humor | the Wakefield Doctrine

And though she feels as if she’s in a play

June 20, 2010 By clarkscottroger

…(a) Dude!!! (b) oh man! no frickin way (c) Jay, call me what you want, but you gots to see a doctor!..

(Now that we have had our little Sunday morning humor.) We are entering the week of the 26th of June, which means the week of the Firstaversary of the Wakefield Doctrine…yay

(Which might as well be the topic of today’s Wakefield Doctrine, Lesson of the Day.)
When it comes to celebrations in general and anniversary(s) in particular… clarks do not enjoy them, scotts do and rogers make them a part of their life. In terms of adding to our understanding and use of (the Doctrine), what does knowing this do for us? Two things: if you are curious about yourself, you can consider the reasons and ramifications of (your types) response to these events…which pretty much makes you a clark; if you are curious about how the other two relate to celebrations then, that makes you a clark (or possibly a momentarily bored scott). Let’s look at the easy one first.

rogers love anniversaries, cause they are the benchmarks of tradition, the markings of history, all the things that make up the world (as a roger perceives it);
scotts like anniversaries and will glady accept an invitation for a simple enough reason, contained in one word: buffet
clarks do not like celebrations and/or anniversaries in general because they are affairs that by their very definition celebrate fellowship/shared experience/belonging

(…are we almost through here?…I have an Invitation to the Sherwin Williams Wall Paint Exposition…”Drying through the Ages“…have to pace myself here…)

Lol. Yeah sometimes it do get a bit tedious…

…speaking of tedious…actually speaking of nothing to do with this Post, I have made ‘pop music’ a project. That is to say, I (recently) made a conscious decision to acquire a taste for pop music. Now this is such a clarklike thing to do that no further explanation should be required. But I will anyway, cause we gots way too much white space still left.

The thing of it is, both scotts and rogers live in real worlds, to wit:
scotts one of appetites and aggression and rogers, damn! rogers live in a perfect world, each and everyone one of them. ( …ok the paint drying exhibit will wait…how can rogers all live in perfect worlds?…huh?… ) Well, I’ll tell you. Rogers perceive the world in terms of what is quantifiable, accountable, provable. That is why they make such good engineers, accountants and doctors and priests. ( …hold on! I get the engineers and accountants, I will even give you the doctors…but priests? tell me how the representative of a religion is the same as an engineer… go ahead…I’m waiting… )

Here it goes…rogers believe in the quantifiable, the measurable. They believe in tradition and history and the preservation of culture and… religion. While not scientifically provable as say engineering, (religion) is totally quantifiable. For example…the Ten Commandments (not Six for the children and Fourteen for adults in business) Ten. That is the quantifiable way to live a life. And since “organised” religion is a part of all civil society, rogers are the ones who will be found in the position of Keeper of Rules, Dispenser of Wisdom. ( …perfect world….rogers….the point?… ) Oh, yeah.
The point here is, the only way a person can maintain the fiction of a quantifiable world is to limit the world to quantifiable things and then forget that they set the limits!

Thats how rogers can live in a perfect world. ( …oh-kay….and this has to do with Pop Music…how?… )

rogers live in a quantifiable world, where all is understandable, all is predetermined. clarks, on the other hand, live in a world that is unquantifiable.
clarks being the creative one of the three, allow for any and all possibilities, choosing to believe in anything and subsequently believing in nothing.
clarks can wake up one day and say, “Pop Music really kind of sucks. A lot of people seem to like it though, I guess I better listen to it and acquire a taste for it”.
(scott: “wtf! that don’t make no sense at all, you don’t like then it is not likable! wtf!!). ( roger : “well I can tell you why you should like the likable things and as for the unlikeable things, well there just is no need for them…lets talk about me…)

The project has been successful. I can listen to Pop Music with a sense of appreciation (“sense of appreciation” what a clark!! ( roger and scott))

Well, thank you Miss Sullivan for your help in finding the topic of the day.

And to close, Mr. B! Do you have some music that might illustrate the point here today? (oh, sorry about the harsh reference to you and your by-now-totally-aging scottian-wife-who-must-be-so-not-liking losing her youthful powers).

(Note: I like this song cause I am jealous of someone who is capable of coming up with such a catchy hook as that 1234 lyric. Damn, why did that take so long to come into existence? It was there all along!)

And to, cleanse the palette…

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

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

What ain’t no country I’ve ever heard of. They speak English in What?

June 18, 2010 By clarkscottroger

Welcome to (the blog of) the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers). Lots to get to today, too many anachronistic cultural references to keep track of but we will try to include something that…

“…And during the few moments that we have left, we want to have just an off-the-cuff chat between you and me — us. We want to talk right down to earth in a language that everybody here can easily understand.” (Malcom X)

The Wakefield Doctrine is, as we all know a unique and productive and fun way to look at the people in our lives and (through this way of looking) understanding why they do the things that they do. In other words this is a theory* of personality.** By reading this blog you will be learning something new. So new that we are still gathering the “empirical data” that those people who charge you “tuition” at institutions of “higher” learning do when you go there and say, “Hey Mr! (sorry) Hey!! Misterette/Madam Professorina how can I get to all them students and teach them about the Wakefield Doctrine? huh? How do I go an do that?”
And those people they’d be all, “We only teach legitimate science and theories that have tables of contenteses and foot notes!! You can’t claim to be a real theory of Personality without foot notes!! What are you daft?”

That leaves us with a perfectly good Theory of Personality but with no damn footnotes. Or “statistical” data. (I gots ya chi square, right here!!!) Where does that leave us***? Well I guess that leaves us in a pretty damn good spot!
“Watchoo you talkin, bout?” (Alas Gary, we hardly knew Ye…)

The spot I refer to is the same spot held by people with insider information (except the money part), people in the advant garde ( or…”L’artiste, le savant et l’industriel,” (“The artist, the scientist and the industrialist”, 1825) except without the accents or berets or cool girlfriends (or boyfriends with irrational tempers).

So, welcome the Wakefield Doctrine!
No matter what anyone says about this thing of ours, using the handy guides to personality contained in the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers, you will find that the the traits ascribed to each of the three are there. Find a girl with excessive makeup on the eyes and head (hookers not included) and you will most likely find fairly outrageous footwear; find the footwear and the clothing above will no doubt be from Francois de Andhrogenii’s ‘elite collecion’. Congratulations! you have met a clarklike female. Find the jokester who cannot seem to stop moving and watch him and he will go from person to person and talk/joke/laugh/berate who ever he is in front of. Look at his eyes, they focus on every/any movement. There be a scott.

You get it? Fine. Go out into your day and find the clarks, and listen for the rogers and watch out for the scotts. We may not have footed notes and there ain’t an “op cit” in the house, but there is internal consistency and external persistence to what the Wakefield Doctrine says about people and the those what they loves.

OK almost done for today. Hey remember ‘Phuck you Pfriday’? well I haven’t forgotten, it’s just that we only had two submissions, (actually one and a half). One came from the excellent Ms AKH and one would have issued from the ‘oh boss, I don’t be goin’ there, nosir!’ recesses of my own personal history. So I thought what might be fun would be to do something along the lines of the old Point CounterPoint thing that you used to see on 60 Minutes (motto: news for rogers…). And since we are running out of time, we will do it in serial form!!

So quick set up, then some music videos and after that I have to deal with a disgruntled scott who is resisting his own talents and fighting the call of the Doctrine…

‘Phuck you Pfriday’ featuring Ms. AKH (scottian female) and the clark(creator/clark/first of the race of super beings resulting from the-eugenics-program-proposed-by the-Wakefield Doctrine-but-hidden-away-until-we-recruit-enough-young-attractive-people; motto, “Me first!! I wrote the stupid things!! I’m first“)

Ms. AKH: “…The person who immediately comes to mind is my ex-husband. What a f*ckin asshole – still is…”
clark: “…yeah for me it was…Haz…no I really hated..no maybe that was Barry that was the…”
Moderator: (clearly the clark is not prepared), Ms. AKH, your opponent in this discussion appears not to have his shit together even at this point 30 years later. Do you have a rebuttel or will you yield the floor so he kin get his stuff together?

Music Vids? Damn yeah!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEq62iQo0eU

*by theory we mean just like Freud and Spinner and Maslow, only without the degrees or the books or the place in the curricula of colleges, but some of us do have beards…
**by “personality” we mean, you know, like being a Virgo or a Axel IV or pre-necrotic Driver
***by “us” we mean “you”, afterall I got a job, I write this stuff, you could have my job if you wanted…

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

It is not necessary to understand this…M. Eckhardt

June 17, 2010 By clarkscottroger

The topic of today’s Post is: Discourse and Discussion (quick definition so we will not get any shit from people saying that this blog is amateur scholastecism),
discourse: from the Latin discursus; the act of running about. Sociologists and philosophers tend to use the term discourse to describe the conversations and the meaning behind them by a group of people who hold certain ideas in common

Alright lets start there people, the sooner we get through the “serious” part of the Post, the sooner we can get to the music videos. This the Wakefield Doctrine Lesson of the Day. The question before us is:

What is the goal, the perceive object of the act of conversation/discourse for clarks, for scotts and for rogers? (and as a follow-up question), What does the Doctrine offer to aid the person trying to effectively communicate with a person of the other type (clark, scott or roger)?

First up, clarks. clarks value knowledge information above all, therefore they will attempt to bring as much fact, knowledge, information, inference and implication as possible to the discourse (see?). You will know a clark by the fractured sentence structure. Their goal is to offer (the listener) the maximum choice in paths to take, because (to a clark), everything branches off everything else and each branch offers some information that is discrete from other (branches). That accounts for the (heavy) use (as opposed to light use) of parenthesis. It is a clarks way of saying “hey! by the way, had you considered this…?
Sample: “what is it that real people do with all the time in between sentences?”

Second up, scotts. scotts need to know: are you predator or prey; are you dominant or submissive. For that we require a verb.
Sample: “Hey!” secondary example: “pretty simple, isn’t it?”

Last, rogers. rogers are not using words to communicate or carry specific questions, rogers use words to exist. They live in a purely social world, one comprised of people, however these people, all being rogers do not interact. Instead the rogerian members of the herd are relating to each other…and s0 the only thing to talk about is the past. The past of each of the other members of a herd is the topic of all rogerian discourse. That is why rogers tend to be good at writing, they are laying out a world, not imparting information. It is a fabric of emotion.
Sample: “did you hear what she said about him…?”

Now you know how each of the three converse/communicate/engage in discourse/run about. What good it this information? Glad I asked. So you can understand the other person, knuckleheads! There is this old saying, “clarks are crazy, scotts are stupid and rogers are dumb”
Why is it necessary to mention this?
Because the best tools in the world are useless without the skill of the person using (them). And skill in the use of tools involves understanding the material/the object that the tools are being used on as much as (understanding) the tools themselves.
You know that clarks are trying to impart too much information, so take what you need and ignore the rest.
The scott is barking aggressively at you, so decide if it is in your interest to be prey or predator/submissive or dominant and bark back or roll over.
The roger is spreading information throught your workplace about you, and you do not want that. Take a clue from terminex and contribute information into the network of your own, it will work its way into the social matrix and maybe surplant the bad information.

That concludes the Lesson of the Day. Now to the entertainment portion of the Post. We have a mix, two music video and one movie clip for the scott, the roger and the clark. (In that order, in case, you are a new Reader)

(Now roger)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJ_UuPH3cyw

(Before you ask, I’m sure there is a perfectly good reason to have a double-neck guitar consisting of a bass and a telecaster looking guitar…)
(Actually the simple fact that it was the 1970s should suffice to account for it…)

oh clark! you will enjoy this (and the rogers and the scotts will totally flee the room, lol)

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

Hey! Got a minute?
(Tell me you have ever heard that expression used as a preface to an enjoyable conversation?)
Its just that the ‘quality of writing’ of Comments, given how long we have been at this, really sucks.
And it is not as a rhetoretician do I say this thing. I will be the first to say that, if I was taking a writing course, I would consider myself lucky to get a C- (and that only on the basis of the sheer volume of the stuff I put out there).

HAving said that, if I were a new Reader I would be looking for that little fucked up “F” icon that facebook totally plasters over everything they piss on.
(Seeing that in print, I realize that I might not be giving the rogers who inhabit Facebook (and the scotts there to prey on them) enough credit).
Its just that after nearly 12 months of practice, the Comments submitted still sound like a bunch of grade school kids left alone in the auditorium with the PA system on…HEY!!! HEYY!! Listen To me….NO!! dont listen to HER!! Listen to ME…Ca Ca!!

Cut it out.
Evolve yourselfs. If this ends up being a vanity published blog of an over-ego endowed clark, then so be it.
But if you want to see your thoughts in print in front of 50 regular Readers, then you are going to have to do better…

…oh yeah…tomorrow is Phuck you Pfriday

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

what’s past is prologue; what to come

June 16, 2010 By clarkscottroger

It’s a Post being written at 2:30 am, what can I say? Have come to rely on the photos at the beginning of these Posts to impart a certain…frission*

At any rate, the practise of late has been to write these first thing in the morning, against the deadline** which is based on the condition of having to leave the house to earn a living. But tonight this morning, thought I would try to get up earl(ier) and see if, by getting away from the pressure of a deadline, I could produce a Post of more interest. (So far…not so much.)

…damn, thats what I like about writing these Posts…following is a video courtesy of the ‘left field’ portion of my brain.

(Have to account for the timeframe. I did start at 2:30 am but got as far as the Civil War, Andersonville no less(!) and had to fall down on the ground and sleep. While the topic was generating so Post-worthy, I just could not get anything going. Fascinatingly awful subject/period in history…but nothing to hang a Post on. Now if a roger was writing this, he would have been all over that topic…(hey, did you just see something?)…as a matter of fact the Progenitor roger…(there! saw it again, didn’t you see it?) now he would have been the person to consult on the topic of Anderso….( gotcha!! ha! a topic!!)

Apologies to rogers for the rather odd juxtaposition of images, initial topics and music videos…(damn catchy tune, Katy); so lets talk about the oh so very rogerian quality of nostalgia (definition: a wistful or excessively sentimental yearning for return to or of some past period or irrecoverable condition.)
Yeah, I can accept that as the definition of the interest that rogers have for the past. However, that is only the ‘external’ description, what we should want to know is what does nostalgia mean to the roger. Now, “I’m just a lil ol country blog writer” (Deforest Kelly; 19xx) so I won’t address the technical end of things but I do know my rogers.
Theys love their old-time, historic periods. And the reason is simple.

It provides them with the perfect herd.

(Refresher: rogers are the social one of the three (of clarks, scotts and rogers, of course!) and as a social being, they live for the group. This grouping is a herd by virtue that it is not structured on a competitive basis, as say a pack of scotts would be; it definitely has a group identity, a clear us versus them as opposed to clarks who are all them versus me. You know, a herd).
So, to wrap this up, the reason that rogers yearn for the past is that the herd so comprised is perfect. Once identified and given a face, people of the past never change and are entirely dependent on the roger who has ‘created’ that herd.

…not such a bad topic! I think I will try something a little different today. Will come back and add to the Post, once at ‘noon’ and once before Studley-time (which is about 5 pm EDT). If there are any rogers reading this and want to contribute to the topic ( the rogerian love of nostalgia), write damn it, write.

Heavvyyy!!

…Sorry, couldn’t wait ’til noon. You know that subtitle to yesterday”s Post? (…we can sing in the glow of… a star that I know of…) compelling rhythm for a song lyric. Was associated in my head with a fifties-greasy song by Dean (‘”hey everyone alcoholism isn’t just ugly, painful, humiliating and family destructive, it’s cool by the standards of a culture that is totally based in a form of elitism that forces its will on the people without even the benefit of making it’s own standard known) Martin.
…come on!! you know the song…lol
Anyway… liked the lyric so much I decided to find a video that I would not be ashamed of promoting…Come on lets hear it for the Gypsy Kings (who is notgetting visuals from Robert Rodriguez’s Desperado (with Antonio and Salma)

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

Back.
Kinda not noon, definately out of touch with my own thought processes (that produced the above). But a promise is a promise. So here goes…

Let’s focus on the rogerian quality of nostalgia, as a opposed to nostalgesia, which would be more appropriate being applied to clarks (who wants to volunteer why that is?).
Anyway it has been proposed that rogers love the past because it is made up of dead people and dead people are much better herd members. And also rogers live in a perfect world which is both their strength and their total weaknesses.(Anyone want a shot at that one? ) Hey, come on, you think Post topics grow on the damn trees?

Go ahead be like that. I happened to know why the perfect world and why that is both the strength and the weakness of their types.

So write a Comment, convince me that you know the answer and I will send you a hat (for your damn head). (Sorry, Progenitors and Downsprings not qualified to enter)

* an emotion experienced in anticipation of some specific pain or danger (usually accompanied by a desire to flee or fight)
** “Seventeen feet from the inner stockade was the ‘dead-line,’ over which no man could pass and live.” [Lossing, 1868]

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

we can sing in the glow of a star that I know of

June 15, 2010 By clarkscottroger

Hey, good news! More and more the path of the Wakefield Doctrine in it’s second year is becoming clearer and more coherent. We all have much to be proud of looking back on the last 12 months. And the foundation built of (this pride) is shaping the efforts of the next 12 months. Still a couple of weeks off so no need to spend too much time on the year ahead (yet!) but I know we are all very excited about the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers).

Of more immediate interest is the availability of and distribution of hats (for your damn head)! The Doctrine Fashion Center is going to have quite a few ‘to die for’ fashion accessories in the coming months, but right now it is all about the hats. Provided you do not live in: (the state of ) Washington, Florida or Rhode Island you are eligible for a ‘Free for a Founding Member’ hat. Write an email to indicate your strong desire to be the first in your State, Country, Territory and we will find a way to ship you a covering suitable for the most visionary of heads. One requirement! If you accept a hat you must return a photo of (your excellent) hat taken in a setting/with a background that documents, validates and otherwise proves that you are where you claim to be. A head under hat (in these photos) is totally optional. (If you are a clark, it is allowable for you to get one of your more attractive friends to model the hat (with their damn heads).

In the coming months you should see more Comments from a wider range of Readers, representing a more diverse viewpoint on the Doctrine, at least as far as the discussion of the very manifestations of the three types. Look for an expanded “You might be a clark…scott…roger” Page, as well as being able to search old Posts with more ease and facility.

This will be an exciting time for all of us here at the Doctrine and we are all up to the challenge to take this thing of ours to the next level.

But enough of that for today! Today’s Wakefield Doctrine Lesson of the Day is this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2EZUw2mvjs

the Wakefield Doctrine Lesson of the Day?…hey, you remember in school there was that one day (at the end of the school year) when your teacher seemed almost like a real person? Everyone in the school was just marking time until the official end of the academic year and there was a curious, never repeated balance in that last class of the year. The teacher would talk like a regular person, answer questions that you knew they were not phrasing carefully in their head first and the other students in your class…they knew things were a little different but somehow they become more mature. Cause you knew that the moment would not last, you would worry that someone would mess things up, but no one went overboard, none of the scotts pushed things too far…The moment seemed to have existed only in the last half of the last class of the whole year, but you still remember it…how people that you knew were able to act different and therefore be different, not just get older or smarter or more like something, just a better version of themselves. You knew it wouldn’t last, but tell me that you didn’t really feel that maybe things could be better…

That’s it!….have fun………(clark …I know you will be taking extra classes this summer)…(scott we will see you…summer school…remember? class trip? the judge was quite explicit…summer school…no, don’t know what he meant by…”you have so much potential once you grow up and apply yourself”)…(roger…european backpacking?…sure we will hear from our little rogerian explorer, hey look at how sucessful David Byrne was once he smartened up and get rid of the dead weight)….