the Wakefield Doctrine

the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers

the Wakefield Doctrine (‘…You may find yourself in another part of the world, You may find yourself behind the wheel of a large automobile…’)

with 4 comments

Lets talk about COUPLES!   Yes, I’m talking about: two of a pair, walkin’ hand in hand, complete each other sentence(s)… let’s hear it for the destroyer of all (non-sexual) friendships the one, the only because we are so close we are a….can you hear it? …the world is saying it, as one, out of two….   the   Couple!

I know that (the) roger has you on CSR 101 (clarks, scotts and rogers) and this is the most correct approach to learning this thing.  Get the basics of the Doctrine down, look around at the people in your life, match description of each of the three types and your world will soon be populated with clarks, scotts and rogers; all acting and re-acting,  interacting and detracting…to your benefit and improvement.  …But is there more…? (Go ahead,  you know what’s behind this link.)

Of course there is more, how can there not be more?

There are/is/am the couple, the friendship that has sexual contrast as the primary feature/dynamic.  (Hey this is the 21st-damn-Century!)  Yes, we are talking about when 2 people are linked by sexual difference.  Male-female/male-male/female-female, does not matter.  The  sexual component does.  Make(s) the difference.  All of the difference.) (All) (OF) (IT).

They are not friends…they are a Couple!  (Here is a little mood music, courtesy of Joe Jackson.  Sorry, no video).

OK, fine.  What good does that do us?

I’ll tell you.  It gives us a very, very useful (teaching) tool for the Wakefield Doctrine.  Because the best way to understand the Doctrine is to see examples of the 3 types (of people) in your life.  And, as everyone past puberty knows, being a Couple brings out the best in us! (And so, totally the worst in us).

So, let’s begin (our little lesson) with the easiest of the Couples to identify: rogerian male/scottian female.

This is the most ‘attractive’ of Couples.  They are both attractive, in every sense of the word.  Although if you want to get technical about it, she has the ‘sex appeal’ and he has the ‘socialibility skills’.
She is hot and he is charming.  They look great together.  (Now, think about what you know about each respective type: rogers are social, herd based and will identify with the group, scotts are individualistic and will hunt alone, but will focus all attention on one person at a time.)

But how do you really know that you are meeting a scottian/rogerian Couple?  The interaction, what they do with each other and to each other.  She will be the more aggressive one, he will seem to be more relaxed.  One of the ‘primary characteristics of the scottian female/rogerian male couple is how they talk about themselves.  She will talk to and about her partner in a very noticeable style.  A style that everyone that is listening wants to believe is affectionate ‘criticisms’.
“Hey! You know what roger here did the other day?”  “You should have heard roger at the party the other night”…all of these comments and remarks are presented with an overall  ‘I really love this guy’ kind of vibe.  ‘Jokingly’ critical but still on a fairly personal level.  And all for the benefit of the crowd standing around our  Couple.
(btw.  And he does give every impression of enjoying this kind of exchange, the repartee. (The rogerian male), he laughs at her as much as she appears to be laughing at him.)

There is a clear dynamic tension with this couple.  As a Couple they both make an impression, they are not to be ignored.

(Damn this topic is way bigger than I thought…. Let’s find some music to close and we will come back in the next Post to finish (this) discussion of scottian females/rogerian males.) …And if we can through that onwards to other ‘couple combinations’.

But since Joe Jackson is the man today, let’s have him take us out….(ya gotta love the host of whatever British TV show this clip originated on).

Just a thought…

You know that this Doctrine is ‘gender neutral’, right? (You should know it is the first item in the column to the right).  I just had a conversation with an associate (at work) about the whole clark, scott, roger thing.  And she said, “I’ll only go to the blog if you add a name for a female scott”.  To which I replied, “No”

(Quick quiz: which of the three was this person and why is the only possible answer no?)**
(Answers at the bottom of the blog.)*

But to re-state the Doctrine on distinctions between male and female: there is none.  It is very simply a matter of using the terms properly, ie. a person is not a female scott, she is a scottian female; he is not a male roger he is a rogerian guy, she a rogerian female. (clarks…does it really matter?)

Hope that clears up any lingering confusion about the differences between the male/female versions of clarks, scotts and rogers.

 

You know….the more I read this (oh, I so read my own Posts)…the more I am thinking that Joe (Jackson) is only giving us a limited musical view of our topic. So I am adding two (not one!) clips of nearly the same song.  (The backstory, as I gather it, is that the second of these songs was written in response to the first). Any CW experts want to add or contribute information on these songs is invited to do so. So the first.

(Now what I am believing is a response.)

*(Hi clark.  Of the three you are the most likely to jump to the bottom before reading the actual Post)

**(Answers: she is  a scott and  ‘there is no need for a special name for female scotts because they are not ‘female scotts, they are scottian females’  see above)

Advertisements

4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Nice subtitle. You (clarks) are the epitome of a talking head (without the cameras, of course)as it relates to the Wakefield Doctrine. Your “broadcasts” are a daily life line if you will, for the avid followers of the WD (at least in my humble opinion). Where else could one get such fresh, in-depth coverage into the the inner workings of the clark/scott/rogers of the world, and from that the further understanding (hopefully) of themselves and others.
    Attention all readers: Tune in tomorrow for the latest headlines of the day!

    AKH

    January 12, 2010 at 12:19 pm

  2. (Thanks for the props…)

    To the Post at hand, you are a scott (if your direct experience allows) or if you would care to venture a ‘scottian perspective’, whats up with those rogers?
    (In terms of the rogerian male/scottian female relationship)…the obvious is the ‘dominance’ of the scottian half but less apparent is the nature of the dependence of the scott on the roger in this thing.
    No big surprise in the idea of an interdependency, which by definition all couples have, but in this particular pairing the contrast will be the most illuminating. So if you could shed some light on how the (scottian) female views the dynamic, the ROI if you will, on this particular form.

    clarkscottroger

    January 12, 2010 at 12:42 pm

    • This material contains matters which may be subjective as they apply to The Wakefield Doctrine. Reader discretion is advised….
      First of all, my boyfriend Greg (not established long enough to be considered “partners” yet) is predominately a rogerian guy. Honest to God!! Being a scottian female myself, this post really hit home. It elicited a rather loud Holy Shit! response to say the least. From what I’ve learned to be the tell-tale signs of the clark/scott/rogers of the world you’d think that it wouldn’t have been such a surprise reading this post. The fact of the matter is that I never directly applied this knowledge to my own relationship (stop shaking your head). And you’re thinking “How the hell could you not?” Don’t have an answer to that one. So I will now attempt to enter (my) uncharted territory as it applies to the rogerian male in a relationship.
      Ours is a well-balanced, harmonious relationship. Our good sense of humor plays off of each other, often laughing at ourselves. And we goad each other on. And yes, we’re both smart and good-looking. Don’t mean to sound vain, but it is what it is. OK, enough re-iterating from the post (but it’s so spot on!).
      To preface, from my female scottian perspective, Greg couldn’t be more suited for me. He’s VERY attentive and puts me on a pedestal (what more could a scottian girl ask for?). When we’re out together I am proud to show the world that he’s with ME. I gloat over the fact that this very handsome guy chose ME. And he enjoys that. Don’t get me wrong, looks aren’t everything, but they certainly don’t hurt. He feeds my ego without even knowing it. So, without further ado, on to the question at hand: What’s up with those rogers?
      Rogerian guys are usually very passive. Never wanting to rock the boat so to speak. However, sometimes that passivity can be misconstrued as laziness or even disinterest. They are eager to please, but not at the cost of allowing another to take advantage of them. They will and do venture from their herd-like mentality given it is worth it for the “right” person and as a result become more outstanding, more independent if you will. In my particular case I don’t feel as though he was necessarily of a strong herd mentality so much as just following the status quo. Wait a minute, was that a contradiction? Oh it’s all so confusing! No black and white in the world of the clark/scott/rogers. Because we all have some of each within us, it’s sometimes difficult to put things in a nicely-wrapped gift box. Particularly in this response as I am honestly unable to be entirely objective given my relationship with my rogerian boyfriend.
      Perhaps due to my limited scottian personality (did she really just say that??) I’m trying to express a need to be viewed as one in a relationship with someone who IS strong and independent. And Greg is. A scottian female would not want to be associated with someone who is weak. It would be too easy, if not downright boring.
      Moving along, the rogerian guys can be the class clowns and laugh at themselves easily. It doesn’t bother them too much to be the butt of the joke. They also enjoy laughing at others, usually not with mal-intent. They’re goal-oriented and when serious just might surprise you by their strong convictions. They are, for the most part, agreeable. But not to the point of being submissive. Rogerian men are non-confrontational which works well for the scottian counterpart who deems herself as being somewhat superior. In a scottian/rogerian relationship the individual characteristics balance each other out quite well and is satisfying for both. The rogerian guy is very loyal, caring, loving, unselfish and a good listener with a heart of gold.
      All of this being said, a scottian female could not be happier to have a rogerian guy. Am I babbling yet? I’ll quit while I’m ahead (if that).

      AKH

      January 14, 2010 at 11:46 am

  3. The two country songs are related. The first song was originally recorded by Hank Thompson and was titled “The Wild Side Of Life” The response song was written by a MAN, JD Miller–and is titled “It wasn’t God Who Made Honky Tonk Angels”. It was recorded by Kitty Wells in 1952 long before anyone even dreamed of womens lib. It was cotroversial in the conservative, male-dominated world of country music and was banned at the Grand Old Opry as being “suggestive”. The melody of the songs is identical to the melody of Great Speckled Bird–which is identical to the melody of “I Am Thinking Tonight of My Blue Eyes”

    Glenn

    January 12, 2010 at 4:03 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: