the Wakefield Doctrine

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

As often happens, topics (and themes (and new(ish) fun ways to describe the Doctrine) are often found in Comments from Readers.

This Monday is no exception.

Friend of the Doctrine, Mimi, in her Comment on our last Doctrine post*. Wrote:

If it’s worth doing, it’s worth doing. Even if you don’t do it too well at first.

To which we responded:

… about aggression, in general and a Doctrine insight, in particular: it helps to remember that scotts fight (overt aggression)  for ranking and, for the most part is not personal.*

True Doctrine story. I once asked my late friend, Bernadine (photo at top of post), a scott (with a strong secondary clarklike aspect), I asked,  “So, when you engage with other scotts to establish ranking, how do you feel when you are not alpha?”

She laughed her remarkably enjoyable laugh and said, “You knucklehead, (or words to that effect, nothing but affection in her tone), I don’t feel bad, if that’s what you’re asking. Why would I? Ranking is about relationships, it’s about where I am in the pack. It has nothing to do with my value as an individual. That value is established. I’m in a pack. All scotts need to establish ranking in a social situation to, you know, separate the other predators from the… buffet table, (subsequent laughter). Ranking has nothing to do with value of the individual pack members.”

Second topic(ette) this Monday is drawn from a discussion on the topic of resentment, in the middle of the call-in this Saturday past. A statement was made, “When it comes to resentments and holding them, no one (none of the three) do it as well as rogers.”

Very fun insight was inspired, no surprise, by remembering ‘the Everything Rule’.

While it was without contention that rogers, being constituents of a reality of emotion, certainly have a high-profile when it comes to having (and maintaining) a resentment, the key is to ask, “OK, high volume, great intensity and way, high fidelity in the expression of a “We hate ‘cha”.

It was then suggested that one of the reasons rogers are the masters of holding resentment was due to the quality of longevity, (of said negative regard for a person. place or thing). They do that stuff forever.

And the aforementioned ‘Everything Rule’ did a total cartoon lightbulb over our collective heads.

Given that everyone does everything at one time or another, how does this half-life of negative emotional manifest in the personal realities of  ‘the other two?”

cha …ching!

rogers being Herd Members exist in a reality (personal as opposed to common) of emotion, feelings. the fabric of this reality is totally non-rational. Being non-rational, the world rogers exist is, essentially, non-chronologic. Time is not linear. Time is a bag of groceries packed by a first-day-on-the-job kid at the supermarket. Without the traditional, then-now-soon ordering of time, a stubbed toe at three am this morning is indistinguishable from the stabbing pain of being dumped in the final of final exams in one’s Sophomore year.

To an objective observer. the latter would be impressive, as most of us in the common reality, associate longevity with inherent value.

We concluded our debate with the suggestion that clarks are the resentment-masters-of-the-world, because when they get aholt of a delicious ‘ow!/wait!/what?’ resentment, well, lets just say, “No! Not a problem, we have the perfect spot, right next to the end table, no! that one with the magazines and coasters. It fits the decor like it’s always been there.’

or something

thanks Mimi and Denise and roger… fun post today

* ikr? what now? lol