the Wakefield Doctrine (“Pulled out of San Pedro late one night, and the moon and the stars were shining bright…”)
The Opinions expressed in the ‘Interview’ portion of this Post are solely those of the participants, and may or may not reflect the beliefs, assumptions or precepts represented by the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers), its Progenitors or anyone else. This ‘Interview’ is presented for educational and informational purposes, and may not be reproduced in any medium without the express written permission of the Owners, Progenitors and/or Creators. The ‘Interview’ section of this Post is not meant to prevent or treat any diseases or conditions, side effects may include, dizziness, confusion, increased thoughts of suicide and sexual activity. If these conditions worsen or persist for more than 4 hours immediately consult a professional. Assumptions and conclusions are for comparison purposes, your conclusions and or assumptions may vary. Read carefully and follow the yellow brick wall, binyons.
(clark) “Glenn, how are you doing? I’ll be the one conducting this ‘interview’ for the purposes of illustrating certain aspects of the Wakefield Doctrine. And with me are Denise and AKH. Denise you know cause she is one of the group of Downsprings, AKH has been writing Comments and ‘what not’ and is way ‘up on the Doctrine.’ They may ask a few ‘follow-up questions, you don’t mind, do you?
(clark) How are you ‘today’?
(Glenn) I’m alright Little Buddy. How are you?
(clark) Lets start with music. What do you think about music? Take it/Leave it? Why…
(Glenn) Cannot live without music. Love Rock and Roll—Anything prior to 1967. Love good singer songwriters—John Prine, Fred Eaglesmith, Tom Russell. Love Big Sandy and his Fly-Rite Boys. Crazy about Los Straitjackets.
(clark) They say we can pick our friends but we can’t pick our family. (You have heard that saying right?) Trade 2 family members for 2 friends. Tell us why (both getting rid of and picking up option on…like baseball).
(Glenn) Trade away mother—Pick up a mother who really wants her children to be happy rather than one who dishes out guilt and victimhood. I would replace her with anyone else’s mother. Father—Trade him away for being a blank space and replace him with my deceased friend, Al, who was more of a father to me than most fathers are to most sons.
(clark) Let’s shift gears here (ha ha). You are on the road, car behind you starts the tailgate thing, when you don’t get out of their way they do the high beam thing, what do you do? (Same questions but this time you have your children and kids in the car.)
(Glenn) Slow way the fuck down and change lanes in front of them if they try to pass. Keep doing it until they back off. Ideal ending: They pull out to pass recklessly and ram a gas truck head on resulting in a giant fireball explosion killing both drivers and lots of nearby helpless villagers.
****(AKH) Hey wait! You didn’t answer the question if you had kids in your car! It’s one thing to risk your ‘life’ but what about your children? (And I don’t mean in the other car, that’s their problem but you have your children in the car…) So?
(Glenn) Didn’t see that additional part of the question. Same answer. I’ve done it. Probably not right to do it, but you can’t let some dipshit disrespect you on the highway, man. You gotta respond. Let the fucker know he picked the wrong guy to act like a fucking two year old with. But, no finger. That is a helpless, impotent gesture best left to the rogers. Just look away as you finally drive on. Like you never knew he was there. Infuriating. Flipping the bird lets him know he got to you and that you have no idea what to do about it. Slowing way down and changing lanes is ….I don’t know…ominous. You’re willing to get dangerous that way—so what else are you capable of?
****(Denise): Seriously? Wow. Hm.
(Glenn) Do my answers shock you, Denise?
(clark)The Wakefield Doctrine…what do you think about it? strengths? weaknesses? (Glenn)It is fun and useful. It helps me know myself better. It also help me understand why some people piss me off.
****(AKH) Hey, I get my dose of Wakefield Doctrine every day, you got to admit it is really something, don’t you? Seems like pretty weak praise from the ‘high energy scottian personality type’
(Glenn) Good point AKH. So, let me elaborate( or let me elongate as the rogers might say..). (parentheses for you Clark)—It IS fun. It is internally consistent and logical. It’s weakness? Any system that REDUCES the complexity of the world as this surely does—necessarily leaves out important data. It is something of a backwards telescope. But to simplify, you must eliminate—so it only makes sense that any such system would have this weakness. One of the things that appeals to me about the doctrine is that it is a SECRET way to understand people. Most people do not possess this perspective. It is like a hidden advantage.
****(Denise): But you didn’t answer the question completely. Everyone knows it’s fun and obviously it can be useful. Do you really care that now (w/the help of the WD) you can know why some people piss you off? Do you think it helps you be a better person?
(Glenn)It is not my goal to be a better person. What a fucking rogerian goal! I’m a pretty good person as I am. I’m not in a campaign to improve. It does make me a (slightly) more effective person. It also amuses me. Hence, it is fun. If I ever decide I want to be a “better person” (whatever that is), I’ll look elsewhere, not to the doctrine. In fact, the doctrine might be the last place to look. Because one of its weaknesses is it seems to let people off the hook. Nobody is an asshole anymore. “Oh that’s just how rogers are..” Or, “All scotts are pushy”, or “ don’t expect a lot of enthusiasm from her, She’s a clark”. The doctrine is morally neutral. That is both a strength and a limitation. But, it seems to me that it therefore cannot be used to “be a better person”—again whatever the fuck THAT is..
(clark) Last question: You can do anything you want tomorrow. A day without consequences. Still all of the same people and places, but you can do anything you want with that day. What do you do and why don’t you do it today?
(Glenn)I get sex from new partners. Lots of wild uninhibited crazy sex. Later, I jump on a plane and go to Key West just because I can. I won’t do it today because there are consequences. Job, marriage, finances, –all that Rogerian shit.
****(Denise): 🙂 You make me laugh! Ah, so you adhere to the constraints put on you by “all that Rogerian shit”. Are you sure you are a scott? Well, are ya punk?
(Glenn) I’m a scott, but I’m not a fool. I DO take more chances with all of the consequences listed above than most people do—but I try to be smart about it. I adhere to some constraints, usually grudgingly, because my self- interest requires that of me. But clarks question posited no consequences. So, therefore total hedonism is the only response possible. In THAT circumstance, my self-interest demands total self-indulgence. In the real world, where scotts actually live, one must pursue one’s self-interests with a bit more calculation. By the way, Denise, I love when you call me punk like that. Kinda turns me on…
(clark)Thanks for your time. You are fairly interesting and much more polite than I thought a scott would be…
(Glenn) Fuck you!
(clark)…yeah speaking of that, if you had to be one of the other 2 (clark or roger) which would you be for a day and why?
(Glenn) I have written in this blog that I have been both of the other two styles at times in my life before. Being a clark was fucking scary. Being a roger was humiliating. I guess I would be the roger though. I prefer humiliated to the kind of scary that clarkhood causes. Not knowing what is real is absolutely terrifying. Nothing makes sense—or everything makes its own contradictory sense –all the fucking time. No respite. Constant disorientation. Every day a new nightmare. Fuck that! Let me be a roger for just a day. I’ll cry, be a victim, try to fit in, be emotionally whiny and immature—I can handle a day of that much more easily than I can handle the utter ambiguity of a clark’s world.
(clark) Well, speaking for the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) and my two very able associates, thanks a lot for a look into the post Cambrian, mid-equatorial savannah-like environment that you people call home.
(Not to get too Columbo on you…but if you been watching the stats (the little red dots on the globe thing), then you know that we are getting all international at the Doctrine. I added to the Tips to First Time Readers that: the Doctrine ‘is both gender and culture neutral’. You being the ‘travelling Downspring anything you want to say to our international Readers that might help them ‘get the Doctrine’ quicker?
(Glenn) Ok. All you foreign jabakies, here’s how it is. Three types of people. Scotts, clarks, and rogers. Scotts DO stuff. Clarks THINK stuff. Rogers FEEL stuff. Try to figure out which you are—and then determine which one other people are. It is fun, and will help you understand the idiocy of other people more goodishly. Scotts are salesmen. Rogers are machine operators. Clarks are scientists. It’s remarkably simple and yet universally applicable. Even in YOUR fucked up country.
Well, that was a refreshing change from the usual, ‘I would prefer to…blah…blah…(parentheses)…doctrine…ha ha’ Post, wasn’t it? (Don’t make me go get some parentheses, we are having such a good time).
I was originally going to do some kind of ‘lecture hall set-up’ complete with an implied dialogue with late arrivals to a lecture hall. But I got to the point where I was looking up the latin for ‘cast of characters’1, and I caught myself. ‘Trying a bit too hard, clark?’ Fortunately I swiped and backspaced that shit away.
This ‘Interview’ did, in fact, occur involving the following real people: Glenn one of the original (scottian)Downsprings and Denise a (clarklike) Downspring and AKH(Almost Katherine Hepburn) who is one of the first to join us as a result of this blog. She (AKH) has caught on to the Doctrine pretty damn quick and has made valuable contributions in such a way as to be a credit to her people.
What we did was start with original set of questions emailed to Glenn, his answers sent to Denise and AKH, their responses added, back to Glenn and done.
For any New Readers, the Wakefield Doctrine is a fun and interesting way to understand human behavior. This blog has pages and Posts with information and insight that will give you the opportunity to see the people around you in a whole new light. This ‘Interview’ is an illustration of the ‘worldview’ of a scott, but as you will see, there is no single set-in-stone description of a scott (or a roger or a clark), as much as the rogers out there may want to believe. But to hear ‘a scott’ and ‘a couple of clarks‘ actually interact is helpful in understanding what the Wakefield Doctrine is all about.
So Welcome! Read, learn, enjoy and leave a damn Comment. Seriously, I know you are out there because that globe thing in the left-hand column says you are…
(Despite how Glenn sounds, (after all he is a scott) all are welcome and invited to participate in this noble venture.
(And you get to hang out with Slovinannssss!!)
Shit, for that matter you get to be associated with Virtual People along with Foreign People, how cool is that? I did add that part above about ‘culture neutral’ simply because it is true. The Virtual People reference is to ‘Friends of the Doctrine‘ from SL: Jen and Kino and Delilah(who has a blog of her own, listed in our blogroll.)
…Speaking of ‘ten four’, for any of our international readers (and for that matter some of our domestic fans) this Post’s subtitle is a couple of lines from a damn cultural treasure, “Hot Rod Lincoln’. You need to hear the song performed in order to really get the rhythm of the lyrics, which is the genius of this song and makes it so much fun. Click here (you’re welcome Glenn)
1) dramatis personae