predicting human behavior | the Wakefield Doctrine

Mostly-Monday Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

July 5, 2022 By clarkscottroger

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

Quick post.

Damn! That comic strip used to get us so mad as a burgeoning adolescent, or would that more properly be, a ‘bludgeoning semi-adult’? No, we stand by our reaction, even allowing for our less-than-developed personality.

Wait a minute! Did we just say ‘less-than-developed’? lol We did!

Sorry, it’s funny ’cause it’s so not true. You know the expression, ‘…has an old soul’? That comes from people observing young clarks without the benefit of a certain personality system. (ok, one hint: it rhymes with ‘the Wakefield Doctrine’)

Why would someone make that adjudication?* The Doctrine is simple when it comes to how personality develops. It, (the Doctrine, not the personality), insists that personality develops as the person(ette) encounters the world and develops strategies and coping mechanisms. ‘Cept with the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers, we maintain that it is the character of the individual’s relationship with the world that holds the key to how they figure the best way to live. There are three possibilities: as an Outsider, as a Predator and as a Member of the Herd.

rogers fit right in, they manifest as the norm for the group, scotts are miniaturized ‘uncles and aunts our parents don’t talk about all that much, except for during exceptional arguments centered on family or from cousins who visit only in the summer (and leave precipitously and earlier than anyone thought)’. clarks: … you wanna know the biggest fear, the fundamental ‘don’t-let-that-happen’, the ultimate scary story/fairy tale?

scrutiny¹

No clark seeks out, enjoys or willingly submits to scrutiny. (While scotts welcome the challenge, because, you know, that ranking of the pack thing they do and, besides they loves themselves a good fight and rogers, hell it’s like hearing they’re a shoe-in for Homecoming Queen/King? Whatever)

gone too far… any questions, that’s why god invented a Comments box. More, another day, about old souls… wait, chances are if you’re still reading, you’re a clark or, at very least (and nothing to be ashamed of) a scott or a roger with a significant secondary clarklike aspect. And you’ll know what we mean.

From July 2010

Monday.
Get the hell up.
You know of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) and you will recognise at least one roger or one scott in your world today.
You will not approach this individual or otherwise make them aware of your knowledge that they are just like we talk about here.
You will do your best to maintain your composure, unless you are reading this with a friend and/or friends, in which case, listen to the clark among you.
When you spot your first roger, it will most likely be in an ‘organised environment’, ie.e school or work or any other place that you are compelled to follow certain guidelines as to your own activity.
Make a note of your first sighting (being extra careful if you are spotting a scott, do not, under any circumstance allow the scott to see you taking notes.)
If you are a roger (yeah, right!) do not allow other herd members to observe you doing anything that is out of the ordinary.
Clarks…you will have no trouble…unless you start to think that this Wakefield Doctrine will win the love of the herd or the backing of the scott.
When you have spotted the first, the rest will be easy.
Expect to make mistakes initially deciding if a person is a scott or (an aggressive) roger.
Don’t be concerned, it happens to the best of us at the beginning.
You will notice, rather quickly, that rogers are using the personal pronoun way, way, way more than the scott…
You will (then) notice that the scott has the attention span of a 3 month old puppy on amphetamines

Everyone ready? Good. We know you can do this thing. If you have any questions or concerns you can always write a Comment (yeah, fer sure lol)

We here at the Doctrine will be standing by, both Progenitors and DownSprings to help where we can, but knowing about the Wakefield Doctrine (and seeing the world accordingly) thing is a lot like…riding a bike?…nah a bike is inanimate and while fun will not turn on you if you stray from the herd…or totally prey on you until something more attractive comes along, …like learning to play an instrument?…no way! playing an instrument has a set technique and therefore is totally predictable so that if you hit certain keys on a keyboard you will always get a certain sound/tone….like sex?….maybe…it sort of has the always the same almost always enjoyable and worthwhile, except when it is not and then the results are to be regretted for a life time…yeah sort of like that.
But all of us here, at Doctrine central, admire you as you got out into the world today, armed with a knowledge and a power that is shared by 10s and 10s of people here and there around the globe. Now you know how Noah must of felt…you gotta get out in the world and do something that you will be glad you did, but you better not let the neighbors get too close a look at your backyard…or something like that.

New Readers? No rush, no hurry. The above is directed towards Readers who have been here a while, for now you should just enjoy the videos, spend some time in the Pages (Table of Contents) or browse through some old Posts (Archive Read ’em and Sleep)…you will get the hang of this Doctrine thing pretty quick we betcha.

Hey a big shoutout yo to Renasainces Rauneasce Renoven Ronin…one of the first Friends of the Doctrine. He stopped by and said hey last night (see Post, “don’t you people ever go to bed”). He will hopefully be sporting some fine Doctrine apparel and we hope to see a photo of his hat (for his damn head) in front of a landmark from his part of the country. Ronin has taken it to the next level (for many blog writers) and has written a book. ‘Hats off”(our damn heads) go to his site and read a spell. That being: The Life and Times of a Renaissance Ronin kutgw, dude.

So, busy week coming up. New issue of the Good…the Bad…Decide Right Now!! The topic will be Animal Shows so get watchin and start votin…not yet

So, get out there and spot them clarks, scotts and rogers. RUUn Readers!….Ruun!!

* ok. a near-miss at coming up with a rogerian expression… not bad, though, right?

Scrutiny (French: scrutin; Late Latin: scrutinium; from scrutari, meaning “those who search through piles of rubbish in the hope of finding something of value” and originally from the Latin “scruta,” meaning “broken things, rags, or rubbish.”) is a careful examination or inquiry (often implying the search for a likely mistake or failure). In Roman times, the “scrutari” of cities and towns were those who laboriously searched for valuables amidst the waste and cast-offs of others. The modern English “scrutiny” is derived from this root, indicating a careful examination or inquiry (often implying the search for a hidden mistake, misstatement, or incongruity). (From our friends at Wikipedia)

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

June 28, 2022 By clarkscottroger

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

Lets go try and find a reprint on the Doctrine and fairy tales, shall we?

ok.

kinda.

(In the context of the common misperception of clarks as the one (of the three) with the smallest-by-social-standing ego weight*, we’ll contribute something original. Well, as original as Heraclitus** might offer us cover for it being ….kinda original.)

Full Disclosure: Part of us feel it is shirking our responsibility to simply post what has been written, even with the understanding that old posts are new posts to New Readers. But, since we’re not against restating some of the more original insights and observations let’s run out a couple of the old favorites.

clarks abhor being the center of attention, but will not tolerate being ignored

a scott, alone in a room, isn’t

clarks are crazy, scotts are stupid and rogers are dumb

Reprint From April 2013

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

Melanie and Janine and them wrote a Comment saying how much they enjoyed our little look at the Fairy Tale ‘Hansel and Gretel’ and went on to say how they were looking forward to today’s Post as we continued our analysis of these cultural icons vis-a-vis the Wakefield Doctrine. Being a clark and all, I am certainly not one to ignore a request, even if I did have a perfectly good ‘re-print Post’ all set to go for today. It was a Post from the first full year of the blog, replete to references to the foreign exchange students at Millard Fillmore High and there might even be a mention of our favorite valedictorian, and all-around cool co-ed, Janie Sullivan. It (this Post that was to have run today), even had something resembling a survey meant to determine personality types. The writing is a little rough, but it was fun to read. (Have I indulged in being rogerian enough in my un-gracious acquiescence to Melanie’s and Janine’s request yet?) No? Well how about this: for a personality type that is hardly ever accused of wearing our hearts on our sleeves, clarks place the feelings of others way, way before their own. Even if the other person does not explicitly state that their feelings or emotional state are at risk, clarks will invariably think, ‘it would be awful if their feelings were hurt’ or thoughts to that effect. Simple empathy? …or the hint of something deeper, something more inextricably tied to the worldview of the Outsider? Well, think about it… but first a little Fairy tale Doctrine-style!

Jack and the Beanstalk: (that’s right!, this is a movie now), I guess I don’t have to expound on the role of Fairy Tales as indoctrination for the totally impressionable members of society. Well, yes I do. Ask yourselfs ‘who, of all the potential audience for these tales of violence, greed, subservience and rogerian membership is the one group (demographic, if you will) who has zero choice in being exposed to the sick, sick message that most of these tales are disguising?
Give up? The most impressionable! the ages: (negative) six months (‘Look honey! I bought the complete Grimms Fairy Tale on dvd, so after the baby arrives, you can just hit ‘Play‘) to 18 months (“…leave the dvd running with the volume real low… it will lull her to sleep, it’s been such a long time, sure! leave the door open, we’ll only be a room away) to 2 years ( “would you read to the baby? I so have to get back to the gym just take whatever you are reading and sit with her, put the dvd on and you can read your book and he will think you are reading to him…“) to 3 years (“…no dear, there is no such thing as a troll under the bridge, no matter what the big kids are saying“).

The victims are always the defenseless children. So, back to Jack and the Beanstalk. That is certainly an uplifting tale of triumph over adversity, beyond criticism or reproach, non?

(as always from Wikipedia*)

Jack is a young lad living with his widowed mother. Their only means of income is a cow. When this cow stops giving milk one morning, Jack is sent to the market to sell it. (“Carlos Castaneda wrote a series of books about learning about right living, in one of these books, he relates how a brujo offers a young man 2 gourds in exchange for help carrying them to market. The young man agrees and when the task is complete accepts his reward and takes the gourds and opens them. He sees only food and water, and, expecting gold or other tangible rewards smashes both gourds on the ground and walks away. Am I the only one to see the short-sightedness in Jack and his mom’s instant reaction to the change in the cow?”) On the way to the market he meets an old man who offers to give him “magic” beans in exchange for the cow. (Chase Bank is currently advertising a wonderful new feature of their credit cards…direct deposit of paychecks. That’s correct, you can have the ease and convenience of having your earnings be transferred from your employer to Chase, as the radio ad holds, ‘leaving you time for the important things in life’)

Jack takes the beans but when he arrives home without money, his mother becomes furious and throws the beans out the window and sends Jack to bed without supper. (“…what a bitch! you sure she isn’t really Jill and this is a way messed up couple and she has, like family issues and maybe a substance abuse thing going? rational response to a disappointment, Mom!”)

As Jack sleeps, the beans grow into a gigantic beanstalk ( lmao…not even going to go near this one… hey! Janine! …you got any Reader overview on this? ). Jack climbs the beanstalk and arrives in a land high up in the sky where he follows a road to a house, which is the home of a giant. He enters the house and asks the giant’s wife for food. She gives him food, but the giant returns and senses that a human is nearby:

Fee-fi-fo-fum!

I smell the blood of an Englishman,

Be he alive, or be he dead,

I’ll have his bones to grind my bread.

However, Jack is hidden by the giant’s wife and overhears the giant counting his money. Jack steals a bag of gold coins as he makes his escape down the beanstalk. ( As well he should! He was a guest in the couple’s house, given food and shelter…of course he would steal from his hosts)

Jack repeats his journey up the beanstalk two more times, (!!!) each time he is helped by the increasingly suspicious wife of the giant and narrowly escapes with one of the giant’s treasures. The second time, he steals a hen that lays golden eggs and the third time a magical harp that plays by itself. This time, he is almost caught by the giant who follows him down the beanstalk. Jack calls his mother for an axe and chops the beanstalk down, killing the giant. The end of the story has Jack and his mother living happily ever after with their new riches (Happily) (ever) (After) ( magic beans = 1 cow, giant beanstalk = hyperactive hormones, opportunity to steal = the hospitality of non-larcenous childless couple, live happily ever after =Priceless)

… forget the analysis, if there was a full-grown blue-fin tuna in my 3′ above ground pool and you handed me a fully loaded shotgun… it would be less obvious than the message of greed and avarice and violence and self-gratification at any and all costs than this child’s tale. I mean, really. lol luckily, we have the Wakefield Doctrineto make sense of it all!

Oh yeah… who’s who? Jack is a roger, his mom is a scott the giant is a roger and the giant’s wife is a clark

…now go to sleep, tomorrow is almost here

* not a ‘real’ term or concept in mainstream/popular psych, not even those fine folks at Oscar Meyer Pick-a-Number, Any-Number School of Personality

** one of our favorite old, dead guy quotes: “No ~~man~~ person ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and ~~he’s~~ they’re not the same ~~man~~ person.”

ed. You know, we’ve never had a problem with Readers getting all escited about stuff in these post, getting worked up to the point of writing aggressive and critical comments. Too bad, in a sense, as that takes a much larger readership than we’ve had to date.

Yes,I did edit a timeless quote. And it set off a discussion in our head about…. “Wait a minute! You can’t do that. And, besides, its a fricken pronoun. And… and! that’s the cultural context the guy wrote it in. You think you’re doing something special? Making a statement? When you write your own timeless truth, then you can use whatever fricken pronouns you choose to… but if you want to use a quote, you should leave yourself out of it.”

…as you can see, the argument did not sway me.

Why? (Permit us a way-typical style of answering), we choose to replace the gender-specific pronoun with a …whatever pronoun for one reason:

Dagwood Bumpstead
Andy Capp
Jackie Gleason and Frankie Fontanie

We plane to refrain from googling the above ‘reasons’ for now. Hopefully they, (the search returns), provide enough information for you Readers to get a sense of ‘why’.

Let us know in comments and, what the hell, if we continue on in this: ‘Dude! Lighten up, it’s a blog and a quote, chill. Have fun. We know the Doctrine is meant for fun, even if it’s explicitly stated to be gender, age and culture neutral.’

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: predicting human behavior, psychology of personality, self-improvement, the Wakefield Doctrine, three personality types

RePrint Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

June 20, 2022 By clarkscottroger

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

Lets keep it simple this Monday. A brief intro/exegeis*

Glad you mentioned it. One of those Doctrine descriptions: a clark abhors being the center of attention but will not tolerate being ignored.

From June 20 2010

…(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 doand 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).

* no, you’RE absolutely correct, we can’t resist using a cool word whenever possible. And, to the roger out there: as a matter of fact, we did look it up. We spend a lot of time with dictionaries and other reference sources, that’s have the fun (lol**)

** back in the days of today’s Reprint, we became aware of a certain skill-deficiency when it came to the writing. Being a clark (note: a clark possessed by an interestingly intense, pervasive, and good-thing-this-obsession-wasn’t-like-for-chocolate-or-jogging, drive to bring the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine to as many people as possible… anyway, one of the things we got a kick out of was making up words. (To our credit, they were in such a context that the Reader would figure out what we meant. To their credit, they laughed with good-natured enjoyment). Where were we? Back up to the initial asteroid.

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

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘The devil, you say?/ The devil, you say’

June 7, 2022 By clarkscottroger

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

Speaking of the the Everything Rule… (well, we were yesterday).

So here are three movie actors playing the role of Satan/the Devil/Lucifer

Can you see how the predominant worldview of the actors results in a different depiction of this rather culturally-durable figure?

Anticipatory Response: the Everything Rule states: “Everyone does everything, at one time or another.” In terms of the perspective(s) of the Wakefield Doctrine it simply means, there is no such ‘thing’ as something that is of the exclusive domain of a clark (or) a scott (or) a roger. We all exist in what is safest to refer to as a common reality*. “That is something only a scott would do.” “Acting like that is so rogerian, too bad I’m a clark, I’d love to be that self-absorbent.”

To account for what is often very different ways, (among the three predominant worldviews), we employ the ‘manifest’. “Hey! I need a finish carpenter, do you know any rogers in that part of the business.” “The award to the top real estate agent in the office, this year is a tie! It goes to rogerian male and scottian female!”

‘Yeah, but, you’re talking about actors playing parts. They are working from a script, thats not the real person being the devil. Blame the writer.’

We’ll let the New Readers find their way to reconciling the person and the role, at their own pace. The journey is the trip.

But! Lookee here! The role of the devil as (manifested) ‘delivered’ by a clarklike, scottian and rogerian actor.

We’ll let you sort ’em out.

Predominant worldview 1 (Robert DeNiro as Lucifer)

Predominant worldview 2 (Al Pacino as Satan)

Predominant worldview 3 (Gabriel Burns as the Devil)

* while predicated on the concept of personal reality, and much as we’d like to see it, just because our reality is personal to us versus your’s to you, sorry, no secret ability to fly or be invisible or be emotion-proof.

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: personality types, predicting human behavior, relationships, the Wakefield Doctrine, Understanding Human Behavior

RePrint Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

May 9, 2022 By clarkscottroger

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

Full Disclosure: When we find ourselfs, unceremoniously dumped at the foot of the on-ramp to Highway Workweek, we assume we’re in no condition to get a ride. So, many Mondays (as Glen used to say, “Hey!! Many Mondays!! What a great name for a rock group!“) we go in search of a post to reprint. One good reason: 1) takes the pressure off to be clever at the start of the week, b) usually, the act of cutin’ and pastin’ generates a new insight into this here personality theory here.

In any event here, from 2014:

…sorta, but this one is making an effort to blend in, pass as a ‘real person’

At the heart of the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers is personal reality(aka worldview), as in: the reality of the Outsider (clarks), the life of the Predator (scotts) and the world of the Herd Member (rogers). It’s cool that, while this idea is somewhat more exotic a notion than say, ‘measure twice / cut once’ or ‘a stitch in time / saves nine’ or even, ‘easy come / easy go’, I haven’t heard any objection from Readers on this personal reality thing being too weird. Having said that, I have been remiss, of late, in not emphasizing how ‘real this reality is’ (for the individual). I will say here that a great deal of the benefit derived from using the Doctrine to help navigate through everyday life, is a direct result of knowing that ‘the other person’ may very well be looking out on a world, while very similar to the one I’m experiencing, is not, necessarily exactly the same as mine. Why is this so important? Because it allows us to accept the behavior and motivations, impulses and actions of the people in our lives, at times when we would otherwise, be scratching our heads and saying, “Why on earth would they go and say a thing like that?”

Most of us compare/judge/assess/evaluate and otherwise try to make sense of the behavior of the people around us, on the basis of our own standards and understanding of the world, reality. This is quite natural. After all, we’re all living in the same reality, right? So, in any of life’s never ending supply of situations/interactions/conflicts/opportunity(s) that calls for a deliberate response, everyone else should chose the same course of action right? sure all the time… just yesterday, I was standing in line at the supermarket checkout (3rd back from the Cashier who had the Dr. Who teeshirt on under one of those bib-vest/things that the produce managers used to wear with like one of those Dyno markers in a holster, (this girl didn’t have one of those, but she did have a phone with ‘Metallica’ embossed on it), and she also had a streak of green color in her hair and lots of what looked like magic marker for eye shadow, making her look a lot like Lizbeth in the movie, ‘The Girl with The Dragon Tattoo’ (the original version with Noomi Rapace, of course)).. anyway, as I was standing there I see some woman walk up and cut in line, which is totally ….not a nice thing to do. Of course, most people, at least those not familiar with the Wakefield Doctrine, would be inclined to think, “how rude! who would do such a thing”. Those (of us) having the Doctrine as a tool, we’re, all like, ‘awright! cutting in line! roger or a scott or even a clark?‘ …as result, we are not bound up in an mental internal conflict of understanding how a person could be so rude/can’t they see that everyone is waiting in line politely/don’t they know the rules?!….

The goal of today’s Post is to remind us all that:

if the cutter-in-line is a scott, then what he/she sees as she/he approaches the checkout area is: a portal to the freedom of the parking lot, like the savannah in early evening full of passion, promise and opportunity, and lying between her/him are hyenas, wildebeests and maybe (it’s a little hard to tell from this distance) the leader of another pride that…. but there is the promise of the parking lot…. time to pounce/attack/charge!

if the cutter-in-line is a roger, then what she sees as she/he approaches the checkout area is: a properly ordered row of humans, being assessed (of the) value of their food choices, but! there is some disorder…the second person from the back, seems to be not paying attention to anything… looking around and joking and…totally insulting, lagging behind in the forward (orderly) movement of the line! that is an affront, an insult and they clearly need to be shown the proper etiquette of line sex (i.e. the ‘intercourse’ of the super market, step an extra step closer to the person in line, reach past them to get the divider for the groceries…. (if signals are positive) touching the person’s food items, ‘are these your pears? they look delicious’ …)

if the cutter-in-line is a clark, then what he sees is the parking lot beyond the glass and an increasing need to find a bathroom/what she sees is the parking lot beyond the glass and an urgency to get home for a few quiet moments…putting away groceries, luxuriating in the sense of home… before the ‘better half’ gets home and decides: a) to point out what the produce reminds him of and putting those away can wait…a couple of minutes, anyway or 2) ask why she picked ‘that brand’ wasn’t’ she aware of the latest Consumer Reports and, anyway, why are the tomatoes stacked on top of the onions

Congratulations! You have totally made it through the First Post of Neutronium Week at the Wakefield Doctrine… I totally am looking forward to your Comments and Remarks and such

1) “…to refer to extremely dense substances resembling the neutron-degenerate matter theorized to exist in the cores of neutron stars;” (wikipedia and them) which, of course, is our clever reference to the light and graceful writing style often encountered in these pages