the Wakefield Doctrine

Hey, its a mid-week Post!  What say we go easy on the lessons and relax for a spell.  (There will be much to cover, but we’ll get to that in the end of the week Post).

We are always looking for different and (hopefully) interesting ways to present the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers), the thinking is the more varied the context that this thing is presented in, the greater the likelihood that our Readers will be able to apply these principles to their own lives.

So, what is more universal than an Advice Column?  Better yet, an Advice Column that focuses on relationships.  To that end we have asked Ms. AKH to help us out.  She has written a number of Posts that have been quite well received,  one on couples (from a scottian perspective) click here. and she has also written for our newest member of the faculty at Millard Fillmore High (as student teacher) click here.

(There’s the background of our Contributing Downspring, let’s see what Ms. AKH has for us…)

WD:  Ms. AKH Welcome!  After your Post on scottian/rogerian couples, we have heard a lot of interest in how the Doctrine can help people work through ‘relationship problems’.  We would like to pose some questions to you and maybe you would consent to be our Advice Columnist (for couples).
Before we start, in your Post on columns, you spoke so glowingly about your relationship with a roger, how are you two doing?

Ms.AKH:  Well, you’ll never believe it.  That rogerian guy I was seeing turned out to be an asshole.  Out of the blue he just stopped calling me. Wouldn’t return my phone calls either or respond to my e-mails trying to find out what happened.  It actually worked out well because I was starting to “not feel it” anymore anyway.  But still, he could’ve had enough balls to respect me and to let me know why.  Went from adoring me to ignoring me. What a typical weak roger.  Such a fucking coward.  Personally I think that we scottian females are too much for a rogerian male to handle.

WD:  Oh.  I see, but what are we to learn about the scottian half of a couple like this (your case)?  I am tempted to think there is a tendency of the scottian female to tire of the routine, hear the call of ‘the hunt’ if you will? Not for nothing, but we have all seen cats bat the little, soon-to-be-dinner mouse around for fun.  As a people (scotts) live for the hunt, perhaps a steady diet of pleasant company gets a little boring?

Ms AKH:  Love your analogy!  I think it depends on the level of confidence of the roger.  Certainly the scottian females enjoy batting the little mouse around, the mouse easily being a roger.  This can be satisfied in a scottian/rogerian relationship if the roger is strong enough and the scott is not overly predatory.  That being said, not all scottian females are as predatory as let’s say scottian males.  So my conclusion is that if the rogerian male is strong enough to withstand the antics of the scottian female, the relationship could be successful.  Being with a roger would both ground her and give her the upper hand as it were (in her mind) that she needs.      

WD:  We have a more generalized question about couples.  We all agree that the scottian female/rogerian male couple is very easy to identify.  What of the scott/clark couples.  How would we identify such a couple?  And what special characteristics do they have?

Ms. AKH:  From the outside, the scott would appear to be the “stronger” of the two.  In fact, the clark would be perceived as the subordinate one due to his seemingly lack of interest/interaction and subdued nature.  However, don’t be fooled by this.  The cogs are constantly turning.  And though the scott may think of himself/herself as being the “leader of the pack” and therefore superior, it is important to remember that the clark is extremely cerebral and always “on the hunt” mentally.  They are a pair of hunters with the scott being outwardly aggressive while the clark is inwardly insatiable.     

WD:  Since we are on the topic, do you think that a scott/scott couple is very likely?  Would they not eat each other… (not necessarily in the good way)?

Ms AKH:  You’re making me blush!  There are many scott/scott relationships out there which easily spotted, but inevitably unsuccessful. These are the turbulent ones.  Filled with constant battles, this couple would be in constant turmoil fueled by each other’s strong personalities.  For example, the couples who call the police for restraining orders against each other.  But then you have the other scott/scott relationships which are successful.  If both partners have the same life goals, they would be a couple to contend with.  Very ambitious and successful in reaching their ideals.  Just imagine, two hunters against the world.  Kind of a scary proposition. They would no doubt be able to catch their prey quite easily and effectively. It would be child’s play to reach and even surpass the goals that they intend to achieve.  So yes, a scott/scott couple is possible.

WD:  Thank you for these insights.  In keeping with starting a little ‘Advice for the Lovelorn’ column, I would like to pose a specific question and get your input.

(WD):  As a young clark I had a relationship with a scottian female, very ‘exciting’ …(that’s all you get from me, I am a clark, lol) Anyway, long story short.  She dumps me for a roger!  Like no notice, just withdraws and then (him) being a roger, it was all, “hey it’s not our fault it just happened, you need to get on with your life, clark.  Please dont hate me…”  So what could I have done differently?  Is there something in a scottian female/clarklike male that is inherently unstable?

Ms AKH:  Unless you wanted to be someone other than yourself, there really isn’t anything you could’ve done without compromising your integrity.  Your strong point is outwitting others mentally.  I’m not so sure about being inherently unstable.  In this case, I would have to say that the scottian female may have felt threatened and that she wasn’t able to feel she was in control of the relationship.  This would explain leaving you for the roger.  A roger is, afterall, non-confrontational and easy to control. Rogers pretty much go with the flow and are followers.  And this would give the scott the role of “leader of the pack” she so desperately needs.  Being in control without being questioned from a roger.

WD:  Thank you, MS AKH.  I am sure our Readers will have their own questions in the near future, perhaps we should plan on making this a more regualr feature here at the Doctrine.

Well, that was informative and fun!  There is a place, right below for your Comments  or questions.  Don’t be shy.  And no one will call you at home and ask you follow-up questions, so lets get some Reader participation here.

Mr. B, some traveling music? 

(Man, tough Post.)

I mean, I know what I want to talk about, but it’s how to talk about it that has me dialing: 1-800-kitchensink.
You do not want to know how many drafts it has taken to get even this far.  But write it I will. (remind me to tell you later about how helpful our Miss Sullivan has been).

Let’s start at the beginning (…”and go on till you come to the end”  L Carroll):

‘The Wakefield Doctrine is built upon the idea that everyone experiences the world/reality differently, from one of three overlapping but distinctive perspectives… maintains that this characteristic perception of reality can be grouped into three distinct types, called for reasons stated elsewhere, clarks, scotts and rogers.’
…we also possess the potential to see the world as a clark or a scott or a roger.  It is only the predominance of qualities from one (over the other two) that makes us what we are.  No one is only clarklike or scottian or rogerian. (source:  About: The Wakefield Doctrine (italics added).

Why quote that which we all know?

To assert balance.
In the last few Posts we have received a good amount of input from the scottian perspective.  We appreciate this.  The Doctrine is being read by more and more (repeat) Readers because of this input.
(and)…it is the nature of  scotts to present strong opinion on all matters, the topic  of rogers being no exception.
(All Opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the person, character or self-identified entity attaching their names to said Opinion.  These Opinions do not necessarily reflect the Opinions of other Progenitors or Downsprings.  All Comments are possibly incorrect, with the exception of those from the one with the marked penchant for parenthes(es))¹

 So, let us go right to the matter at hand.

Rogers are awful…
they are awfully opinionated and parochial, they are awfully judgemental and closed minded and obsessed with the mundane and the measurable and the repeatable and the consistent and the reliable and…it is a good thing we have rogers or we would all be living on the open savannah, sleeping in trees and looking over our shoulders every time we tried to have a drink of water.

Our scottian brethren (in fact our individual scottian aspect) are not incorrect in their assessment of the foibles of the rogerian nature; they are simply limited.  Their Comments are direct and without nuance or subtly,  you know:  scottian.  But neither are they (the scotts) at fault, they are merely expressing their perception.
Having said that, I would not want to fly to Vegas in a plane designed by scotts (or for that matter, a plane built by clarks).
In the first case, the plane would have 5  over-sized jet engines stuck on various sections of the fuselage, mostly towards the back of the plane, painted bright colors and the pilot would be expected to be able to stick his head out the window to scream at other passing jets.  In the second case, the interior would consist primarily of couches (with pillows and quilts),  that while comfortable, would tend to slide around (a lot)  and there would be 6 or 7  bathrooms taking up the entire back half of the plane.

(You get my point).

It is a given here at the Doctrine that those who participate are assumed to be able to handle whatever forms of interactions occur.  And while we maintain the editorial right to shape expressions of opinions, it is with no small amount of pride that we can say that has not happened yet.  What you read is the direct and un-abashed thoughts and opinions of the contributors.

But that is only half of the challenge we faced sitting down at the keyboard here.

The other half (and possibly the half with the greater significance for this thing of ours) is how to speak to them (rogers and scotts and clarks),  as brother Malcom said:

“And during the few moments that we have left, we want to talk, right down to
earth, in a language that everybody here can easily understand.” (Malcolm X)

The simple fact of the matter is that if not written in the ‘language’ of the type, no message will get through.  Another way to say it:  if I do not manage to ‘speak scottian‘ to a scott, my message will be misinterpreted at best and totally unheard at worst.  If I cannot speak to a roger in the language of the herd then I will be treated as noise.

This is the dilemma we face with this Post.

But, fuck it.  We are writing (this) which is not the same as assuming that we are communicating (with the Reader).

Hey scott!  Hey!!  Don’t eat all of the local herd or you may find yourself having to go outside of your own hunting grounds…getting hungry…getting weak…finding new hunting grounds and finding…a whole new pack of scotts…(and we all know how social and co operative scotts are). (Can you say, ‘the weak and old simply get left behind to die’?  I knew you could!)

Hey roger…get over it.  The herd is all there is… until you look up.  Once you see the herd,  I hate to burst your bubble pal,  you ain’t in the herd anymore.  And try as you might, you can never, never bury yourself in historical novels and documentaries by Saint Ken, never go back to that bovine indifference to the werld.  And those scotts that you love supplying food for and the clarks that make you feel so better than…guess what?
They know that you know.  And know that you know that they know…

oh clark…don’t think you can type yourself out of this one…no, there will be no literary constructs to divert the Reader.  No mf…you of all of the three forms, you are the one to indulge in the ‘people? can’t we all just get along’  bullshit.  Which, when you really look at it, is a sin against all that the Doctrine stands for… goddamn dude, you really think that just sitting there and typing this shit week after week was going to change you into the real person you have always been afraid that you are not?  Well, you may be on track but you better be prepared to step outside of your perfectly defined-surely-this-includes-all-inferences-and-possibilties little world.  As the Lady would say, ‘You been told’.

Welll…that sort of went all toyota on us, didn’t it?  (Heh heh)  …oh Janie!

what? no…busy now…come back.. oh alright!  Now I am called in to lighten things up? Any of you real people/Readers think through the implications of using a ‘literary construct’ to lend a sense of reasonableness to the shenanigans that go on around here? Even a hint of how messed up that is?  No, I didn’t, think you had…
Hey, did you know that the old janitor/music video guy (Mr. B, I believe) was once a professional musician? yeah! he was just telling me…no,  not too old man tries to recapture… but I am an ‘A’ student in the Doctrine and I did not know that a roger could deliberately give up his rogerian expression…yeah me too.  Anyway  he had to run and left the following music  said that if you don’t try too hard you will get the connection…whatever
…can I go home now? this does get just a bit tedious…

1) In case of disagreement, the protocol will be followed:
we are right and you are wrong…

(It is so like this blog to use the more obscure portion of famous quotes. Who’s a clark?) 

I do apologise for the delay in getting this Post to press,  feeling especially bad about there being only two new Posts in the course of this week. Interesting, (to me that is) that it should bother me but, as we have been alluding to in recent Posts, the Doctrine is not only a tool to understand others, it is also a tool to alter oneself. Much more to say on that topic in coming Posts, but to today’s Post. 

Everything we do here is intended to advance the understanding of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) among both our established Readers and the first time visitor. Given that there are only so many ways to say: ‘a clark thinks, a scott acts and a roger feels’, or …’a scott in a room alone isn’t’  or even, ‘show me a roger with sufficient and guaranteed food supplies and I will show you the fall of an Empire’…you know, the kinds of things we say here backstage at Doctrine HQ.
As an alternative to simply repeating  Doctrine-sanctioned cant, we offer a ‘storyline’,  A story about a high school somewhere (Millard Fillmore High); a class in the Wakefield Doctrine (CSR 101); several teachers, a principle, a guest lecturer and three students (including the precocious Miss Janie Sullivan). We use this ‘device’ as a vehicle to present the Wakefield Doctrine in a more everyday (and hopefully more entertaining) setting. (If your everyday setting is populated by/of imaginary beings, that is) 

And so today’s Post. 

(We find a certain, well regarded, tenured Teacher Miss Dowd as she catches up with Glenn Miller (who gave a lecture to the class recently) and Ms. AKH a practicum teacher who may be filling in for the regular teacher who is on sabbatical). 

Miss Dowd: Oh, there you two are! I was hoping to catch you before you left. Mr. Miller! I caught your lecture on the CCTV and I must say I was impressed. Although I have to admit at first I thought, “oh great. Another personal coach life trainer with a penchant for the off-color references”.  But then I looked at the reaction of the class, and they were captivated! Very well done!
And you Ms. AKH, you have the makings of a very good teacher, I was just in the classroom and they are still talking about your class. You have the gift, your enthusiasm becomes theirs. 

Glenn Miller: Thanks, Miss Dowd. They are easy students to teach. One of them seems particularly easy. 

(Miss Dowd:   Explain yourself Mr. Miller.  If you think you are “shocking” me. Think again.)    

Ms.AKH:  Poor Janie. She just can’t help herself. As this is the first class I’m teaching, it’s a bit more challenging for me. Those  ‘Three Musketeers’ can be very distracting to the class. However, in a way, they are beneficial in that they are shining examples of the (theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) for the class to observe first hand. 

Miss Dowd:  It’s not your place to feel sorry for anyone Ms. AKH, nor make excuses.  Do not underestimate them. If you do your job well those “Musketeers” one day are going to be running our financial institutions, making government policy, discovering cures for diseases and taking us into outer space.  You make sure those “shining examples” are understood by everyone.  It may be entertaining at times but the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers is no laughing matter.  …In any event.. The CSR 101 class is still without a teacher…yes, very sad..soon I hear…but the class is doing independent study and one of the teams asked if I would ask you two the following question:

“Who do you see in the popular culture at large that most exemplifies the clark, and the scott and the roger “ 

Glenn Miller: clarklikeness is exemplified for me by comedian Steven Wright. His thoughts are off-beat, weird, funny and oddly interesting.  He is the dictionary definition of a clark.  For a scott, the example that comes to mind is LBJ.  I know.  Not exactly contemporary, but  He was very attuned to power and and it’s effective use.  One of his power moves was to invite subordinates in to talk with him and during the conversation he would move them along with him to the bathroom off his office.  He would pull down his trousers, and take a dump while continuing the conversation.  Primitive, and effective.  Classic display of raw primitive power.  Any scott would just have to love that move.  For a roger, I think of that queen of all that is good, righteous, and proper:Oprah Winfrey. Like the roger she is, she revels in defining for the rest of us what we all SHOULD be doing and thinking.  She takes herself very seriously.  It is always personal for her.  The other rogers buy in and willingly look to her to find out what books they should read, what political candidates they should vote for, and how they should feel about everything.  Without Oprah to tell them, how would they know?  The whole Oprah phenomenon is a rogerfest. 

Ms. AKH: Einstein!!  Really!  A true thinker.  Just look at the size of his head!  Einstein’s all-consuming energy to learn and theorize about what makes things tick, to put it simply, is a classic clark characteristic. Always striving for more information, a clark will stop at nothing until he is satisfied that all possibilities have been exhausted. This inward inclination can sometimes make a clark seem distant, unaware of what is going on around him.  But the wheels are incessantly turning. Donald Trump stands out when I think about a scott.  Right off the bat you’ll notice his eyes.  They appear to be squinting.  But don’t be fooled by this ploy to hide his predatory intent as he focuses on his next prey.  He emits congeniality while sizing up his next victim.  And just look at the empire he has built for himself.  All of his properties have his name attached: Trump Tower, Trump Casino and Resorts, Trump Taj Mahal, you get the picture.  Finally, who but a self-important scott could get away with that hair and  nickname ‘The Donald’?
Rogers, rogers, rogers. What a herd of do-gooders.  The talk show hosts (i.e. Glenn’s choice of Oprah), Tyra Banks, Dr. Phil. Tough to pick just one so I’ll move on. Don’t want to rock the boat, but Jesus Christ (or any prominent religious leader for that matter) was a roger in my book.  Calm down, this has nothing to do with one’s religious beliefs or morals, rights or wrongs.  It is purely observational – who he was as a man.  Who else could be so entirely selfless while spreading what he believed to be word and healing people without being judgmental.  Who would die on a cross for his/her people?  All was for the greater good of the herd.  Look at the disciples and droves of people who followed him.          

Miss Dowd: And what makes you think that this are the best examples? 

Glenn Miller: Generally when I think something, my brain is what makes me think it.  There is another organ with which I have been accused of thinking, but I fear that Principal Clark would not appreciate any reference to that subject within earshot of his innocent and naïve students. Or any of his other students. 

Ms. AKH:  I concur with Glenn except for the second part (given my anatomy). 

Miss Dowd:  Ms. AKH!  Remember you are a lady!  

Miss Dowd: Thank you so much! I know that the children will be excited…I know, they are not really children but I have been doing this for so long  I think of them as my kids…even if the other teachers may laugh about old Miss Dowd…laughs

Where the heck is that VC (video custodian)? Hey Mr. B!  You want to stay and maybe become a permanent character you can’t be hiding, making time with other guys girlfriends. Come on, lets have something different for today.