clarkscottroger | the Wakefield Doctrine

And Summer’s lease hath all too short a date

July 27, 2010 By clarkscottroger

yeah, date this.

Quiet at Doctrine central…let’s take advantage of this to review and contrast some of the basics of the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers. (…don’t worry, we’ll have you out of here in no time…after all it is summer!) (…oh yeah, except for the Reader from South Queensland, New South East Wales, Tambourine, Australia …’ello! cold enuff for ya?)

the Wakefield Doctrine proposes that all people experience life from one of three characteristic perspectives, and for reasons stated elsewhere, the terms for these perspectives are: clarks, scotts and rogers. Without getting overly technical (lol), the Doctrine maintains that we are all born with a range of innate qualities that form the ‘lens’ through which we see the world around us. At an early age these qualities (or ‘predelictions’) gather into one of three distinct clusters, which result in the characteristic way a person perceives the world around them. We say that it is not the list of behaviors or any in born traits that account for a person’s “personality”, rather we say that the “perceptual bias” that the individual has that is used to interpret the world that is their personality.
Pretty simple, isn’t it?

Ohkay…let’s just put down our pens and pencils and take a deep breathe…

Much better!

(God, I love that scene…) Hey! I can’t find a single complimentary sounding definition of pedantry: (…hold on let’s look at synonyms…), laboriousness, (…ok not bad…), sophistry(…no Jimmie not the class before Junior…), meticulousness, thoroughness, (…now we’re getting somewhere!…) unimaginativeness, (…wait a minute, I know there is a good word…nah can’t think of one, shit…)

It’s looking more and more like a multiple video Post…so what can we learn from Messrs. Moe, Larry and Curley…

How much of a cultural gap is that?! Damn…we might as well be watching Punch and frickin Judy! Of course the Stooges were in fact based in the 1940’s for the most part, so even for those of us who grew up in the ’50s and ’60s there are still a ton of references that are totally disconnected. But the real question in your mind is:

“Who was the clark, who was the scott and who was the roger of these Stooges”? (of course, we know here at the Doctrine and really do not want to deprive anyone of the learning experience, so gather your friends around, figure who was which and the answer will be at the total bottom of the page)…(no fair looking!)

A little music…

What are you still doing here? Lesson of the Day? No, no Lesson of the Day today. Just go out into the world knowing that everyone you see is either a clark, scott or roger.
Know that when you have identified them, you can successfully anticipate how they will respond to any situation and, depending on your level of understanding of this here Doctrine here and if you know the individual in question well enough, you will know what they will frickin say in most situations.

So get out there, try it out. Hey, better tell someone else about this Wakefield Doctrine thing…getting tired of waiting to be the next internet sensation….

Of course: Moe is a roger, Larry is a clark and Curley is the scott. But you knew that, didn’t you? (If not, better hold off on going up to people and telling them which of the three types they are.)

Filed Under: Featured, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: clarkscottroger, personality types, the Wakefield Doctrine

Oh you’re so condescending, Your gall is never ending

July 25, 2010 By clarkscottroger

Sunday Morning? Yeah. The subtitle reference? Why Twisted Sister, of course! (And the Author of this Post is: (please choose one) a) a clark b) a clark c) a clark or d) a clark.)

And the Correct Answer is: the answer you picked is not important (Correct Answer: C) (Don’t worry, a lot of people get this wrong, mostly choosing A). What is important about our little Sunday Morning test is, “Why did you choose the Answer that you did”? And we all know the answer to that, don’t we?

Having established that Sundays are the ‘slowest’ day of the week here at the Doctrine, we can get into some of the more esoteric aspects of this thing of ours. After all, most of the scottian Readers are off doin’ stuff, even the rogerian followers are busy doing other things. Wait a minute…. there’s our topic!

Rogers and the Herd.

the Progenitor roger is currently doing the ‘solo album’ thing. (You know how after a band forms, they have huge success and sell a ton of records and invariably one of the band members discovers that they need to find a place where they can have more artistic expression/freedom. Sometimes it is a contentious evolution, i.e. David Byrne and sometimes it is not a bad thing. This is usually the case when more than one (of the) band members does this thing; Think the Beatles at the end of the ’60s.
Anyway, in our case the roger is off doing the Secessionist Rag. The raison d’etre for his blog is to create a “collaborative novel”, online, within the blog itself.
(My understanding is that anyone and everyone can visit the blog and contribute to the ‘novel’. There is a requirement that all entries be in multiple of 50 words but otherwise no limits, no constraints, no guidelines, no directives or direction). Just write. An interesting idea and, by early indications, it seems to have some legs.
But…(you knew that was coming, didn’t you?), it is this un-structuredness, non-directedness that seems to account for the most difficulty, in terms of encouraging participation by Visitors and Readers. Now, the reason “the Rag” is interesting to us here at the Wakefield Doctrine is not what people do to contribute to roger’s little project, rather it is what roger thinks he will/can/should get, in terms of a response from Readers who go there. How many people will contribute, and why. Also will the contributions that are offered result in a coherent “novel”. The jury is still out, way, way too early to conclude anything. But it is an intriguing notion and bound to be instructive to us here at the Doctrine. Sort of a laboratory of the rogerian “mind”.

What we here at the Wakefield Doctrine are in a position to learn from this (by “we”, of course, mean the clarklike Readers, although I would not overlook some of the more adept and mentally agile scotts (like AKH) or the more open-minded rogers such as Joanne), is simple, “what the hell kind of reality do you people live in?”
But let’s get all basic and review the Doctrine as it describes rogers…

… and rogers feel…
rogers(adv rogerian; pronunciation: ‘roe -jeer -riann’)

The ‘premise of identity’ for a roger is that of group member, similar to those in his group(herd), definitely different from nearly all other not members of the herd she might see, in the world at large. There is a (self-awareness) of being emotionally capable, perhaps even superior.

The ‘perceptual bias’ exhibited is that the world is an ordered place, filled with similar people all who appear to enjoy the company of others like themselves. To a roger the world is, basically good provided the rules and guides and laws are expressed and conformed to all… hostile. From the perspective of a roger, especially when in the context of the herd, the roger is never, ever the outsider…

Herds symbolize the point of view that places the value of the group over the value of the individual. Herds do not have an internal hierarchy and do not evidence a purpose (to benefit individual members), other than survival. Herds do not organize to attack an enemy or to catch/kill/trap food.

If anything, a herd’s only characteristic as a grouping… The members of the herd are happy simply being in a herd.

Rogers live to be with who they perceive to be, those like themselves. They accept the existence of others (non-herd members) but only in the most transitory sense. Individual herd members will be picked off (by scotts) but so long as the herd survives (and they are not the ones being picked off), the roger is content.

…The primary benefit of the herd for a roger is to know that there are other rogers

So in conversation with roger it becomes apparent that he believes a “collaborative novel” is a possibility, provided there are enough rogers coming to the blog and responding to the invitation to join his herd. This is as it should be for rogers. The intriguing question is a two part question:
a) will clarks and scotts be able to intuit the rogerian directive/subscript that is implied in his blogsite experiment
b) why would a roger feel the need to join another herd?

Interesting questions, no? lol, please do not answer that question in print…I know the answer…but don’t take my word for it, go to this place, Secessionist Rag (beats the hell out of me, ask the roger what it means…).

Lots to ponder, reflect upon, improve your understanding of the Doctrine…but I must say this…I can’t wait to finish this Post and get outside, and I wrote the frickin thing…music…lets have something to get us out of the damn house/office/plant or wherever we might be…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQtAWKQ_M7w

(Coming next week, the Good…the Bad…Decide Right Now!! back to school shopping ads)

Hey, Does James Brown totally spin in his grave everytime this commercial is played or what? damn, corporate dudes, suck much?

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

the third frickin time…this pitcha better be worth it

July 6, 2010 By clarkscottroger

Back to work/school/summer vacation. Tough time settling on a second video, seem to be stuck in a clarklike rut. (kind of an oxymoron, eh wot?) To give you a sense of how slow the process has been this morning, it has taken 45 minutes to get this far. The music vids are usually the most fun, if not time consuming, but I got totally bogged down with a lot of clarklike stuff. (Actually it was in search of subtitle material that got me on the clark trail, started with Lyle then for some reason the subject of ‘time’, which lead, of course, to Cyndi (she is such a clark!) (in fact despite the fact that I gave up on her as a music video, back she comes.) Screw this, “oh I am so confused, this is so difficult, bullshit”…

Hey, Cyndi! which way to the ’80s, yo.

Cyndi is a clark. Even without the song lyrics, you would know her the minute you saw the damn clothes.

Back to the planned Post.

Hey Readers! (yes, you).
I happen to know that at least 50% of the Readers looking at this today have been with us for at least six months. And , no this is not going to be one of those please write a Comment, we want to know you are out, Posts. We do know you are out. (and I lied…about the Comments.) I do want you to leave a Comment. I would like to get a sense of the demographics of our little Reader pool. At the bottom of this Post is a place to leave a Comment. Click on it. (You will be prompted to type your name, email address (it says we will not publish it, knucklehead*) and website if any. Do this thing. And simply tell us which of the three you are. Pretty simple, isn’t it?

The Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers), besides being a wonderful way to look at yourself and those around you, is a tool that we are only beginning to appreciate. That is, what the Doctrinesays about the result of today’s Poll. (And it does make an initial statement, but that would not be fair to Studley ’cause Studley be in the UK and they don’t check in until much later in the day.) But the Doctrine predicts things about clarks, scotts and rogers that even the Progenitors did not realize. Cool.

So the rest of the Post is going to be us…waiting.
Why, waiting for you to send in your damn comment…(damn…have not picked out the photos for the top and the lead page. Shit, given the way things have been going this morning, I shouldn’t plan on getting away from this computer for another hour or so….)

Hey, did you know that?…(nah, wouldn’t be fair to the clarks out there.) Come on, the poor bastards have to work hard enough just to get through the day without adding that information to the general understanding of “the behavior of those around us, at home at work at school and at play”. And even though, bottom line, clarks have more strength than the other two combined, it is twisted up in such a way that the effort to get to the (benefit) of this strength is hardly ever worth the effort. Or so it seems to most clarks. (Which is really too bad, as that is the beginning of the understanding that clarks need to get to, in order to stop the un-necessary suffering.)

So, done yet? I’m not seeing no Comments, amigos! Come on, binyons…a little help here.
(Comments from DownSprings and Progenitors do not count. I know what they are, hey I created them…like I need to know that glenn is a scott and roger is a roger and DownSpring#1 is a clark..a fuckin blindman could see that…)

*oxoymoron: Samuel Goldwyn is credited with more of these, aka Yogi Berra type statements than frickin Yogi is, attend:

Destroy the old files, but make copies first. — Samuel Goldwyn

Spare no expense to save money on this one. — Samuel Goldwyn

Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day. — Samuel Goldwyn

I never said most of the things I said. — Yogi Berra

No one goes to that place anymore – it’s always too crowded. — Yogi Berra

Reporter: You say you’ve never made a picture before? Samuel Goldwyn: Yes, but that’s our strongest weak point. — Samuel Goldwyn

The next time I send a damn fool for something, I go myself. — Samuel Goldwyn

To paraphrase Jimi Hendrix…”put that damn keyboard, down!”

Lyle!! you up dude, take this Post…put it in a burlap bag, tie a knot in the open end, hit the whole thing with a bat a few time and throw it off a bridge…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-_W18CWypE

Lesson of the Day? the Doctrine predicts that there will be three Comments, all but one of them will be lying about which of the three (clarks, scotts or rogers) they are…which would make them scotts.

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

40,000 men and women everyday… Like Romeo and Juliet.

July 3, 2010 By clarkscottroger

The theme of today’s Post was to have been ‘low hanging fruit’. Despite it’s common usage, this expression has turned out to be anything but…! You wake up, face the pain of the blank Post, find what surely must be the starting point of a halfway decent Post only to find you cannot get any of the 55 million free dictionary sites to give you a usable definition. Attend:

something that is easy to obtain. Low-hanging fruit is highly visible, easily obtained, and provides good short-term opportunities for profit
Low-hanging fruit are things that are easily achieved
Targets or goals which are easily achievable and which do not require a lot of effort
Girls who are somewhat hot – but not too hot, and who often work in positions of high public interaction but with low-barriers-to-entry, thus making them open and attractive targets on the one hand, but often self conscious and/or harboring self esteem issues on the other. This, as a whole, makes them susceptible and quite receptive to any overtures from the opposite sex. i.e., They are the easiest of fruit to pick.
n. inf. a thing or person that can be won, obtained, or persuaded with little effort: we know mining our own customer base is low-hanging fruit

(Jeez goddamn! 5,000 years of human development, millions of lives spent and wasted, invested and sacrificed, all of human depravity and near divine genius and inspiration to produce the culture that creates the technology that gives rise to the internet which, in turn grows to being a near global cosmic consciousness all which promises to bring the sum of human experience and knowledge into my computer this morning and the best I can do is

“…Girls who are somewhat hot – but not too hot often self conscious and/or harboring self esteem issues… This…makes them susceptible and quite receptive to any overtures from the opposite sex. i.e., They are the easiest of fruit to pick….we know mining our own customer base is low-hanging fruit…”

Tell me, why do I put myself through this every morning?…lol no, don’t answer that…

I am writing this because the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) while being, ‘a unique, useful and fun way to view the actions and behaviors of those around us at home, at work and at play’, remains a new thing in the world and as such deserves my efforts to bring it to as many people as possible. (Think: Mother Theresa’s Escort Service and Vanity Publishing, Inc.)

‘low hanging fruit’? Oh yeah. We may have hit that point in the “arc of development” of this blog. In any event, there is 12 months of momentuum behind the Doctrine and the goal is still the same, so despite the occasional clinker* we will keep writing these things.

But expect us to try and move beyond the question, “Why do the scotts rage and the rogers imagine a vain thing?”

Time to get more practical with the Doctrine. Which we will be doing, as soon as our “LEarn to write real good, real Fast” correspondence course shows up in the mail. We will simply keep putting one metaphorical foot in front of the other and the rest will follow.
(Yes, it has occurred to us to simply not try and write a Post a Day simply for the sake of keeping the streak alive. But our response remains, ‘fuck you…when you have put this much into this thing, then your opinion will be worth more than the third from the last line of dialogue in the dream I had three weeks ago’. Until then, try doing something useful like submitting constructive and/or thought provoking Comments?
This statement does not apply to (most) scotts, as giving them any type of license to provoke anything is so ‘coals-to-Newcastle’ in terms of pointless distractions as to boggle the mind of anyone bothering to follow this parenthetical this far, when it was clear, quite a few sentences ago that we were just marking space here to get today’s Post out).

OK. This is a HOLIDAY WEEKEND!! see you tomorrow….(music?) …of course there is music

What? the Wakefield Doctrine of the Day? damn, you’re right we do need a Lesson of the Day.

(real quick)…the Doctrine tells us that perception is reality…despite the protestation of the rogers and scotts…that is the strength and the weakness inherent in clarks…to feel that the knowledge (of this fact) is sufficient to lend utility to the concept.
Knowing that the other person is living in a (possibly) slightly different reality serves only to reduce your feelings of frustration…frustration at not being able ‘to get through to them’, frustration at ‘ don’t you understand what I am telling you“, frustration of their behavior being “the same over and over no matter what you tell them“…

…you know, life with clarks, scotts and rogers…

* clinker: A fragment of incombustible matter left after a wood or coal or charcoal fire

Filed Under: Featured, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: clarkscottroger, personality types, relationships, the Wakefield Doctrine

May your days be merry and bright

July 2, 2010 By clarkscottroger

We are (quote) enjoying (endquote) a lively discussion about the desirability of change (of ourselves) as it relates to the Wakefield Doctrine. Another way to express that is, “If the Wakefield Doctrine provides an effective tool to alter oneself, to improve qualities and/or deficiencies of our own personalities, is that a good thing, or what?” This argument has been raging between a scottian and a clarklike perspective, with very recently a rogerian contribution (to the debate). By our own definition that should provide us with the best of answers, no?
Well….like kids in a workshop full of power tools and lumber, the results are, shall we say more exuberant than polished. And that is as it should be for none (of the participants) are trained or skilled writers and while we all have very excellent vocabularies and should be able to present a cogent argument, none of the participants have managed to pull it off. But it has been fun! And more importantly, this discussion is validating the core premise of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers). I say this not simply because the the scott sounds like a scott and the clark like a clark through the course of the Comments. (Though you do have to admit, if we presented the text of the Comments along with a description of a clark and a scott and a roger, I bet you would be able to identify each one one on the basis of what they wrote). This alone keeps these Posts coming along, there are clarks, scotts and rogers…just a matter of getting enough people to become aware of that fact and eventually the Wakefield Doctrine will enter the collective consciousness of the culture and you will hear someone on television say something like,
” the small mid eastern country issued a statement today saying, and I quote: “conditions in the area forced us to respond with a anticipatory retaliation” end quote. Many casualties, what a bunch of rogers!”
(or maybe you will see an ad on television), “HEY!!! HEY!!! HEY!!!BUY THIS!!! HEY!!!” (damn! we already have scottian advertising).
So the fact is the clarks and the scotts and the rogers are already out there…most people do not know the proper words. So the debate currently flying across the airwaves (do they still have airwaves? or is it through the ether?) Anyway the answer is contained in the discussion.

And what is that? Well, glad you finally asked…the answer is also the answer that glenn insists on missing in his grasping onto the notion that what he is must be maintained against a threat of losing it to the other two aspects (in glenn’s case, clarklike and rogerian nature).
The simple answer is, “glenn dude you have already lost”. And it is not a ‘losing’, it is not a competition and it is especially not a “what I am” versus a “what I am not”
The final answer both to the argument whether we should look to alter ourselves and to how one would do this, if so inclined is this…

We are all born with the potential to view the world from one of three perspectives. These perspectives are a set of assumptions, premiseses, ‘the world is like…’ statements. This is not rocket science or weird clarklike stuff, there are a whole bunch of jokes, fables, aphorisms and chestnuts to the effect that the traveller is told up a ahead there is a village of friendly/hostile/strange/whatever people. The punchline is the same in every version (of the story), after encountering the village the traveller confirms that he experienced what his expectations implied.
This is all the three types that comprise the Wakefield Doctrine are, a set of expectations about the nature and character of the world. .

The key is that even though we become a clark or a scott or a roger, we all still have the capability to see the world through the eyes of any of these three. Resistance to this notion is not unexpected, it is validation of the Doctrine…
of course a scott is going to take the position that “I am what I am and it would be crazy to think I should try to become someone else“…
what else would a roger say than, “why isn’t that interesting, tell me all about your theory” (and then go and tell the others about how there is proof that clarks are so crazy…
and clarks would take to the Doctrine like ducks to dogs…except…”hey great theory, but I happen to have a theory of my own that covers what your Doctrine seems to have overlooked, let me just help you with that…after we rename it, of course”….

So. Short answer to glenn. You are a clark. You are a roger. You are a scott. They are mutually complimentary. Like hearing a wider range of tones or seeing a broader band of colors, this Wakefield Doctrine represents an additive process not one of substitution….your contributions are proof of this….

…”but I’m not talking about hate, I’m talking about eight….dinner at 8! ” This from the most excellent FireSign Theatre…which if we can rouse that there janitor of ours, Hey Mr. B! get your rogerian butt up here!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHVVw3CYTZw

Holiday Music what you talkin bout Willis?…oh well…how bout dis?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7DFsBcVMDA

Filed Under: Featured, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: clarkscottroger, personality types, the Wakefield Doctrine