the Wakefield Doctrine

the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers

the Wakefield Doctrine (…”ready as this audience that’s coming here to dream”…)

with 6 comments

Hello and hooray from yours truly, Downspring #1.  If you don’t get the gist of my intro, not to worry.  At least you know you are not a clark.  Think of reading the Wakefield Doctrine like being in second year Spanish class with Mr. M.  You don’t need to speak English, you are here to speak Spanish.  Here we speaks the Doctrine……

With that in mind,   I’ve decided to suit up today.  That’s right – 3 piece.  (Yes Glenn, you love the tie.  Now assume the position.)  Where was I?…. Oh yeah….I have noted some frustration at the Wakefield Doctrine in the absence of comments from readers outside the sphere of those who contribute on a fairly regular basis.  Why the silence?

I do not think it is so much that readers don’t understand the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers but rather that readers just may not have confidence (yet) to make a statement on a worldwide platform and then find out – oops! I got it wrong!  No one wants to embarrass themselves in cyberspace, especially clarks (that’s correct – clarks do not possess high confidence levels. You can read all about clarks on the clarks page can’t you.)  Perhaps before making any misstatements, readers are simply boning up on the Doctrine. (No Glenn, I did not give you permission to laugh.)

 I find the more I read, the more I remember that which I have known – there are 3 distinct ways to view the world.  Reading the Wakefield Doctrine not only reminds me of that but actually validates the whole damn thing –  anyone can recognize, react to and even anticipate another’s behavior based on how that person interacts with the world.

Since the majority of Posts are written by the Creator clark, it takes no giant leap for me to understand all that is being said (you picked up that I am a clark by now, right?!).  Sure he can ramble, sure there are the obscure references to….just about anything but there is method to the madness (or is it madness to the method.)  All roads lead to the clark.  Whatever.  The point is (the) clark speaks most loudly to clarks just as (the )Roger undoubtedly speaks most loudly (and soothingly) to all the many, many rogers out there.  The Progenitor Roger’s Posts are amusing, easy to read and most importantly they are comfortable and relaxed – like getting co-ozy on a cold winter day.  No worries.  If we all do what we are supposed to do then it’s all good.  That leaves us with the scotts in the house.  (Stand up Glenn) 
There is no doubt in my mind that the comments contributed by the aforementioned scott would do anything but confirm that scotts rule!  But seriously, Glenn has had a couple of decades of this clark, scott, roger thing under his belt to know of which he speaks.  Or swears.

So what do we know.  A clark thinks (and thinks), they stand alone, scotts act and act out (and swear while doing it) and generally tell others what to do; rogers feel (deeply and with commitment), they unite and promote harmony (2 part, 3 part all the better).

Can’t believe it took me all these words to say:  we just want to keep reading Posts and Comments that validate this shit is for real. Look a little closer. You’ll see that it is.

Indulge me in a clarklike moment – take the movie Casablanca . (Who has not heard of that movie?) Who wouldn’t say that Rick Blaine is a clark, or that Victor Laszlo is a roger of the highest order.  And Captain Renault (Louie)? A scott?  What do you think?   


Written by clarkscottroger

February 2, 2010 at 3:59 pm

6 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Nice one, invisible woman. Well done. Especially liked the parts about…ME! But enough about me. What about you? What do YOU think of me? What “position” would you like me to assume? Anything for you, Baby. You should write another one. All I can say is….”FUCK!”


    February 3, 2010 at 10:22 am

    • Thank you. And very scottian of you to “challenge” me. You know very well what position but we’ll let that be our little secret.
      To answer Clarkscottroger’s non-question, I would say that scotts “rage” instinctively as part of a self survival, self protection mechanism.(they also rant extremely well) The need/urge to dominate/conquer is a by product of that mechanism. “Who they are seeing” is not overly important. Everyone is considered prey. Scotts thrive on energy. It’s nothing personal.
      My method(s) aside, how does a clark, roger or lesser scott avoid ceding power to a scott?
      (Perhaps I shall write “another one” but Glenn! What do you say! That’s right. “Please”.)

      Downspring #1

      February 4, 2010 at 1:36 am

  2. …As the level of discourse shoots heaven-ward…this just in from the scottian corral.

    the question is not: why do the scotts rage, the question is ‘who are they ‘seeing’ as they speak’?… of course, maybe there is no one there (for the scott)…Bella (our dog) will not only bark at the slightest noise coming from the woods in the backyard, she will charge into the woods, barking…preparing for? fight/conflict/unknown foes or the echo of the noise…


    February 3, 2010 at 11:12 am

  3. oo! oo! (Horshack from ‘Welcome Back Kotter’) I know this one!

    Control a scott? you have got to be kidding, how simple is that?
    But, for Readers new to the Doctrine the easiest most useful answer is to say, “Watch Cesar” better yet, watch this clip! (you have to sit through a 12 second commercial tho, you can do it Glenn, think about biting baseball players.)

    (Not sure if this link will come through, if not ‘blue’ then copy/paste it into your address bar)

    Anyway. See what Cesar did with the scottian doggie? He established the quiet first, not responding the barking threats.

    Q: What do all scotts want?
    A: A reaction.

    Plug for upcoming Post: Glenn lecturing the Wakefield Doctrine class (at Millard Fillmore High) on the topic of ‘Leadership and the Wakefield Doctrine’. Not to be missed.


    February 4, 2010 at 7:21 am

    • Now who said anything about controlling a scott? That would imply an accepted position of dominance(by the scott).
      Without getting into the finer points, it is correct to say the answer on how to deal with scotts lies in the withholding of reaction.

      Downspring #1

      February 4, 2010 at 10:26 am

      • Always fucking with me, Invisible One.


        February 5, 2010 at 10:08 am

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: