts to do it for them. Symbiosis.

That particular point brings me back to the original video clip ever used in this blog. That is a great example. ( Joe Pesci/ scott viciously attacks roger guy in bar, clark guy watches passively….remember?) Were there another roger there, he would have intervened to try to save the guy. But wait… there was someone else… who simply watched and waited. He’d gone to all the trouble to set that up, he certainly wasn’t going to prevent it by then. So you have a stereotypic scott killing a stereotypic roger, while a stereotypic clark stands by in complete silent assent. And there it is…the affinity.

This is the clip that the Progenitor scott actually objected so strenuously to ( and might very well have kept him from participating much).  This occurred simply because he had already long since transformed into something other than a pure scott. I suppose I might have objected too; after all, you still have a dead roger in the end.

So, my little band of rogers….what does all this boil down to?

I just want you all to be aware of this, because they might be in your lives as spouses, co-workers, family; any number of things. But one thing they are decidedly not, in their own eyes; equals. They hold themselves to be far superior, and greatly entitled; their mythology tells them so. No amount of reasoning can alter that. So be very careful, and very diligent. They are predators, and they will persist. And should it ever come to dire straits, then do not sell your lives cheaply; fight them with all you have. They would expect us to be hesitant and intimidated; but often, a pack will break and run when confronted with singular courage. And if you’re not alone…then just open up the herd a bit, and let him in. He won’t believe his good luck, and then just… do what comes naturally.

In my next offering, I hope to explore this question, as a logical extension of the symbiosis; are scotts and clarks actually different creatures, or are they both just variations of a single entity? ( which means that our world premise is not based on three personality types, but really just two. The problem is- which two?) Food for thought.

Share

the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers

Alright, we have now officially had contributions from the clark, the roger and the scott (Progenitors).

(I will leave you to decide which author wrote which Post.)

The purpose of  this blog is to tell the world about the Wakefield Doctrine, (aka the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers). This is about a way of looking at people and how they (seem) to see the world and most especially about how they behave in any situation.

If you know the type of personality you are dealing with you can understand, even predict their behavior.  Lets say you are standing in a long line at the supermarket, the other people in line will act according to whether they are (a) clark, scott or roger.

OK!  I know you’re saying at this point, “Get to it. Tell us how to tell one from the other! Tell us how we know whether we are a clark, a scott or (god forbid) a roger“.

“Hurry up, Mr. Clarkscottroger, tell us!!

No.

See the ‘Page Tabs’ at the top of this thing? Go and read it. Pick one, pick any one.

Does not matter. If you want to learn about the Wakefield Doctrine or clarks or scotts or rogers; if you want to learn how to recognize one or the other or public figures (which are they).

Its all here (and with the board of education), so read and learn and comment.

Better yet, ask a reasonably intelligent question and then go ahead and subscribe to this blog.

If you do all that, and can convince us you have learned the Wakefield Doctrine, you can buy a hat.

Share

a prehistory

     Once upon a time, in a land not very far from Clark’s house… there were three atypical college friends who engaged in many of the atypical activities of their day. They went to school; they played guitars at ear-splitting volumes in dorm rooms, and sneered derisively at those who objected; one drank too, too much; one not at all, but subsisted on Oreos and Coke. One became a Baptist with a capital ” B”. They played in rock bands, worked all sorts of jobs, one got married way too soon. They all wrestled with the Issues Of Their Day, with varying degrees of resolve and/or success.  And in spite of all the atypical ups and downs, they managed to form a very unique bond. And , to their surprise, the bond has lasted much longer than any one of them might have thought. Longer than some marriages, jobs, bands, or Baptist dogma. And after many hours of conversation about just about everything turned into years and decades of same, there came to be what was, and is now, referred to as … the Wakefield Doctrine.

     Psychology and psychiatry texts  make constant reference to type A/B/C personalities and their interactions. We are somewhat along those same lines. For us, those references have evolved into our Wakefield Doctrine, which we have found to be much more palatable. To err may be human, but to create a categorization system that explains all of human behavior in a somewhat cryptic nutshell is absolutely divine. And, we have noticed along the way, a heck of a lot of fun. In an “improvisational academia” sort of way, we gleefully invent terms as we go along to describe conditions and situations that may not have existed previously. And yet, our system also works perfectly well when taken perfectly and totally seriously. 

     The basic premise is that there are three fundamental personality types; and much can be known and discovered about oneself ( and any other aspect of life ) by learning to identify your own basic type; how to identify the types of others; and then consider all the ramifications of the interactions. In short…this explains everything, but only from a point of view that holds human dynamics as the prime component.

Share

who are these people?

 With a basic understanding of the characteristics of each group (clarks, scotts and rogers), anyone can understand everyone else!  You will know how those around you will  act in virtually any situation. Finally you can understand what has never made sense to you about the people you work with, live with and/or are friends with. The answer to the question, ‘Why on earth would you do that/say that/feel that way?’

The three  ways of perceiving the world are referred to as: clarks, scotts and rogers. We all begin life with the potential of all three types. At some point we become predominantly one.

The Wakefield Doctrine is based on the premise that  behavior is a response to  perception (of the world). That we choose how to perceive the world means that we acquire a characteristic way of seeing the world and that leads to characteristic behavior.

We become clarks, scotts or rogers.

 

If you are a first time visitor, above is an outline of the ‘purpose’ of this site. (Despite the title, please avoid the ‘FAQ’ page and the ‘So, Which Am I?’ page, until you get a sense of what this Wakefield Doctrine nonsense is all about.)

(quick intro…)

A clark is the person you have to make an effort to notice. In high school the clark is not clearly of one group or another. Not popular, not a jock, not a geek, not a hippie not one of those who seem to always be standing next to their cars in the student parking lot. In a workplace environment same thing happens, the clark is seen in any setting but is not a part of any of the normally identifiable groups. The thing about clarks is that they will be seen at one time or another in all of these groups! Not as a member, but apparently a part of whatever the particular situation is; clarks will be found in association with the ‘leader/alpha’ of whatever clique or social group. But only in a ‘situational’ sense, definitely not a member of that group.

A scott is the person you can’t not notice. In high school the scott is the class clown or leading hoodlum or the captain of the sports team or the head cheerleader. The scott is popular, the entertainer, the joke teller. In a workplace environment they are also the leaders, but limited by the extent of organizational complexity, white collar or blue collar the scott will lead as a pack leader. Scotts are not good managers, they require a great deal of freedom and latitude. A scott might be a ceo or an owner, but only if it is ‘all his’. Truly an example of a ‘cult of personality’.

A roger is/are the masses. The people who make up the circle around a high school fight, the people who know what you did last weekend and tell the other people at the office. In a workplace environment rogers are the middle managers or that person in charge of supplies that has always been there and insists that they follow the rules (always refers to it as ‘I call this the bible’ lowercase).  Rogers are the members of the cheer leader’s squad, the football team. Rogers are the crowd, the mob, the congregation, anywhere there are people with a common interest, most of the members will be rogers. They form the social fabric in every society.

So, hopefully your curiosity is piqued. Look around the site, look around where ever you are and you will them.

 

P.S. Given that this is a new site, there is a better than even chance that you are a clark. (and, yes, I know you have a system like this with different words etc).

Share

clarks and scotts and rogers, oh my!

With a basic understanding of the characteristics of each group (clarks, scotts and rogers), anyone can understand everyone else!  You will know how those around you will  act in virtually any situation. Finally you can understand what has never made sense to you about the people you work with, live with and/or are friends with. The answer to the question, ‘Why on earth would you do that/say that/feel that way?’

The three  ways of perceiving the world are referred to as: clarks, scotts and rogers. We all begin life with the potential of all three types. At some point we become predominantly one.

The Wakefield Doctrine is based on the premise that  behavior is a response to  perception (of the world). That we choose how to perceive the world means that we acquire characteristic way of seeing the world that leads to characteristic behavior.

The Wakefield Doctrine describes personality on the basis of perception rather than a persons behavior that results.

We become clarks, scotts or rogers.

So take a look around this blog. Think of it like a puzzle*.

The content of the blog is beginning to accrue and accumulate. The most recent addition is a film clip that shows a roger and a scott in conflict. (All examples are exaggerated for illustration purposes, your experience of being a clark, scott or roger may vary.) 

There is also a new FAQ page. Still in early stages, but don’t hestitate to leave a comment/reply.

One of the most frequent comment/questions we get is: ‘I can see all the characteristics of all three types in myself (or another person), how do I decide which group I belong to?’   The easy, but less satisfying answer is, ‘everyone has the qualities of the three types, just one (type) tends to dominate’. (Ed. note: at the start it is easier to determine who are clarks, scott or rogers among those around you, rather than yourself.)

So for the impatient readers (yes, I mean you, scott); following is a quick, ‘down and dirty’ guide to identifying the clarks, scotts and rogers around you:

  • rogers use the pronoun “I” more than the other three
  • scotts use nicknames (particularly diminutives ‘clarkie’, ‘phillie’)
  • clarks maintain the least eye contact when talking to you
  • scotts are the ones who can tell a joke properly and will insist you listen and (usually picks a joke slightly over the edge of appropriate)
  • rogers will always have the news on what so-and-so said to such-and-such
  • clarks have a posture that is hunched at the shoulder and when seated will appear too relaxed, to the point of slumping in the chair
  • rogers are very usually the ‘middle management’ types who will convince the upper management that cubicles are the best way to arrange an office space
  • clarks…conversations…sentence fragments…

 

 

 

 

 

*(The answer is: clark (or) scott (or) roger.)

 

Share