Archive for the ‘personality types’ Category
Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
…as has happened an un-counted number of times since I started this blog, I am in an introspective phase of…. ‘what am I doing with this Wakefield Doctrine’. Surely this time of re-examination is as common as frayed-waistband underwear, however, it always manifests as a unique this-time-it’s-different experience. For better or for worse, I have decided to be more….public with my self-examination. My questioning of the whole point of my writing a blog, regardless of the fact that it is about a unique and productive and fun theory of personality, seems to be an inevitable part of the process that started …(no frickin way!) 5 years ago.
Of course, for those of us who would write a blog, every moment of doubt is always sincere and heartfelt and genuine, (no!-stop-giggling-I’m-trying-to make-a-serious-point-here). But like the first crush/first car/first fear, this time feels different. That is, I suspect, as it is supposed to be.
So, on each of the next 30 days, I will write a Post. They will be long Posts and they will be short Posts, they will be weird Posts and they will be TToT Posts (wait, I already said ‘weird’) and, for the record, I have not the slightest idea if there will be any point or value or anything other than….quantity.
…. so to start, I know what it is that’s bothering me about the state of the Wakefield Doctrine blog:
that I would write such a sentence and actually leave it in the Post
that, for those who were around for the first couple of years, the Wakefield Doctrine was the point of this blog, not clark Farley-that-guy-with-that-‘personality-theory’
a (seeming) loss of the ‘hey! this is the Wakefield Doctrine and you should see what it can do!’
…and, (to certain Readers), yes this blog will continue to be a semi-public experiment/demonstration of the use and efficacy of the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine as a tool for self-development.
but then, you knew that, didn’t you.
I will invite you to the home site of the Wakefield Doctrine (where you can read all this and look at the pitchas!
WARNING! WARNUNG! AWERTIMENTO! AVERTISSEMENT! OPOZORILO! WARNING!
(bad Post writing ahead*)
(*I mean bad writing of a Post not necessarily a Post that is without merit**)
(**thought I should clarifiy that***)
(***…about the writing I mean)
This is the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) blog.
The Wakefield Doctrine is a unique, fun and effective way for you to understand those around you, at home, at work, at school and at play. This Doctrine contains principles that sound like any one of a hundred quirky little personality ‘thumb nail sketches’ that turn up in the back of TV magazines and at the bottom of the last page of a tabloid, right below the astrology column and the diet to the Stars features. And at first glance the Wakefield Doctrine seems as catchy and vacuous as any thing you will find in your local free newspaper. You know what I am going to say next. So, there is no need to.
If you have decided to read a little bit more, this Post will cover two points: why you should read the rest of the content of this blog and what are the upcoming Posts going to be in the next week. (Coming attractions, if you will.)
Lets do this thing.
Doctrine (dok trin) n. A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
Wakefield(wayk feeled) n. A name for the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers picked simply because it sounded more credible than: the theory of…
The Wakefield Doctrine maintains we all experience the world/reality differently and that our personalities arise from the particular way we experience the world. Further, the Wakefield Doctrine proposes that there three characteristic perception of reality we all have can be grouped into three distinct types, called for reasons stated elsewhere, clarks, scotts and rogers. By understanding the reality, the world that an individual is reacting to, we can understand the choices they make (their behavior). What follows on these pages are various efforts to convey the application of the Doct
Hello? Helloo! Is this thing on? Hey you! This is Janie Sullivan, and I need your help. I am in the process of being written/created/developed/fleshed-out or whatever the hell they call it in Creative Writing 101 when a new character is created and added to the narrative. Yes, that Jane in Rogers CSR 101 class. Why thank you! Being referenced all of 3 times and being used as a totally lame narrative device does mean I must be totally special.
You think? Nah, they’re both pretty harmless, but that clark guy is edging towards ‘spooky-ville’ what with his totally constant fixation on ‘need to write more, need to write different, need to get more Readers’!
“Clozaril spill on Aisle 4!” Jeez, reality is a bitch, huh? The other one seems much nicer, the Teacher. Seems so friendly, no harm there. Except that Civil War thing…”21st Century paging Mr Roger, your hobby is being recalled by the gov’t, Department of Over-specialized Interests, due to the fact that the other guy wants to play with it.”
Anyway, as a newly created character, I am getting a lot of interest from both writers and them both being such WMOGs (well meaning old guys) I am worried about what the plan is for a back story for me… so real quick here is the basic:
Janie Sullivan, AP student at Millard Fillmore High am very popular :p, my gpa puts me in the top 1 percentile. My BFF is Britney and I have not yet decided whether to go straight (to college ;}) or to spend time travelling. You know me from my ‘function’ as a character in the CSR 101 series of Post created by roger as a device to explain the Wakefield Doctrine. Thats it. A little 2 dimensional? ….Ya think?
(So here is what I am asking, sure this is all about the Wakefield Doctrine and how it will change how you see the world. But if you are reading this and want to indulge these people then give me a better back story. You know…total athletic talent, parents with interesting jobs and/divorce, something anything.) Gotta go….AFK
(Wellll. Lets just quietly and quickly close this Post before we get reported to Amateur Writers Guild for crimes against creative constructs.)
Oh! oh! the second thing!
In the next week we should have a couple of Posts using Roger’s CSR 101 storyline as the backdrop for both Glenn and AKH writing a Post! Separately, that is, (Two scotts writing one Post? That’d be metaphysically absurd, (to steal a phrase from Firesign Theater).) It’s not that 2 scotts could not write one Post, its not even that they would fight. It is about the collateral damage…the effect on those around them as the requirement of dominance ranking exerted itself.
You know how when you are with one friend who is a scott? You have fun, the scott is always doing things, moving talking never, sitting still. Action for action sake. And you either go along for the (thrill) ride or you try to focus all that energy into some sort of deliberate effort that you can enjoy. (If you are a roger or a clark, respectively). Well, ever notice that when a second scott enters the scene, everything changes? At first there is conflict between the two scotts (establishing dominance/submission rank), but after they have that worked out, all of a sudden there is this very aggressive scott running around getting into everyone’s face. That is the submissive scott. (Remember the Warner Brothers cartoon that had two dogs as characters? One was a large Bull dog (Spike), the other a small terrier-looking thing(never quite got the name). The plot always had the dominant scott (Spike) slapping the small dog for his efforts to impress Spike. “Hey Spike! I know what to do!!. (sort of an aggressive, barely more intellectually-capable, but way more aggressive Lennie from ‘Of Mice and Men’).
Thats the change to the local social environment when you have 2 scotts working one area at the same time. Not that much fun for the non-scottian people.
Anyway, look for a couple of Posts from these two. The ‘set-up’ will be essentially the same, guest lecturers/teachers in rogers class in the Wakefield Doctrine (CSR 101). Should be fun.
REASSURANCE! BERUHIGUNG! RASSICURAZIONE! RECONFORT! POZAVAROVANJA! REASSURANCE!
(Remembered good idea Glenn had*)
(*I agree, most ideas from a scott would not go in the comforting bin first off**)
(**I will tell you, let me get out of this ‘are-there-any-gimmacks-that-you-won’t-try?’ gimmack)
We were talking Saturday about the Doctrine, Glenn is always coming up with ideas for Posts, most crazy, some not crazy, a handful occasionally interesting. (Hey Spike! I got a idea for a Post!! I got one you’ll like to write!!!) Anyway, the idea was suppose a clark tried to impersonate a scott (actually his words were ‘hey what would it sound like if a scott tried to do a roger? or a clark?). You get the idea.
Not a bad one at that.
Yes, clark, we know that we are already all three, predominance of one…yeah I read front page real good. But the value in the suggestion is the level of development in the person doing the ‘imitations’. As with so many things around the Doctrine, you will tell more about the person doing the experiment than the supposed point of the experiment.
Anyway I bring that up not to pat Glenn on the head (Good scott! Take a penny, please!). But to tie it to the coming Pos
HEY! HEEY! You are stuck with this corney ‘character-talking-to-imaginary-Readers-interupting-equally-imaginary-Narrators’ so listen up! ?People? (Janie here again), I think I told you about the future for me, but as far as your precious little Wakefield Doctrine, no one has determined my ‘type’. Normally that would have been one the first things the writer would have set up. OH! Did I just use the word normal? Pardon me while I lmfao. Normal! Sheeit Look at your goddamn crooked feet. You got no ears on your cheeks at all. Just a hole like.
Well, if I am stuck acting out for the benefit of that bunch of wackos, then I reserve the right to decide which one of your precious 3 types…
…Nah, maybe later.
This might be a good time for some music….Mr. B if you please….
This actually is one of those Posts.
I suspect most blog writers/Post authors have the topic in mind when they sit down at the keyboard, or at very least have the ‘overarching theme’ of the blog itself in mind when producing content. And, for the most part, that is the case for my efforts here at the Wakefield Doctrine. (Will not speak for roger, but as the other writer of Posts he seems to have a clear idea in his mind when he starts to tickling those plastic teeth. (For young Readers…that is an oblique/archaic reference to playing the piano)
But as I said, this Post is not one of those. This Post started with a song fragment in my head this morning. (Very strange phenom, not even a word of a lyric…just “ahh UUmmm…think I…” and of course about 5 seconds of melody). But I knew the name of the group doing the song,,, all I needed. Internet. Google. I suspect that few of us (including myself) fully appreciate the effect/impact/ramifications of this existence of this much information made this accessible. But that is for another Post. A Post that is coherent and planned. Not this Post
So. There it is. Youtube. And not just the song, but a damn video.
(BTW noticing there are commercials showing on these things. Yes, a little annoying, just click the little ‘x’ knucklehead.)
So I am confronted with the quintessential 80s semi pop group. And the funny thing was my initial reaction was, ‘damn, this is kind of gay’, afterall ‘this is the Wakefield Doctrine which not only is very cool (to the 27 regular Readers) but it is a serious and not totally unsuccessful effort at explaining human behavior and reality.’ You know, …the secret of the universe.
Huey Lewis and the News. But there he was on my computer. Being cute and clever and doing his own “if we were genuinely cool this would be a ZZ Top video”. But like most of my experience with this Wakefield Doctrine thing, what I write in these Posts are not always a matter of conscious choice. The cat says do something with Huey Lewis, then I do something with Huey Lewis (Ask roger).
I was hoping that by now I would have something to hang this Post, an idea or a theme to make it more than a music video. But nooo. Nothing. I suppose I could use up some white space making self-referential statements about (my) life in the 80’s. But I got nothing.
…So there you have it. Todays contribution to the effort at the promulgation of the Wakefield Doctrine (love that word)(promulgation). If you like Huey then I suspect this will be a good Post, if not then it will be one of those that gets scrolled by, real quick. (‘Oh yeah, that’s the one where he tried to convince us that there was something Post-worthy about having a song fragment as the basis of an individual Post’) (‘eww’)
Well, you try writing three or four of these fuckers every week. My respect for Mel and Jason and others who do write good, readable Posts on a steady basis increases every time I do one of these. And to Roger who is beginning to get on a reg schedule of maybe two Posts every week, keep it up.
(Roger’s Posts are the ones in colored font. Am grateful for his efforts, as a roger he has that ‘readability’ that seems to be a characteristic ability of his people. The elements of his style may be a bit idiosyncratic for my tastes, but as he and I have discussed, it is about getting people to read these things. Whatever writing style ‘gets them in the door’.)
So that’s all I gots (an expression of the Progenitor scott). Read the Doctrine. Understand that everyone around you today is a clark or a scott or a roger. And that because they are, explains why they do what they do. It is nothing personal. (Hey! there’s my ‘big close’!) (Damn, I knew if I sat typing shit long enough I would stumble on something that I would enjoying sticking in the monitors of computers all over the werld today!).
This clarks, scotts and rogers stuff?, you know “if you understand what type your loved one is you will understand why they do what they do…Blah, Blah blah?” well I still mean it, but behind all of it is the inescapable fact that you are one of the three (yes, I know you know that), but it actually means that everything that is happening to you in your relationships with people is coming from your clarklike, scottian or rogerian nature. Not theirs.
Thought I should mention that.
“UO ah uu happy to be stuck with…”
You know, this Wakefield Doctrine has been a constantly changing effort to describe a way of understanding the behaviors of those around us. The people we love, like, hate and ignore. And the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers is now and has always been intended to be a help, a tool, a guide and even, (to some clarks), a vehicle to radically alter reality.
The idea is that the Wakefield Doctrine appears to have enough ‘value’ and ‘validity’ to the people that come to be familiar with it to stand on it’s own. Meaning that when a new person learns about the Doctrine they do not need the constant reinforcement (of mechanisms such as this blog). There are, no doubt, people in other countries who are at this moment coming to realise that their boss is such a roger or that the new girl is so clarklike or even that they find themselves wishing that their spouse not be so scottian.
And that is the goal and the purpose of the effort behind this blog and all of the Posts. The good ones, the funny ones, the interesting ones and the stupid ones, all share the common goal: let people understand the Wakefield Doctrine and improve their lives. Sometimes an idea is there for a Post but it lacks something, just does not have enough… whatever it is that makes you glad to hit PUBLISH. But the interesting thing, (probably totally familiar to real writers), is how hard it is to throw away a particular effort. All of this is a long way around to getting in a premise I worked on this morning that simply does not have the legs to be a standalone Post. But, as I said, you really hate to waste a perfectly(well maybe not perfectly) good set of words. So the following is the Post that did not make it into the big time.*
For an example of what does not get into “Print” consider the following draft Post: which would have been titled
the Wakefield Doctrine (‘Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command. And your old road is rapidly agin’…’)
…janie…janie… …janie!…(‘is she sleeping again?..’)…janie… …JANIE!…
…(strange people…everyone… only 3 names….) “1717 by the leadership of Charlemagne!”
Sit down, Miss Sullivan. That is not the correct topic, much less the right answer. You would do well to focus more on your school studies and less on that rock n roll music and those secret teachings…
Remember class, term papers are due in a week and the finals are not that far away.
(Hey! Britney wait up!)
Since the point is to promulgate the Wakefield Doctrine (or ‘wkaefeillen doctryne’, as they say in Slovenia), here is an excerpt I found in a very early Post. Hey it has ‘Bullet Posts”, so you know it has to be clear and concise. (That little joke goes out to Denise at work (who never reads the Doctrine because it does not have enough categories and she is such a scott but don’t you think the criticism about the number of categories is just a little rogerian?)
So for the impatient readers (yes, I mean you, scott); following is a quick, ‘down and dirty’ guide to identifying the clarks, scotts and rogers around you:
rogers use the pronoun “I” more than the other three
scotts use nicknames (particularly diminutives ‘clarkie’, ‘phillie’)
clarks maintain the least eye contact when talking to you
scotts are the ones who can tell a joke properly and will insist you listen and (usually picks a joke slightly over the edge of appropriate)
rogers will always have the news on what so-and-so said to such-and-such
clarks have a posture that is hunched at the shoulder and when seated will appear too relaxed, to the point of slumping in the chair
rogers are very usually the ‘middle management’ types who will convince the upper management that cubicles are the best way to arrange an office space
the Wakefield Doctrine (‘…You may find yourself in another part of the world, You may find yourself behind the wheel of a large automobile…’)
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)
Last of the Old and Pre of the New…from the Progenitors and (the) Downsprings, our collective wishes for a year that you will remember…
With a New Year coinciding with ‘time for a new Post’ the temptation to write a 2009 in retrospect along with a what’s in store for the coming year Post was almost irrestible. Fortunately, I am resisting the temptation. As enjoyable as it would be to find amusing ways to remind you, our Readers about the high points of the last six months, worse, compound the indulgence by trying to describe future Posts, I am not going to do that.
I will do what makes me feel best, which is to remind myself of the original intent and core beliefs of this ‘thing of ours'(cosa nostra). One of the first rules was that anything that anyone of the original group (Progenitors and Downsprings) submitted to the Doctrine would be presented without edit or influence, spin or polish.
This rule has made for some ‘suspensful moments (‘jeez do you really need to call him that?”). But all has been rendered without edit or influence; to the benefit and credit of the Wakefield Doctrine.
Not totally without a sense of tradition, and given that most of our New Year greetings are from rogers, here is a little music. (a simple link so you can play the music and continue to read this Post).
So from some of us at the Doctrine:
Old lang syne (from Phyllis)I was going to review famous people who died in 2009, like Michael Jackson (probable Clark). However, I like to think of people that were a part of our circle.Big Andy and Hughie (definitely the best a Roger can be. Kind, and generous, and maybe a little too emotional).Al and Katie (the powerful force of a Clark, Scott duo)Russell (there is nothing like a Scott on your side). Quick little story: Most of our friends found out that I had cancer when I showed up Saturday night with a baseball cap covering a “patchy” hairdo. Most people shared a sense of concern and hopefulness. Russell came into the room. Looked at me, gasped, and yelled “Take off that cap.” As I did so, I had the feeling that Russell was going to attack my cancer bare handed. It was a very comforting feeling.“Let’s raise a cup of cheer. For auld lang syne”
To the Doctrine faithful;After having pondered both weak and weary on the notion of a year-end message, I’ll just say that I am most impressed with the calibre of people who get involved with stuff like this. To want to go to the trouble of reading blogs, nevermind writing for one, takes something quite special; as Clark will now attest to. You pull your hair out every few days, carefully re-attach it, and repeat. I have enjoyed it immensely, having little actual hair to be concerned over. And, have been made aware of the vast universe of blogs; people who all do this not because they have to, but because they must. A heartfelt salute to us all.To our newly found readers;As our ranks have grown, we have seen this project go in some really unique and intriguing directions. Thanks for your support and contributions, they make a world of difference, and give us an endless supply of new roads to venture down. So welcome once again, and please feel free to throw something up onto the Doctrine wall whenever the spirit moves you; it will definitely stick.– the Roger
The Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) is predicated in the notion of three ‘personality types’, or to get pseudo-technical, three sets of perceptual biases. The distinction between personality type and perceptual bias is critical. If one considers action/behavior and attempts to deduce the motivation, the other assumes to understand the ‘world that the individual is experiencing’ and therefore resultant behavior is easily predictable. Let’s put it another way.
A written description of a behavior: man walks into a room full of party goers and shouts to a person across the room’. So, what is his inner motivation? Damn hard question to answer, a thousand possible answers; (maybe) he is hard of hearing, the person he is calling to is hard of hearing, it is noisy…and on and on.
Now try this: a scott walks into a room full of party goers, a roger walks into a room full of party goers, a clark walks into…(well, you get the idea)
The point of the Doctrine is this: know how the individual is experiencing the world and you will know how she/he will act. In any situation. No deep background analysis necessary.
We have met the minimum educational requirement that all Posts must adhere to, on with the Interview (with the roger).
(A little set-up first. The Progenitor roger agreed to be ‘interviewed’ by your narrator and Downspring Denise and AKH (talented newcomer). We simply repeated the format and questions that were employed in the Interview with Downspring Glenn)
There will be music at the end (you advanced Readers can go there now, start the music to listen to as you read the following):
Intro: Today we have the pleasure to ‘interview’ none other than the Progenitor Roger, (as in ‘roger’ of the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
(clark) “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 be writing Comments and is way ‘up on the Doctrine.”
(clark) So, Roger, How are you ‘today’?
(Roger) Oh just &$%# peachy.
*******(AKH) Hey man, What’s up your ass?
***********(Denise) Really? What do you think got his panties in a bunch?
(clark) If I can start with a question on one of the features of the Doctrine that bears your name, meaning ‘rogerian expression’. The full definition for any New Readers will be found here on the rogers Page. We all know them when we hear them, there is always the ‘stunned laughter’ reaction of the listener. (My personal favorite: ‘those salesmen, when they write blogs, they are too self-absorbent’.) So, Roger, Do you have a favorite (rogerian expression)?
(Roger) I always think of ” I’ll surpass on that.” It was the first officially recognized one, and brings back pleasant memories of days of yore. Nowadays I consider them as the fun part of forcing language to evolve as need be.
(clark) How do you explain why they are so unmistakable?
(Roger) It’s based on seeing language as a flexible thing that sometimes needs to be tweaked a bit. It is also a shortcut; it’s easier to twist out a new word than to go through the thought process of finding the “correct” one.
*******(Denise) The hell it is. I think half the time it’s just how it comes out of your mouth. But it does make me laugh. Just admit it – you love that people get a kick out of it.
(Roger) Of course I do, but it happens whether there are witnesses or not. Inside my head, it just feels slightly …dysfunctional?
(clark) Ok, let’s get to the same questions we asked Glenn, the other day. What do you think about music? Take it/Leave it? Why…
(Roger) Absolutely essential. Every creature knows to communicate through making meaningful noise.
*******(AKH) I don’t know about it always being meaningful. Sometimes it just sucks. But it can put me in a certain mood depending on what I’m listening to.
( Roger) So even if you hear something you don’t like, it still represents something. Subjectively, whenever people consider ” music”, it’s always referring first to the stuff they like. So I consider rap and hip-hop to be ” meaningful noise” , but certainly not music. ( just my opinion)
(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).
(Roger) I’ll trade (for) my brother-in-law Tom ( he’s actually sane anyway) and my niece Olivia, who should have been my daughter anyway. For two draft picks to be named later.
*******(Denise) ohh… you mean you would take Tom and Olivia, who do you trade away?
( Roger) Oh yeah….Olivia’s parents. To a galaxy far, far away.
(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.)
(Roger) See to the children’s safety at all times, period. Much more important than your wounded sense of whatever.
*******(AKH) Yeah, those kind of drivers aren’t worth it. Besides, ignoring them probably pisses ’em off even more. ha ha
(clark)The Wakefield Doctrine…what do you think about it? strengths? weaknesses?
(Roger). Strengths… a nifty little package of psycho-tidbits that will allow you to see things that you would never consider normally. Weaknesses…a nifty little package of psycho-tidbits that will allow you to see things that you would never consider normally.
(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?
(Roger) I’ll take Olivia up to Lasallette to ” see the angels.” She was there last at age two. Couldn’t do it today because her mother is a %&^*# ing %#!#&.
(clark) Thanks for your time. You are fairly direct and much more precise than I thought a roger would be…
(Roger) God, you are such a Clark….
*******(Denise) …you wish you were one, dont ’cha…..
(Roger) No, I’m good, thanks…
(clark)…yeah speaking of that, if you had to be one of the other 2 (clark or scott) which would you be for a day and why?
(Roger) I’ll go with Scott for a day, so I could kick a few pertinent asses and not fret over the consequences. Also get a rack of ribs and maybe even cook them this time.
*******(AKH) Scott ?! Really?! I’d love to see you try to pull that off…
(Roger) What, kicking the asses, or cooking the ribs? LOL
(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 soft and comforting grassy plain, where you can see your herd spreading in all directions as far as the eye can see’ 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. (And remember that I added to the Tips to First Time Readers that: the Doctrine ‘is both gender and culture neutral’) You being a Progenitor anything you want to say to our international Readers that might help them ‘get the Doctrine’ quicker?
(Roger) No, that statement covers it quite well… just too bad that some cultures will be offended because we are gender and culture neutral. What can you do? Onward and upward….
Now, that was fairly informative, wasn’t it? WELL? WAS IT INFORMATIVE?! DO NOT! I REPEAT, DO NOT SIT BACK WITH A SUPERCILIOUS SMILE ON YOUR FACE….
(huh! how let that one in?)
Anyway, music time!
A bonus for the rogers clearly well-intentioned effort to make this Interview thing being as useful to others (herd and non-herd) Readers and new Visitors alike. Enjoy: