clarkscottroger | the Wakefield Doctrine

God, He stole the handle and the train it won’t stop going, no it won’t slow down

May 19, 2010 By clarkscottroger

5:30? PM?! no, no frickin way!!! the Post always goes out in the morning…it is Wednesday right??!! It can’t be that late…damn..

OK, OK I can deal with this…
“HI! Welcome to the Latefield Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clark, scotts and rogers). We apologise for the lateosity of this Post, time just got away from us. (we already used all the Chambers Brothers references)? So, we got a good response to yesterdays (really, I only took a short naplette this morning, I really meant…), to Mel’s guest appearance on the Doctrine. The good news is that the (next installment) of Couples in Love (Part Tree) should be out tomorrow…sure, mid-day without doubt…Friday is a heart attack cinch, look for it bright and incredibly early Friday.

Will finish this tonight and get it up before days end, just because, I guess. For the last few weeks it has been an article of pride that a new Post shows up each and every day. Yeah, the quality versus quantity debate is very much alive, but I want to decide it not under duress, which not getting a new Post in today would create. So pardon my mediocrity for today, at any rate. You know, maybe that is the appeal I will make to you Readers! Damn straight!

Hey Readers!! What do you want? A new Post every day or only what I (personally) consider a good Post, irrespective of the rate, be it once a day or 3 times a week.
Tell me…I really want to know. Right below the video, at the end of the Post is a place for Comment. Leave a Comment, tell me what you think about the quality/quantity question. I will let you know the response by the weekend, until then it is a new Post every damn day.

WARNING WARNING WARNING
the following section is to be read by clarks only!
…because you wouldn’t get it, that’s why….
…you don’t think that’s true?…let’s do this, I will ask you a single question and based on your first and immediate answer, you will agree to not read the following section, even if it means closing your eyes for the next few paragraphs.
If you answer this question with anything but a serious answer (including “what do you mean” and “why would I want to do that”) then you are a scott or a roger and so don’t need to read the next section.
…ready?
…..sure?

(If you could), who would you rather be right this moment?

alright, that should take care of the scotts and the rogers…yes, clark?
no, gender and age are not optional variables in the context of this particular question…good thought though…

So here it is. This whole Wakefield Doctrine thing is obviously the work of a clark. And because of that, the intent of the the Doctrine is to develop a tool to help us attain our goal.
(…clearly stated in the page on clarks, clark)
(yes, I know you knew that, but you still have to read those particular words to get what I am driving at)…
Because, my blog , my rules. (You know you are talking to another clark, because they will already have some sort of system to help understand the world and find the secret)…yeah I know I’m running on…waiting for the last scott or roger to get totally bored….

Alright. I want to let you know that this Doctrine is proving to be efficacious, even at this early point and I am discovering some previously un-anticipated effects…(very funny…). I will not go into detail, but will say this…as the effect increases you will begin to see a fundamental change in the scotts and rogers in your world…a ‘thinning out’, an ‘increasing transparency’, try not to be alarmed. Will report more as I learn more.
Just wanted you to know.

…” and the roger said to the scott, that’s not my….” Oh hi! Didn’t see you come back. Yeah all done here.

Don’t forget coming in a day or two, “Couples in Love”, gooood Doctrine.

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

a crazy little thing called love

May 17, 2010 By clarkscottroger

Introduction (damn!, Jimmy said this thing came ready to fill-in) The purpose of this Report is to review and critique the book: the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) (ok, ok that’s a start, stay calm, not due for another hour…)

This part of High School book reports presents the most general information on the book: (no shit, sherlock you better believe it is ‘most general’ lol) This book was a very interesting Introduction to a very Interesting Theory of Personality( where is Janie!! she said she would help me with, “don’t worry Britney, we can knock this off in a half hour”, yeah right) The book explains a very unique and productive way to understand those around us. (they better not read the book, damn that from the cover…)

Title/Author; The Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) clarkscottroger
Publication information; a weblog hosted by bluehost; https://wakefielddoctrine.com
Genre; Crazy Shit (lol) Theories of Personality ( yeah, sure thing that’s surely what it is…)
1-2 sentences-long Introduction to your book report. (aww come on, I’ve already written that many… ) This is an un-conventional theory of personality that is based on how a person experiences the world instead of the way that they act most of the time. ( ok, ok don’t use it all up…) This book says that by understanding the way a person sees the world what they do will not be a surprise. This is a very good theory.

Body (very funny Jimmy! bout time you got here, wheres Janie? how late?! yeah like you’re gonna be a help…)

What is the book about? The book is about the Wakefield Doctrine. (hey all they asked was what it is about…I’m not writing a book you know…)
What do you think about the book? (no, I am not going to write that…I need the grade …no let me think…) I thought that this book was a very thoughtful insightful book about a very interesting subject.

Analysis and evaluation (oh, man I’ll never get this done by first period…shut up Jimmy…)

Is the writing effective, powerful, difficult, or beautiful? The writing is very effective and is not too difficult. It explains the Wakefield Doctrine in words that most people can understand and benefit from. (yes I can end on ‘from’ stop distracting me… )
What are the strong and weak points of the book? The strongest thing about this book is the examples the Author gives for the three different personality types. Each of the three (clarks, scotts and rogers) are clear and easy to see in the everyday world. The weak points is when the writer uses various literary constructs to advance his theory (…Janie did…this text…she said she will have to meet us at class…shit)
Did its author achieve his/her purpose? Yes he/she/they did. (…I don’t care anymore…I just want to have something to hand in… )
Do you agree with the author’s point of view? Why? I agree with the Authors point of view because it seems to be true. If you look aorund you with the three types of people in mind you will see one right away. Usually it is a scott or a roger. Once you see one you will see the others. The hard part is seeing which of the three (clarks, scotts or rogers) you are because the Author says you are all three but you are mostly one of the three (…and the other can be reached at the crazy old people home…lol stop it Jimmy…)
What is your impression from the book? Is it interesting, moving, or boring? This is a very interesting and moving book and I would recommend it to everyone.
Your recommendations. I recommend that you do not go out on a SUnda y night. I recommend that everyone read the book, the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) because it lets you see how people will act and will let you not be fooled by how they act especially if you are a clark.

Conclusion I conclude that I must hand this in In conclusion, this book is a good book because it really makes sense. Really once you get past the amateur writing technique and the quirky elements (including imaginary characters!!) what this Author is saying makes a crazy kind of sense. If you let yourself see the rogers and scotts and clarks around you, you will then see how they always act the way they are described in the book. Kind of spooky in a funny sort of way. THe end.

Pull your thoughts together and make a brief conclusion. (hey Janie…thanks so much for your help…. ) (…yeah he was a little help…very funny Jimmy…do you think your Janitor friend would get me a video real quick? …first period!! I told you on the phone…no, no problem…maybe not a A but I am not the over-acheiver her, am I…lol )

Filed Under: Featured, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: clarkscottroger, the Wakefield Doctrine, Understanding Human Behavior

”the time has come” the Walrus said,”to talk of many things”

May 16, 2010 By clarkscottroger

“But not on us!” the Oysters cried,
Turning a little blue.
“After such kindness, that would be
A dismal thing to do!”
“The night is fine,” the Walrus said.
“Do you admire the view?…”

…It was so kind of you to come!

(First of all), big Happy Firstaversary to Mel and them over at the Spatula in the Wilderness. We wish him all the best and hopes for a successful year going forward.

Part of the challenge to this Wakefield Doctrine thing is to find ways to communicate to others, concepts that are based on personal experience. What this seems to amount to is “here is a view of personality that is effective and an efficacious approach to making significant changes to your life and maybe even the lives of those around you, isn’t it a good thing that my two best friends (and I ) just happen to embody these qualities” (damn, dude, ya really shouldn’t go and write that out, kind looks like, I don’t know, “HEY! HEY!! man! this record, you got to listen to this record…there are messages there…yeah I am playing it backwards…but the messages are there…I can PROVE it!!)

But wait, this is different. scott did embody the personality (found in the Wakefield Doctrine) and ascribed to being scottian and roger…he was and to this day remains a person who clearly views the world as a quantifiable place and has an over-attachment to things historical, and not that I do not sound like a clark all the time, but I remember what it was like to think that all I had to do was learn what I did not know and then people would not think I was an awful and worthless person.
That all happened the way this blog is describing people and events, personality and principles, just as I describe it!!

Really, scott was, at the time ‘back in the day’, the most direct person I knew (and it’s not my fault that) along with his directness, he had the most volatile emotional life of anyone I knew or had known. But there was passion with the anger and an un-selfconscious generosity to his approach to people and sure he rushed things at times and was nearly always in a hurry but if there was trouble, scott was the person we would look to first.
And I am not making up rogerian expressions!! Roger did actually say at a dinner that his scottian first wife put on for some faculty members and despite her best/desperate efforts to impress her guests with the sophistication that she thought she had to have and would have had if she were not so needy, despite all of that and with no hesitancy and (certainly) no self-consciousness, when asked if he, “wanted more mashed potatoes”? roger did say in a voice that was every bit the confident, comfortable “sophisticated host” that he knew his wife wanted him to be, he did, in fact say, “No thank you, I think I’ll surpass on that” Tell me I could make that up. He was rogerian before there was such a term and well before the Wakefield Doctrine.
And my part in this, though for all appearances the quiet one of the three, I thought about things, god!, I thought about things! I believed that the “Answer” was something that I could learn, if only I put in enough effort. And the friends that I had, while I did not at the time notice the complementary nature of their individual personalities, were my excuse for not giving up on everything. With scott or with roger (individually) I was almost a real person, with both I was something that I could not quite grasp and so, as we have come to understand about my people I increasingly came to act as an intermediary between the scott and the roger. Two people I thought ‘had it all’, as individuals and therefore ( I thought) together should have been perfectly happy…came to be at odds on nearly everything…yet still were scott and roger along with my being clark…the complete full potential human.

So, don’t despair. This really is a ‘unique and interesting and productive way to understand the behavior of those around us at home and at work and at play’.
If you follow along with this Doctrine thing you will see that there is a clark (in your life) and there is a scott (in your life) and there is a roger (in your life) and you are one of them and the other two are not far away. But, but here is the beauty part, you know that they are who they are, because the world that they are experiencing right now is fundamentally different than the world you are experiencing…even though you are: married to them, friends with them, related to them, work with them, afraid of them, wish you were them.
You know that now, and while nothing will change today or this afternoon, there will come a time, (sooner than you can imagine) that you will say to yourself, “oh, oh he is going to explode, he is such a scott ” or you will say, “alright she puts so much into the family and a reunion will be boring but, she is a roger, it is how the world is to her” and you will say “god! why doesn’t she see that if she would dress normal or speak clearly, then she would not have such bad luck with people and jobs and opportunity, those clarks try so hard”.

That’s how it began…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlGztHbDspg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-J2_1Ql5jp4

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

oh, oh, one of ‘those’ Posts

May 14, 2010 By clarkscottroger

Yes, this is one of those Posts. Totally driven by a random song heard on the radio.

So, since it is Friday and we have ‘made it’ through a week, let’s just relax and watch some videos and consider the issues confronting the Doctrine, all in a laid back way. (When was the last time you heard that expression)?
I know, let’s do a Post using made up questions from Readers!

Q: What is it about the frenetic energy of the scotts? That Prima guy in the video from yesterday, all over the place, is he for real?
A: Glad you asked (lol). Yes, he is ‘for real’ (“what is this ‘dated idiom’ day?”), setting aside the ‘why’ of the question, this excessive activity is of a twofold nature. One – scotts (and if anyone doubts that Louie Prima is a scott, then get the fuck out of my blog) just have a lot of energy and virtually no (interior subjective) life. This energy comes out in a form that is purely physical. Watch Louie in the vid, he is the star of the show; he is on stage and clearly the center of attention, but it is not enough, (it is never enough). So he waves his hands and arms, does everything/anything to assure himself that everyone is watching. (Not quite accurate, there is not enough established mental life within to justify the idea of ‘assuring himself’.) He can’t help himself. Anyone with a 3-5 year old boy or a puppy will recognise this behavior. Glenn has submitted the tee shirt phrase (…when are they coming out?! I want one now!…) : Scott: I scream therefore I am, which is a great one for his people. But, relating to scottian energy levels you also have the expression: “a scott alone in a room…isn’t”

Q: OK, I can dig that (…!!60’s anachronism Tour bus…now arriving at Gate 69!!) Then how do you explain that second video. Why would someone be so very weird on purpose. Can’t she see everyone laughing?
A: Ah, you mean the clarklike female doing the cover of “If six were nine”? Lol. This ( I would love to be rogerian enough to claim that this choice was consciously deliberate), is a perfect comparison of a clark and a scott. It is also an (equally) perfect illustration of the limitations of a scott. (I assume that Readers have spent enough time in the ‘Pages’ to know the characteristics of clarks, scotts and rogers…)

So let’s talk about these two videos/musicians.
Both are performers. Both are presenting (their) own interpretations of a song, but more to the point, both are performing for an audience. The distinction is made because to perform implies that the performer is aware that others have done what they are doing and they (Louie or Erika) must distinguish their version. (“Make it their own”, as glenn is fond of saying).
But look at both of these performances, side by side.
Louie is only concerned with making sure that the audience pays attention to him. What a scott. Since this is music, the test is: close your eyes…listen. What do you hear? With Louie Prima’s performance, what you hear is mostly the audience…laughing at his antics, and occaisonally applauding. That and a ‘hit all the notes,( sort of), singing’, because as it totally clear, Louis is singing because that is the thing that he does as an excuse to get up in front of the audience. (The audience is applauding in recognition of a song they have heard before). If we are talking ‘artistry in music’, one can only say, “poor Louie, poor, poor Louie”
Now to Erika. The total opposite. She is all about performing a song creatively. She is barely aware of (an) audience…she is totally into her music…from her vantage point (which we all know is in far, far, outer space.) What a clark. (Slight digression: clarklike females have special characteristics that are culturally driven, to wit, the clothing. “Hey Erika, did the Salvation Army thrift truck crash into your house this morning while you were getting dressed? Damn.)
But let’s pay attention to what she seems to be doing.
(At this point our scottian Readers will be at a disadvantage. They tend to know what they like and ‘fuck all that other crap’ serves to deal with other music styles).
Anyway, speaking as a fan of Jimi Hendrix, the things this Erika person is doing is at a (comparable) skill level to Louie’s playing to an audience. The sounds she creates…with some toy amplifier…just incredible.
But to look at these two, side by each. They are perfect examples of their type, no… they are perfect examples of the characteristic expressions of their type.
The scottian performer: in a conventional setting with supporting performers who ‘know their place’, Louie wears the costume appropriate to his milieu, and he has only one concern: to make sure the audience reacts/responds/pays attention to him.
The clarklike performer: small venue (surprise!) with supporting musicians who are clearly all rogers (who probably feel sorry for Erika and are there to provide her with their superior musical support), Erika seems to wearing whatever she bumped into at home, (with some sort of dress to make sure no one thinks she is weird). And her only concern is to perform the music, to create something that is true to the original, but clearly a creative act.

God, I love this Doctrine thing. I mean, seriously, this little discussion about two wildly different musicians in terms of clarks and scotts is a totally impressive testament to the validity and efficacy of the Wakefield DOctrine. Tell me I’m lying…

Ok time for one last question…

Q: How long are you going to try and keep this one-a-day pace up?
A: That was a stupid, self-serving question…try again

Q: Given the musical topic what kind of videos will you have to close, can you discuss them first, before we listen?
A: Yes, yes we can. The first is a really odd choice ( lol, as if…)

(If you did not immediately think of Madeline Kahn…you need to go watch Blazing Saddles again)
(btw this is the song that attached itself to me yesterday afternoon, like one of those little ‘landmine’ shaped stickers you get walking through a field…)

Ok, (I know that you did not sit through the whole thing…)

Anway…running late for work…Steven…take us out…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1HYUyhujl4

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

now if a six, turned out to be nine

May 13, 2010 By clarkscottroger

A) “Don’t Jump! You still have your incipient godhood”
B) “Jesus Christ no frickin way I could jump that far…”
C)” Come on, I won the bet fair and square…”

(Hey isn’t that the second time in the last 2 weeks we have seen a total religious photos for the ‘anchor shot’, they don’t be gettin freaky on us down at the Doctrine, are they?)

Good morning/afternoon/evening, glad you could stop by the Wakefield Doctrine today. Nothing special for today, still feeling around for the ‘style’ of presentation, playing with the new theme, seeing what can be done with the new fonts set and other tools Matt down at WP Help has set up for us. The Progenitors and DownSprings are getting active, a number of projects started, others being finished up, we should see some interesting stuff in the coming weeks. The new theme with it’s ‘Lead Story’, and other magazine inspired layout features has been a lot of fun, am just starting to scratch the surface of the things that can be done with it.

***Any Readers who have skills at setting up/layout/production/display with these blogs and also a deep and abiding love for the Wakefield Doctrine are encouraged to contact us here (there is a Contact button on the right of the front page for e mail.) No pay, of course, but you would have my gratitude and I would not doubt arrange for you to get a hat (for your damn head) and other fashion items. I write most of these Posts and I read lots and lots of other blogs and realize I am only barely scratching the upper level of the top of the surface in terms of effective presentation. So give me an ee and I will follow-up. (Of course, you need to want the Doctrine grow and flourish, but there will not be a test on your understanding on the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers.)***

The subject of today’s Post is: Economic Security and clarks, scotts and rogers.
Not an un-timely topic, given the conditions out there in the world today, but as with everything relating to the Doctrine, the ‘world out there’ aspect is not the primary issue. Rather, it is how you experience/perceive the world that the Wakefield Doctrine is concerned with; the conditions that exist, (in this case) unemployment rates, consumer confidence, cost of living, do not concern us. What does is whether you are a clark, scott or roger. It goes like this:
scotts are the least bothered/affected/concerned with economic conditions. This is because they exist in a fundamentally hostile world, one of predator/prey. A scott does not worry about the future and so has the least of the ‘oh my god what will become of us..’ thinking, they are focused on today, here and now.
rogers are bothered/affected/concerned with economic condition, but in a more general sense. Being social/herd/group orientated (to use the rogerian term), rogers react to what they are told is the condition of the society/culture as a whole, as a group. Of the three, rogers are the ones who watch the TV news because that information is always presented in terms of how conditions are for the group/most people/the herd. A roger is focused on the past and they will have almot no emotional reaction to conditions in the future (If some one starts a story, “when I was…”, you are listening to a roger).
clarks. Why even bother asking? (Never mind the economic conditions), a clark is and can be worried about everything. It is the nature of clarks, believing in the intrinsic value of knowledge as they do, to be able and willing to believe anything. clarks take ‘being open-minded’ to a near pathological level. They can believe anything because they do not believe in anything.
Here is the difference:
What makes rogers so ‘established’ and solid, is they have faith in the world as they know it. rogers do not realize they have faith, they simply exist in a world that is a given and therefore not even subject to question.
Scotts, don’t bother with stuff like that. They sleep, eat, defecate, fornicate and sleep. A very ‘here and now’ existence. But as do rogers, scotts do not think, ‘hey this is cool, I don’t need to worry about the future’. They just live and act.
clarks do not have that luxury. clarks know that there is no limit to knowledge, they know that they must acquire as much knowledge as possible and they know they never will. clarks know that the future has possibility but they know that there is no reliability to the future. They can believe in anything, they don’t believe in anything.
Worry about economic conditions?
We have Winner! Hands down, no runner up, by a total fuckin landslide, we have a Winner! The most likely of the three to worry about, be concerned with in a negative, non-productive way see the future and not like it…lets hear it for the clarks!!!

Oh-kay! That was a little…er maybe someone needs to get a(nother) hobby…is there a Writer in the audience?…oh my god! my Narrator!! what have you done to my Narrator!! someone please do something!!! Don’t just sit there!!… at your computer desks, trying to pay bills…waiting for the spouse to get out of the shower…do something!!

You know, I gots to credit a scott for one of the more recent revelations about the Doctrine…what he helped elucidate was that the obstacle of one type (clark, scott or roger) writing these Posts to be read by the other two (clark, scott or roger) is not insurmountable…all that was necessary was for the Writer to understand that each of the three respond to a different cue…clarks to insight based on superior understanding, scotts on dominance expressed as overwhelmingly obvious skill in execution and rogers being presented with an emotional component that is un-definably part of a larger herd.
thanks glenn (he did not, of course express it that way…driving through Wakefield one night it was more a matter of: “fuck that!! HEY!! ya wrong…we will kill you…ok…I see”), the Wakefield Doctrine thanks you for your work in furthering the understanding and application of this thing of ours.

Whew!! (are we done for today, yet?) (god, I hope so…)

Being a totally beneficent Narrator, I will reward glenn first and then give the rest of us a video we will enjoy…

…hey Slovenians!! where you at? We have a new globe thingie on the homepage that shows red dots for visitor locations, and we don’t show Slovenia in da the house…come on…come back, there is a reward, will send you a hat ( zakaj vaš prekleti vzglavje )! really, just visit and then make a Comment of use the Contact thing and let me know where to send the Fashion items.