relationships | the Wakefield Doctrine

Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘no, it has nothing to do with marriage or welding or, even ED… it’s Hump Day!’

March 4, 2015 By clarkscottroger

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

Don’t you hate the term ‘hump day’? Wait! don’t answer! We already know what you’re going to say, or, to be more precise, we know how you will answer this question. We know this, by virtue of knowing, ‘how you relate yourself to the world around you’ i.e. if you are of the personality type of ‘the Outsider, the Predator or the Herd Member, aka:

clarks will agree (inside their heads), will make the effort to be more aware of their surroundings¹ and, if they have not projected a clear distinct answer to our question (yeah, as if) they will do that totally characteristic, clarklike ‘smile’ (you know, lips pressed together…the corners with a slightly up-turned directions… eyes looking sideways, hoping to detect a corresponding smile from another)
scotts will spot the word ‘hump’ from a grammatical mile away and depending on a number of factors, ( a) how bored they are, b) when the last time they had a chance to exercise² c) if they had something else to do. You know, like a couple of rogers walk into the room and pretend to be having a private conversation…in the middle of the fricken cafeteria/waiting room
rogers will disagree and wonder why anyone would have a problem with such an innocuous and fun expression like ‘hump day’…

so, here’s an interesting post from, like 2012 asking Readers about when they realized that they were what they were… what jumps right out here is that everyone is a clark. (This actually is not a surprise, the Doctrine predicted that the first of the participating Readers would most likely be clarks… it is a compliment and acknowledgement to the scotts and rogers we hear from now that they are able to over-come the…. challenging organization of the information in this blog, learn the Doctrine and have fun with it. Thanks, guys.

One thing has always been true, here at the Wakefield Doctrine.
It has consistently been true that our Readers are people of exceptional qualities. We have used the term, flexible intelligence and we frequently use the term FOTD* and most often we will simply refer to ‘the Readers’. Whether you Comment or not, ask for a hat (for your damn head) or not, or even send us a photo or not (Jasmine…the weather is nice now…send us your photo), this blog has grown because of the influence/input/suggestions and criticisms of you, the Reader.

(For the group) the First Question is:

“Of all the jobs you have had in your life, which was the one that you were awful at…because of your predominant personality type?”

Downspring#1: I think I have to go back to the food waitress thing. Not feeling very confident and a little more self-conscious than usual. It was awful.   At the time, I needed a job and I really wanted to try waitressing (I had a scottian female friend who made good money), which is why I showed up the first day even though I should have stayed in bed. The other thing I remember is not getting a comfortable “vibe” from the place or the people. As a clark, if I can “connect” (but not with another clark – history points to a scott) with one or two people at least, then initially there is a feeling of “alright, I guess I can try this out”. It did not take me more than one day to decide….”I’m outta here!”

Molly: The job that makes me cringe, when I think back to it, was working in a Dry Cleaner as a tailor. Tailor was the job description, but 90% of the work amounted to mending. I was good at the actual job and the favorite amongst the customers… but I didn’t get the work environment. All the bitching, moaning and backstabbing were beyond me. My co-workers complaining about their miserable lives also confused me… especially since most of them had been in their perspective situations for years.  Good God — Do.Something.Already!   As soon as we could, we moved from the area.

clark: possibly my first, (maybe second) real job was pumping gas at a gas station, this was the 1960′s when gas stations were both gas and auto repair/service. My job was to get out to the gas pumps as soon as the customers drove in and ask what I could do for them and be friendly…and outgoing… I think I lasted 2 weeks part-time after school and weekends. The reason that the owner of the station gave was that I didn’t seem to have any enthusiasm (an employer refrain that I would become all too familiar with)…apparently I was not a sufficiently eager beaver. lol

Clairepeek: Just like Downspring#1, I have to say that my first and only job in London as a semi-gourmet French restaurant waitress was pretty awful. I was hiding behind the bar, doing the dishes and hoping nobody would notice me; of course at the time, this was an opportunity well provided by my employer, who thought that my English was not good enough to be anywhere near the customers. As an outcast waitress, I had to go up in the street, in the evening, and entice customers to come and eat at that place. I was dressed with a mini black skirt, a white shirt and black flat shoes. It was September and already freezing outside, but I was not allowed a coat. For two weeks I said nothing, until a new waiter came in who did not want to take this “crap”. He urged me not to take it either and we both quit one week later. As a “facilitator”, I have always despised conflict – whatever its form – so I needed the push of someone else to put my foot down in order to “facilitate” my own sanity and therefore well-being.

Phyllis: Chairside assisting for my Dad, a dentist, before I had a rogerian expression. My expression was definitely not assisting. Too much blood and spit and I never learned the names of the instruments. Dad ended up having me do the bookkeeping – more up my alley.

(zoe) Ivy: Waitress in a greasyspoon diner ( the other waitresses were literally named Blanch and Lil…everything you think of with diner.. It was just like Mel’s on TV but with more drunks.)

Christine: Never had a job I was awful at.

Lisa: I was never not good at a job. I did, however, hate one quite a bit because I was embarrassed to have to take it. The stupidity of youth.

(For the group) the Second Question is:

“When you look back at your childhood, with an understanding of the Wakefield Doctrine, when do you think you see the earliest, clearest example of being the type that you are?”

Molly: When I was three, my parents moved from Montana to the family farm. My grandparents were moving out of the house as we were moving into it… but I didn’t understand what was going on. I didn’t realize we had moved and that this was now my home. For years, I felt that the only place I could call my own was my bed. I lived as a guest in the home for three or four years, until I finally understood that we were not going back to Montana.

clark: when I was about 5 or 6 years I entered the ‘age phase’ when my contemporaries ‘discovered’ tickling…everyone would go around and get the weaker ones on the ground and ~~torment~~ tickle the person until they cried or got mad. One day I thought, “I need to not be ticklish anymore, then they won’t have me at their advantage (or words appropriate to a 5 year old clark*)” and I proceeded to make myself not be ticklish…on a physical level, not repress the reaction, not be able to hold out…just plain no more tickle reflex.

Downspring#1: this is proving a more difficult task than I thought. So, with the caveat that I may come back in and delete this, here goes. I cannot recall exact age, just that I was either first or second grade (6-8 range). There was a Navy family that lived across the street (their name is on the tip of my tongue!). My memory tells me there were about 4 kids in the family. They were somewhat of a “wild” family but I was friendly with them. The time of year is unclear but I remember getting into it with one of the older kids about the existence of Santa Claus. I did not back down even at his obnoxious insistence that he (Santa) did not, nor did he ever exist. The confrontation ended with me storming off to consult my Dad about this. I may or may not have told the kid I’d be back with my Dad to set the story straight. Or something like that. lol

Clairepeek: I have to say that I was not premature in starting showing my clark-like personality… I was probably around the teenage phase when it happened; the day I heard my teacher tell me that I should stop writing because I had no talent, no creativity and absolutely not the mind to become a writer. That day, although I first followed her advice and for a long time after that, on that day I knew I did not belong to the crowd; I knew I would swim against the current all my life and be quite solitary to the external eye, but my head was full of my own world already.

Phyllis: I guess it was when I started defining “my boxes”. I started trying to live within my means at the age 11. I did not want to be dependent on anyone. I started making log cabins (just in case my parents disappeared). I tried to be aware of all the purchases made on my behalf and be as minimalist as possible. I often wore hand-me-downs from my sister who was much shorter than I, even though my parents could afford new clothes.

z/Ivy: three… nuff said

Christine: Kindergarten

Lisa: Someone told me I was bad at math, so I believed them.(For the group) the Third Question is:

“(We know that we all have the capabilities of all three personality types, but only one is predominant) if you could switch with one of the other two, which would it be?”

clark: I would go with becoming a roger. Mostly because, as a clark I know there is a place, way deep inside where I keep a reserve of…aggressiveness, directness, which ever of the words that describe the scottian characteristics and I know that, under duress I can get to those qualities and bring them to the surface…for a specific purpose, usually a situation of extreme threat or duress. I cannot do that with the characteristics of my rogerian aspects…and when I come close to doing that, the ‘after effects’…how it feels after a moment of rogerian behavior is decidedly unpleasant. So, to step into the world of the roger (that capacity I know that I have) and act and feel and live as a roger would be interesting and then I could not constantly question everything… them rogers is so damn certain… lol

Clairepeek: Well, to follow in your footsteps Clark, I guess I would then chose to become a scott because it is the personality out of the three that I cannot summon at will. I’d love to see what happens when I finally get to act with such confidence that I become at last the boss of my own company. It would be interesting to see how, without any hesitation, I introduce myself to others without feeling my blood rushing to my ears and feeling my entire body screaming it wants to be elsewhere… ^_^.

Downspring#1: I’m with Clairepeek on this one. I also would choose to become a scott. As a clarklike female, well as a female, it seems there is at the least, a fundamental ability (culturally stimulated) to be “social”. I have found it easier to develop my rogerian characteristic due in part to my having worked in retail environments during part of my professional career. Claire has hit the nail on the head. My scottian characteristics are such that I cannot easily “summon them at will.” It seems that only under situations of duress or if I am too tired to care (and therefore not overly self-conscious) am I able to express/summon my scottian characteristic(s). As a clark, I am not intimidated by the typical stuff – scary, screaming people, or traveling to new places…..but more like things such as being the focus of attention. Again, like Clairepeek talks about:) Hey! has anyone noticed that so far only we like people are participating in this thing? lol Yeah, well fuck them, right?!! (see, got my scott on)

Molly: At this moment in time, I am very content being a clark.
There is a line by Savatage that says, “The person I am are the parts that I play.” I think this pretty much sums up what it is to be a clark. We live in a world that is full of situations, and each one has different parameters… We simply find out what our role is and fill that part, without really acting.
In regards to homemaking and making/keeping order, I am working on developing my rogerian aspect, while keeping the attitudes out of my relationships… I don’t find the attitude appropriate for raising children, since it is too easy to take their behavior personally. When they misbehave, it becomes, “Haven’t I taught you better than that?!?” With an underlying attitude of, “How dare you embarrass me like this?”
Likewise, if my job is to meet people and make them feel welcome, I’m sure it is my scottian side that is on display.   Assign me the job of hostesses and I will greet every person and make them feel welcome… I am always amazed at how many people think of me as a friend, or someone they can confide in, after doing a job like that.

Phyllis: I am happy with being me – a female roger.

Mrs. Skip/zoe/Ivy: Scott. My roger is a pain in my ass.

Christine: Just like Phyllis, I am happy to be who I am. Can’t imagine changing to another worldview.

Lisa:  I like my clark. I’ve grown comfortable in this skin. But my roger is a strong contender in second place. I could let him in every once in a while.

Well this has been fun and enjoyable…

Until we figure out the how to display the names of the people who created this Post, we’ll just get all crayons and construction paper on it. So in alpha-botanical order:

Claire Perez Ekman                  DS#1                                  Molly                                   Phyllis

1) ever wonder why people seem ready to label (many) clarklike females as ‘ditsy’ or ‘stuck-up’ or clarklike guys as ‘arrogant’ or ‘lazy’? Because of the amount of time clarks spend inside their head. In fact, one of the ways of identifying clarks is to look for that faraway look in their eyes, the ‘inward regarding gaze’…. that’s not just an affectation, it’s a fact.

2) scotts need exercise… they are predators and predators need to stay in shape! It’s not just that they never know when the next stray antelope, un-intentionally separated from the herd. might wander by, scotts are predators…. it is in the nature of predators to be alert, on the guard for threats, ready for opportunity. Now, exercise of this type, (for a scott), is not limited to sports and running and chasing fleeing things (although, that is the preferred form)…. anything that involves another person and competition is exercise for the scottian man or woman. it can be playing games, card games are big among scotts…they loves scrabble and other games that 2) are mentally challenging and 2) allow the prey to be vanquished and totally dominated (in a nice, friendly sportsman/woman ly manner, of course!) So, if yo have a scott in your family and they get all irritable and snappy and such, walk up to them with a basketball (or scrabble board) and say, ‘hey! who wants to play?’…

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: personality types, psychology of personality, relationships, the Wakefield Doctrine

4th Day -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘lets talk …get them clarks up here for a moment’

February 26, 2015 By clarkscottroger

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

While the subtitle of today’s Post hints at a topic understandable only to odd-at-heart, there is much that can be useful to our scottian and rogerian Readers. Please, stay with us. While you may be a person living in the world of the predator (being a scott) or comfortably grounded in the reality of the Herd (as a roger, it’s tough to imagine a World without Rules, isn’t it?), you do have a secondary clarklike aspect. I say this with certainty, because I have gone out into the world and spoken of clarks, scotts and rogers to …well, to scotts and rogers who have only a predominant worldview (without any significant secondary aspect) and I’ve felt the stares and ‘that look’* The look from a person who knows they are dealing with an Outsider. So, if you’re a scott or a roger and you’re still reading, then you have a significant secondary clarklike aspect. So what? Well, you’re not the only person in your life are you? … oh, sorry roger, let me rephrase that… (lol just a little joke for Michelle and Kristi and Phyllis and the other rogers who not only enjoy our little Doctrine, but are invaluable to our efforts to know all three personal realities. The point is, there is always something of value when we manage to ‘see the world as the other person is experiencing it’.

….to our Post.

hey clarks. what’s worse about those days when you wake up and your creativity drive is somehow ‘on 11’? is it the fact that you have a ton of ideas that you know you don’t have time for or is it that foreboding feeling that something bad will be the end result? I mean, it’s not like we hate the feeling, but we always wonder why it only happens sometimes and, hardly ever, on purpose. The other thing (about clarks)… the worse it feels (inside) the funnier we can be (funnier being defined as making other people laugh… for whatever reason, the quick and clever asides and observations seem to be of a way higher energy level when we are heading towards that dark place… life can be frickin hilarious, no?)

Anyway, short post. non-clark Readers? this post should provide two things of value: a) an increased sense of the world of the Outsider (’cause, like we implied a little earlier, you’ve got some of that your-own-self and 2) parents? you clarklike children… they get like this too but, you probably already have a sense of that (by virtue of being a parent who has enough on the ball to be reading the Wakefield Doctrine) but… a tip: the eyes. Watch their eyes. It’s been said that, when you’ve studied the Doctrine long enough, you will be able to spot the clarks (and the scotts, for that matter) on the basis of a photograph of the person’s face…. and it’s true. You can. or could, if you want to… (bonus hint: the fear is the easy thing to spot (in the eyes of the clark)… the ‘distance’ is less easy. There’s something in the eyes of a clark, that if you look you can see that they are somewhere else… not necessarily all the time, but it’s quite clear that they do leave the world as you know it. (Kind of the opposite of the eyes of a scott, when you think about it!… with scotts, the totally distinctive characteristic is that they are totally there…. in the present …alert.)

Enough for now. This was supposed to be a short Post.

* clarks are quite familiar with ‘that look’…. hey, just because we’re invisible most of the time, doesn’t mean we’re blind

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

TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine- (this far from throwing the computer out the window!* grateful that I did not have to**)

February 21, 2015 By clarkscottroger

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

Hey! new(er) participants (and participettes), want to know another feature of the TToT bloghop that makes it the best of all bloghops? In certain contexts, it is perfectly acceptable to cite ‘Items of hypo-gratitude’ as part of your List of Ten Things of Thankful! no, really, it is! For instance, the continuation of the non-heat wave for the last couple of weeks here in southern New England… that is totally my first item:

1) Winter-like weather (although, as the photo above shows, sometimes when the setting is right and there is an automobile between you and the frozen waters, it can be pretty neat!)

2) Friends given to spontaneous acts of book-gifting. zoe (bpkai) sent us a book… just for the fun of it. It was received in kind.

***********************************

3) I’m grateful to have a friend like Lizzi (for reasons normal and reasons Doctrine). The former is quite obvious, when you see the effort she has expended in the things that she believes in and feels passionately about and, the latter, while possibly less obvious, is even more significant to me (i. e. the change over that last three years is testimony to possibility of self-improving oneself … while still being a clark!)

4) Speaking of clarks… Cynthia (another clark I’ve had the massive good fortune of coming to know)…. she is proving, in a way that is both totally unlike and exactly the same as Lizzi, that a person, possessed of strong desire, solid humility and faith in her/him self can accomplish things that are way, way beyond anything that might, at an earlier time be imagined. (and, did I mention she was a clark? lol)

5) Lets not forget (hey!! new(er) people…. get out your note pads) the amazing Book of Secret Rules (aka Secret Book of Rules). It’s easily the #2 Reason that the TToT would totally dominate at the Annual International Bloghop SmackDown… (well, it would if there were an Annual International Bloghop SmackDown and, now that I think of it, there surely must be some kind of competition putting bloghops into some kind of arena of death…. or at least a flaming cage-match for bloghops… think of the Tee shirts! hey, maybe I should get one made!

6) BoSR/SBoR (cont’d) …so, the proper use of the Book of Secret Rules is sort of like, when you were a kid and your mother insisted that you eat some food-group that you knew for certain was not to your liking, and how, if she had only offered an alternative… you might have taken her up on it (instead, if memory serves me well, of sitting at the dining room table until 4:30 the next morning, not eating the ‘peppers and something’ meal that was sitting coldly on the plate, hours after the normal members of your family had ceased to find this particular battle of Wills interesting and had gone to bed and minutes after your mother, still seated across the table, head resting on her arms, sound asleep. As a clarklike mother who, perhaps in an ill-advised attempt to engage in a battle of wills, insisting that the only way anyone would leave her dinning room table was with an empty plate of ‘peppers and some-frickin-thing’, (I forget, it’s been many years). You want to know how much a clark I was, even then, at age 7 or 8? as I sat there, watching my mother sleep (the 10 hours or so of sitting there waiting for me to give up and eat ‘the damn peppers and whatever’, I felt both embarrassed for myself (and sorry for my mother…. not that she had to sit up all night, but that she had not been successful in her bid to force me to eat those frickin peppers and…’ Me? a clark!? (though I still tend to underestimate my Reader’s understanding of the Wakefield Doctrine, I will tell you what you probably have already figured out, that my mother was also very much a clark).

7) I have a developing sense of appreciation of the writers and writing… it’s an interest that has come to me rather late in the game, but I now read, not only to enjoy the words and the story and all, but also to appreciate the magic of catchy phrases and good story-telling. I find examples in some odd places, for example, in the police reports section of the primary RI newspaper. Thursday, as I was eating my burnt toast lunch, I came across a story about some kind of holdup or robbery … most of the story was standard, ‘at approximately 9:31 am, according to witnesses, the convenience store was held up, clues led police to the home of the suspect….’ pretty standard Police blotter fare… but the last lines of the story made me stop and laugh (in admiration of a writers skill):

“…armed with a knife and walking through the snow.” (Providence Journal 02/19/15)

8) how cool a line is that to come upon (while eating burnt toast, while engaging in some aerobics for my eyes )

9) the Wakefield Doctrine well, because it pretty much is useful and fun, no matter what the situation or (desired) application. If you are out in your world today, I guarantee that (the proper use of) the Wakefield Doctrine will result in your day being more:

satisfying, because you want to know that you are doing your best/the best, for the people in your lives despite/because they are so important to you… seeing their behavior/your behavior through the perspective of our little personality theory will provide one more way of understanding, and, when you get down to basics, how can that not be worth the effort
fun!! no! really!! of course I’m saying that what we have here can provide you with fun and amusement and, no, when you get down to it, I don’t really know you or know what your life is like… except …. I kinda do (getting annoyed? go read the pages on rogers…. laughing? hi scott! intrigued, how this seems somehow familiar …keep reading clark!)
yes, and scary too… well, scary in a creepy sorta way remember how we say that the basic task of the Doctrine is to: ‘observe the other person, correctly infer how they are relating themselves to the world around them and, by doing this, see the world as they are experiencing it’? well, once you start doing that, you’ll find people acting just like the book says they will, and, (here’s the potentially scary part) they will not have ever come into contact with this here blog here…

10) 1.3 yo (BoSR/SBoR)

* see the list above? as I typed the last item the internet connection was lost… the computer insisted that it was saving everything, so I click off and went out and dumped the electrons out of my modem (pulling the plugs, holding it upside down for 10 seconds…shaking it on occasion…came back…connection was restored, went to the draft post… all I saw was a photo and ‘Item 2’… ayiiee got upset, though about throwing the computer on the ground and taking up building ships in bottles or baking soufflés for a hobby… then I remembered that I copied everything to the clipboard… whew!

** I had to throw it out the window (that I can appreciate that I did not, while wishing I had, represents one of the core paradoxeses of the clarklike personality type…

Your hosts

A Fly on our (Chicken Coop) Wall, Amycake and the Dude, Considerings, Finding Ninee, Getting Literal, I Want Backsies, The Meaning of Me, Rewritten, Thankful Me, The Wakefield Doctrine

Join the Ten Things of Thankful Facebook Group

An InLinkz Link-up

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: personality types, psychology of personality, relationships, self-development, self-improvement, the Wakefield Doctrine

-the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘of books and friends and dogs’

February 18, 2015 By clarkscottroger

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

(sure, we could do a ‘Caption this Photo’…. or, today being Wednesday, I believe there’s a ‘Wordless Wednesday’ ‘hop out there somewhere.. if the truth be known, I’m thinking, ‘damn! what a cool thing, I really need to preserve it for next weekend’s TToT!‘*)

One of the things I’ve come to appreciate about the internet (in general), and, the blogosphere, (in particular), is how I’ve made friends with people who act like new friends, as when we were young.
(Sure, I’ll explain that! You have friends in real life… people you’ve known for most of your lifetime. (Not counting moving or transfers or such), how many new friends have you made in the last…oh, I don’t know, lets say, the last 18 months? (remember, we’re not counting new jobs or new neighbors moving in next door). Not that many, right? and… and your friends in real life, they are an irreplaceable part of your real life… we know that, but! (and this is the challenging part²) remember back when they were ‘new’ friends…and, of course, you were all younger… the energy! the enthusiasm, the spontaneous gestures… “why, I just felt like sending you a book”) That’s what strikes me about the friends I have been fortunate to come to know here in the virtual world.

My friend zoe (tbnkaI)¹ sent us a book! ‘Dogs under Water’

* did I mention I was a clark? you would have been able to deduce that simply on the basis of my stated wish to preserve an experience for use at a later, future time… (why, yes, clarks live in the future, scotts the present and rogers the past’ very good! see your understanding of this remarkable personality….. thing, is quite advanced. and that, the relationship of a clark to time is a big part of how one might deduce that I’m a clark on the basis of my statement about preserving a good feeling… but, hey, listen, we really should be getting back to the Post up there… the rogers will be getting annoyed and the scotts… well, they were hungry when they arrived**

** yes, this is a metaphor-heavy theory of personality, thank you for mentioning it! That (the inextricable role and function of metaphor) is where the fun and the insight is, and so, when I said that the rogers were getting annoyed and the scotts were hungry, I meant it. I mean, really, who doesn’t know a scott who, for one reason or another is deprived of the chance to hunt… (hunting can be: chasing the prey, playing scrabble, going to the gym, busting balls at work, or any other activity that involves other people who are awake… ) the mood! Man, scotts get testy when they haven’t had enough ‘exercise’. And that’s an example of the power of metaphor here at the Wakefield Doctrine.***

*** why, of course, the same applies to rogers and clarks… well, rogers at any rate… but, for rogers it’s not a hunting thing, but it’s the same principle… if a roger is deprived of the opportunity to ‘exert’ themselves, appropriate to how they relate themselves to the world around them, then they can get quite…. annoyed.

1) t(he) b(logger) n(ow) k(nown) a(s) I(vy)

2) challenging you to imagine things… that’s what we do here at the Doctrine… invite you to see the world today one additional way.

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

Mandag -the Wakefield Doctrine- take 2 (thanks to zoe for spotting problem go to her site…now! (the Link is in this Post)

February 16, 2015 By clarkscottroger

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

Started the day with a bit of a quote remanent, ‘there is nothing new under the sun‘ hoping that that would limit that part of my brain that is endlessly creative with the things to worry about, but then I completed the quote* in my head and totally swapped it for some Shakespeare ‘there are more things in heaven and earth’ because, how much worse could that be?**

A Note to scottian and rogerian Readers: yes, that is what it’s like inside our head(s) when the day starts for clarks. And, not that it needs to be stated more clearly, consider this: when a clark wakes/stops worrying/inexplicably finds herself in a light hearted mood/discovers the very bad news is only mildly disquieting/accepts the invitation to be friends with a person/reaches the bottom of the emotional abyss in fact, everything/every-time except for when we discover that we’ve fallen in love/see love coming from another, un-prompted/totally surrender… a clark thinks ‘I’m here and the world is out there’.
thats the difference between a clark and a scott and a roger***

*** thanks go to zoe for catching and mentioning a problem that hopefully is fix… do me a favor? go to zoe/ivy’s site and thank her for me.***

(from a few years ago)

Yes, the Wakefield Doctrine does have a very practical value to all you Readers out there who are currently Students or may be Students or are planning to become Students!

In today’s Post we will present the Wakefield Doctrine in a form that will allow you to get the most from your experience in the classroom, no matter if it is a College-level course: Introduction to the Peloponnesian Wars or a High School ‘Health’ Class, the Wakefield Doctrine can help. Today. Right Now!

Let’s focus on the environment found in High School, simply because this is where the Doctrine will provide the most dramatic and immediate relief and or help for Readers of that age/milieu (big props for any of you who are in High School and are reading this here blog here.)

The Teachers:

clarks:

if they are clarklike females then they will be found teaching the elementary grades, if male then most likely college level teaching

in high school the teacher that betrays the ‘Code of Teachers’ and shows a side of themselves that makes it clear that they are ‘real people’

if watched closely, (the clarklike Teacher) will be caught laughing at the antics of the class clown ( the scott, of course) but still give him detention

scotts:

if a scottian male, then they are the shop teacher or gym teacher (Mother of God! what are the authorities thinking!!)

if a scottian female then the French Teacher… if not (attractive) …so the phys ed teacher

the scottian female Teacher, is also the mostly likely name to appear on the boy’s room wall (but who’s ‘honor’ will be vociferously defended) if anyone ( a roger ) makes a wisecrack about her

rogers:

if a rogerian male, then the science teacher, if female then the School Nurse

most of the History Department ( except for the clark they let in for distraction value)

Health class, Personal Hygiene Civics Class and/or head of the Cafeteria staff

The Students:

clarks:

the one who makes the ‘wisecrack’ that everyone laughs at in class but no one is sure who said it?

the girl that is admired by the Teachers and the Senior Classmen (and someone said she was going out with a college kid)

you will, if you watch quietly from the side, see clarks everywhere, but never by themselves (if they are by themselves, you won’t see them)

scotts:

you’re kidding, right? if we need to tell you how to spot the scotts in your high school, then you need to… go back to grade school! lol

the two guys who get into a fight, right in the middle of the cafeteria? (and are the best of friends after the fight is over)..scotts

the girl who is totally the center of almost everything…and if she happens to get straight As nobody seems to remember that fact?

rogers:

most of the population, easily 45 damn percent…rogers! they’re all over the frickin place

(most) of the members of every team or any sport or activity that requires the individual to totally depend on teammates or coaches

the head of every frickin club except the ones that no one joins (thats where you’ll find the ‘outgoing’ clarks)

Alright, time is up! Everyone put down your pencils but please remain in your seats until the rogers can collect your test booklets, do not try to leave until all the test booklets have been collected.

* from Ecclesiastes 1:9 “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” shit!

** Hamlet Act I. Scene V yeah, sure, great line that would totally appeal to a clark, but then he goes on to say:

‘As “Well, well, we know,” or “We could an if we would,”

Or “If we list to speak,” or “There be an if they might,”’

…have I said it already? shit!

*** no, if you have a sense of it or even sometime think that that’s the best way to approach it, then it’s your secondary aspect talking…. today we’re talking about the worldview itself, not us as individuals, ya know?

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: clarkscottroger, relationships, the Wakefield Doctrine