the Wakefield Doctrine

     Ok, class, let’s settle in… what’s that, Janie? Substitute teacher? We don’t need no stinking substitute teachers. Oh, right… the old “look into my eyes” bit… next time, Jane, just scream real loud, kick him straight in the bollocks, and call 911.  Jeez, if a Clark got you, you’d end up babbling about string theory and where the donut shops are in the fourth dimension for the rest of your life. What?… you already know?? He bought you two chocolate-frosteds with jimmies that don’t really exist, and a large decaf ( because caffeine was outlawed ages  ago in the “real” universe?)Jane! Jane, look at me!! No, not over my shoulder!!! Jane, you’re fading! Come back….come back….Jane…. come back…. Oh, hell. I just hate it when that happens. Another one tanked… All right,then. As for the rest of you, let’s pick it up where we left off….

     OK, then so who can tell me the difference between the WD and the BSO? ( see last class’ post ) Anyone? Anyone at all? No? Jane? ( camera pans to Jane, who is staring out the window and trying to do calculus on her fingers ). Ok, forget Jane. She’ll be out there for a while yet.

     That was a trick question! The answer is…there is no difference. Well not much, anyway.  Back in your seats, let me explain…and someone please grab Jane by the ankle, she’s apparently discovered mutli- dimensional weightlessness , and the window’s open…I think that’s due to the jimmies that don’t exist…Hey, do people outside of Rhode Island know what jimmies are? I had Del’s and clam cakes for breakfast, is that weird?

     Ok, enough. Back to work.

     The WD/BSO comparison actually struck me as being a good example of the WD on a big, big scale. Macro. Freaking huge. We generally assume the WD to be all about interpersonal stuff ( by the way, great job AKH- and a comment fron Denise that could easily be expanded into a few posts; yeah, that’s a hint, Girlie!). But seen on a larger scale, it actually works quite the same way. Let’s have a look;

                              The Wakefield Doctrine                                                                                                The Boston Symphony Orchestra

     Clarks- internally active, cerebral                                                                         Work Being Performed                                         

     Scotts- socially outward, good salesmen                                                          Conductor; co-ordinator/ interpreter

     Rogers- detail-oriented, socially inclusive                                                     Orchestra; Strata/sub-strata of specialists

      Well, there it is. Self-explanatory, yes?   No? Ok, then, let’s break it down a bit.

     To have the BSO function properly, there is an absolutely overwhelming level of coordination that must be maintained on several critical levels, all simultaneously. If anyone drops the ball, then the end result is percieved as a bad performance, a lousy conductor, a mediocre orchestra. In their world, that’s simply not going to happen. In reality, the actual difference between a first-rate orchestra and the others is probably very slight; the margin for error is almost non-existent.

     The largest grouping in this setting is comprised of the players themselves, and my analogy labels them as Rogers. Every damn one of them. They’re highly trained, highly skilled, supremely confident. They aren’t just great classical musicians ( a phenomenal accomplishment on its own), they’re the top percentile of those guys. They simply do not screw up. They are all machine operators. And, what amazes me the most about them; they do what they do, and  manage to stay focused on the conductor. Who, BTW, in this analogy…

     is a Scott.  A perfect salesman, he has full knowledge and complete, utter control of everything before him. He embodies all the player’s capabilities. He knows every nuance of what they can do, and uses that knowledge to interpret the music; he does a lot more than just keep everyone in tempo. He is using the big machine to make known the wishes and intent of the composer. He sees all this at a glance, and simply needs all the Rogers to be perfectly precise on his command. And, in this last segment of analogy, the composer is…

    the resident Clark. The guy who creates the entire thing in his head, and desperately needs a few good Scotts and a damn lot of Rogers to get the thing out to where the public at large can access it. He knows all of it. He has to consider the interpreters along with the machine operators; make sure that it gets out there the way he wants it to. Bach? Beethoven? Mozart? Just a tiny little bit eccentric, yes? No freaking wonder.

     And if all that works just like it’s supposed to, then we get to hear …the BSO. Or put in WD terms; if all the Clarks, Scotts and Rogers all read one another correctly and fairly, then the world should be just ever so slightly a better place than it was before.

     And since I’m in the mood, may I recommend ; Henry Gorecki’s Third Symphony. It starts with a repeating figure on bowed double bass ( one of my favorite instruments) and develops it into a hypnotic theme. It doesn’t really have a sense of time or tempo to it, it just hangs in space like the soundtrack to a prophetic dream. Gorgeous. Give it a shot, binyons. A little high culture won’t kill your asses. And someone wake Janie up, it’s time to shut the lights off.

ON THE NEXT POST: I have no idea.

**Before we continue with our study of the rogerian male/scottian female Couple, a word about Comments:

We are seeing an increasing and relatively steady Reader/Visit rate from the UK as well as Central and Western US.  To these Readers we say:
“Welcome! The free ride is over.  If you are still following this blog, it must be assumed you are assimilating ideas contained in the Wakefield Doctrine.  That’s great, but we want more.  We want you to contribute/comment/feedback.  This is vitally important at this juncture. And don’t worry about asking stupid questions, you know the old saying¹ . 
At the bottom of this Post is a place for Comments, when you are done reading today’s Post, click on it and Comment.  Hell, even if it is only in order to identify your ‘type’ (Doctrine-wise), it will be useful to know how many clarks and scotts and rogers are making up the current reader demographic.  In the words of the  Lady²  ‘You’ve been told’

To continue our examination of the scottian female/rogerian male that we started in a previous Post.  We left the discussion with the idea that the interdependency inherent in a Couple-hood like this would be quite interesting.  AKH (a Downspring) was gracious enough to spend her time in order to give a us ‘view’ of the relationship from the scottian perspective (or perhaps better to say, ‘from the perspective of one particular scott’).  It is invaluable for those of us (clarks and rogers) who simply cannot see this view.

(AKH, if you please):

This material contains matters which may be subjective as they apply to The Wakefield Doctrine.  Reader discretion is advised….
First of all, my boyfriend Greg (not established long enough to be considered “partners” yet) is predominately a rogerian guy.  Honest to God!! Being a scottian female myself, this post really hit home.  It elicited a rather loud Holy Shit! response to say the least.  From what I’ve learned to be the tell-tale signs of the clark/scott/rogers of the world you’d think that it wouldn’t have been such a surprise reading this post.  The fact of the matter is that I never directly applied this knowledge to my own relationship (stop shaking your head).  And you’re thinking “How the hell could you not?”  Don’t have an answer to that one.  So I will now attempt to enter (my) uncharted territory as it applies to the rogerian male in a relationship.
Ours is a well-balanced, harmonious relationship.  Our good sense of humor plays off of each other, often laughing at ourselves.  And we goad each other on.  And yes, we’re both smart and good-looking.  Don’t mean to sound vain, but it is what it is.  OK, enough re-iterating from the post (but it’s so spot on!).
To preface, from my female scottian perspective, Greg couldn’t be more suited for me.  He’s VERY attentive and puts me on a pedestal (what more could a scottian girl ask for?). When we’re out together I am proud to show the world that he’s with ME.  I gloat over the fact that this very handsome guy chose ME.  And he enjoys that.  Don’t get me wrong, looks aren’t everything, but they certainly don’t hurt.  He feeds my ego without even knowing it.  So, without further ado, on to the question at hand:  What’s up with those rogers?
Rogerian guys are usually very passive.  Never wanting to rock the boat so to speak.  However, sometimes that passivity can be misconstrued as laziness or even disinterest.  They are eager to please, but not at the cost of allowing another to take advantage of them.  They will and do venture from their herd-like mentality given it is worth it for the “right” person and as a result become more outstanding, more independent if you will. In my particular case I don’t feel as though he was necessarily of a strong herd mentality so much as just following the status quo.  Wait a minute, was that a contradiction?  Oh it’s all so confusing!  No black and white in the world of the clark/scott/rogers.  Because we all have some of each within us, it’s sometimes difficult to put things in a nicely-wrapped gift box.  Particularly in this response as I am honestly unable to be entirely objective given my relationship with my rogerian boyfriend.
Perhaps due to my limited scottian personality (did she really just say that??) I’m trying to express a need to be viewed as one in a relationship with someone who IS strong and independent. And Greg is.  A scottian female would not want to be associated with someone who is weak.  It would be too easy, if not downright boring.
Moving along, the rogerian guys can be the class clowns and laugh at themselves easily.  It doesn’t bother them too much to be the butt of the joke.  They also enjoy laughing at others, usually not with mal-intent.  They’re goal-oriented and when serious just might surprise you by their strong convictions. They are, for the most part, agreeable.  But not to the point of being submissive.  Rogerian men are non-confrontational which works well for the scottian counterpart who deems herself as being somewhat superior.  In a scottian/rogerian relationship the individual characteristics balance each other out quite well and is satisfying for both.  The rogerian guy is very loyal, caring, loving, unselfish and a good listener with a heart of gold.
All of this being said, a scottian female could not be happier to have a rogerian guy.  Am I babbling yet? I’ll quit while I’m ahead (if that).

Thank you AKH.

Speaking of scottian female (perspectives)…. you need to see the following vids.  Jesus Christ!  After what I said about understanding from another’s perspective and all that ‘walk-a-mile-in-someone-else’s-mocassins’ crap, along come the following two views of Couplehood.  (And this Post is about Couplehood/Coupleness/Coupleosity).

Watch and be amazed. (A free hat to any Reader who successfully explains the commonality between these two videos).

Now for something really suggestive…

click HERE

Come Slovenians, Comment!  Don’t worry about language differences, this is the damn internet, I’ll figure something out.

1. ‘There are no stupid questions, only your questions…

2. The Lady: if you work really, really, really hard and understand the Doctrine cold, you can ask again and maybe we will tell you about her. (She is wonderful)