the Wakefield Doctrine

the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers

Discussion Page

with 16 comments

With a basic understanding of the characteristics of each group (clarks, scotts and rogers), anyone can understand everyone else!  You will know how those around you will  act in virtually any situation. Finally you can understand what has never made sense to you about the people you work with, live with and/or are friends with. You will have the answer to the question, ‘Why on earth would you do that/say that/feel that way?’

August 5  The First Topic:

To the statement that …’ as an effect of a social institution, dominance may accrue to an otherwise submissive individual, in the case (for instance)  where a rogerian prison guard would have a dominance relationship relative to a scottian prisoner.’

(Glenn) …I would posit that the Scott in prison is still dominant in an interpersonal context. The guard holds only institutional power. That is not dominance. The guard is most likely scared shitless of the prisoner. The prisoner effectively, still “owns” the guard. I have seen that dynamic repeatedly in correctional facilities where I have worked. The prisoner, upon being “punished” by the guard, smiles—because he knows the truth–”I own you you coward.” And he knows that the guard knows it too. Situational power is not recognized by scotts as meaningful or legitimate. In a thousand subtle ways the guard communicates his submission to the power of the scott every day–even though he has superior bureaucratic power. Both know that that is ultimately no power at all. By the way, Rogers in possession of institutional power are some of the most dangerous people in the world. The justification to torture one’s enemies so prevalent in the world today is a totally rogerian construct. “If someone is bad enough, or dangerous enough, it is OK to do anything you think necessary to them–or they’ll hurt you.” This is a coward’s construct—strictly rogerian. A roger does not perceive the evil inherent in this kind of rationalizing. They truly feel entitled to torture on the basis of their own “victimhood” . See the movie “Taken” for a sickening example of this concept. The movie’s message seems to be that torture is Ok and even useful when used against “bad guys”. Later I will expound upon victimhood, a most cherished status for a roger. Rogers LOVE to be seen as “victims”. It gives them a pretext for all kinds of emotional excess–rage, torture, righteousness, vengeance,etc…Rogers love their feelings.

(Clark) …I agree about the personal/visceral nature of dominance. It is an energy thing as much, (more in all likelihood), as an intellectual agreement between people. The extent to which it can be expressed, is constrained/limited by the social context.

I will, (with conditions), agree with the concept of victimhood and rogers. However I would add two perspectives that augment the core idea, a)for a roger the emotional content of ‘victim-hood’ is the whole point; b) the victim (in “victim-hood”) does not exist without a “victor”.
This is not of the nature of a counter claim, I am just making a point about how scotts are dependent on rogers.
(In a close, initimate, yet tasteful relationship).

August 7

(ed. note the 2 replies below showed up 1 minute apart, glenn’s getting in at 4:18, roger at 4:19, glenn tees off first.)

(Glenn)  ‘You are right about the curious dependency of scotts on rogers. It is the same dependency of lions on antelope. The lions do not respect or value the antelope in any intrinsic way—but, the lion starves without the antelope. Scotts need a steady supply of rogers as a food source. While the scotts outwardly and consciously feel a disdain for rogers, they are also uncomfortably aware of the dependency. Don’t ask us to talk much about it, though. It’s bad enough as an ill-formed thought. Giving it voice makes it all too real. So, we affect an indifference to them–or open hostility toward them. But (and it costs me plenty to say this), thank god for rogers. They sure are tasty.’

((the) clark)I would submit that it is not ‘a curious dependency’ it is a natural dependency. If rogers provide food/nourishment/life for scotts, then scotts are the direct cause of creating better rogers. The process of selection (as in ‘natural’) says that the rogers that comprise the large part of scotts diet are the old, weak and otherwise lesser examples of the rogerian race.

(Mr. Roger, if you please…)

From the Roger;
Glenn, I have got to say that that is some damn good stuff there. You put up your argument so effectively that I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly,and then going ” hey wait…I’m a Roger, WTF am I doing…” anyway, nice job! But of course I feel compelled to throw in a few cents worth. What if, just for contrast’s sake, we keep with the prison scenario ( that just works so well; the relationships are completely static, and the personalities stand out very starkly against that backdrop) and substitute clark/scott/roger for either the prisoner or the guard. You get a whole different dynamic, and each would be equally defensible from the POV of its progenitor. Of course, it should eventually lead to you MFs conceding finally that the Rogerian Way is the One True Way,and we could all relax and have some herbal tea in a big circle. So what would happen if you had Rogers for prisoners and Rogers for guards? Not much. The prison would be empty, because they’d all be out taking classes at the local community college. And what would a Clark/Clark look like? Try as I might, my brain just won’t go there….

 

 

 

Written by clarkscottroger

August 5, 2009 at 3:36 pm

16 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Well, you did it. Who says Clarks can’t “do”? You are right about the curious dependency of scotts on rogers. It is the same dependency of lions on antelope. The lions do not respect or value the antelope in any intrinsic way—but, the lion starves without the antelope. Scotts need a steady suppy of rogers as a food source. While the scotts outwardly and consciously feel a disdain for rogers, they are also uncomfortably aware of the dependency. Don’t ask us to talk much about it, though. It’s bad enough as an ill-formed thought. Giving it voice makes it all too real. So, we affect an indifference to them–or open hostility toward them. But(and it costs me plenty to say this), thank god for rogers. They sure are tasty.
    Scotts usually have in their circle of acquaintances, at any given time, one or more gay men, one or more minority people(of color), and a stable of lesser scotts. The reason for the presence of gays and minorities in the scott’s entourage is not clear. At least not to me. It is a curious and real phenomenon, but as yet not fully understood. Why gays. Why blacks? Any thoughts out there?

    Glenn

    August 7, 2009 at 4:18 pm

    • From the Roger;
      Glenn, just now, at least one reason came to me why lesser scotts, minorities, and gays want to be in that entourage. They each want to align themselves with the best available ally for protection. They each see themselves as pretty vulnerable, especially in a group situation.

      clarkscottroger

      August 29, 2009 at 9:20 pm

  2. From the Roger;
    Glenn, I have got to say that that is some damn good stuff there. You put up your argument so effectively that I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly,and then going ” hey wait…I’m a Roger, WTF am I doing…” anyway, nice job! But of course I feel compelled to throw in a few cents worth. What if, just for contrast’s sake, we keep with the prison scenario ( that just works so well; the relationships are completely static, and the personalities stand out very starkly against that backdrop) and substitute clark/scott/roger for either the prisoner or the guard. You get a whole different dynamic, and each would be equally defensible from the POV of its progenitor. Of course, it should eventually lead to you MFs conceding finally that the Rogerian Way is the One True Way,and we could all relax and have some herbal tea in a big circle. So what would happen if you had Rogers for prisoners and Rogers for guards? Not much. The prison would be empty, because they’d all be out taking classes at the local community college. And what would a Clark/Clark look like? Try as I might, my brain just won’t go there….

    clarkscottroger

    August 7, 2009 at 4:19 pm

  3. ((the) clark)

    Nice juxtaposition there, binyons. Its almost as if you two were sharing a common framework from which you (both) produced different, but essentially related observations.

    (you people are so fuckin predictable)

    clarkscottroger

    August 7, 2009 at 4:40 pm

  4. From the Roger;
    I logged in today to put up a small bit in the Profile section. It was meant to be a fairly straightforward description of someone whom I consider to be a Roger of the highest calibre; Eddie Izzard, the British stand-up comedian and actor. I expected to have a bit of fun in waving the ” Eddie” flag as a great example of all things Rogerian, and call it a day. Quick in and out, as Malcolm Mcdowell might say. ( If you actually get that reference, you probably have more troubles than you are aware of. You should likely consult a psychiatrist, oh I think tomorrow, or maybe even right now would be good…)And don’t forget, leave your cellphone on after you call, so that the authorities can triangulate your location.
    Anyway… what occured to me was this; seems like we always choose our own kind to trumpet the virtues of, and pick a more unfortunate example of the “others” to use as an illustration of when things go wrong.
    Now even with me being a Roger and all, I know what I’m about to get back as an answer from you…others. I know, I know… Rogers do that all the time because they’re just a bunch of weak, sniveling, self-serving, herd- gathering whatevers, etc, etc. Figured I could save the Scotts a bit of legwork, and the Clarks are still busy contemplating the metaphysical aspects of … well I actually don’t know that at all, but I’m sure it must be awfully important. Keeps galaxies from colliding and whatnot.
    But with that said, the true question and its answer are quite a bit more complex. Isn’t it remarkable that Phyllis ( a known Roger…and a damn good one at that- you go, girl…) profiles a Scottian teacher as a high motivating factor in her own world (werld, to quote the Lady… much, much more on that to follow)? Especially in that the whole class was unaware that they constituted a government-subsidized lunch program. So, you see, it’s not always bad. We are still ultimately responsible for what we do with all this stuff, and the really important aspects of it all are much elevated above the relatively simple classification of ClarkScottRoger.
    Feel a little better? I know I do. And sorry to go all Obama on your baboon asses ( to quote the Lady again).
    And now, a few words about Eddie.Pretty good actor, and the best damned stand-up comic ever. His material isn’t very topical, political, or dirty. It isn’t actually “material” in the normal way. I saw him at Vets in Providence earlier this year. It was a run-through of the upcoming tour, and you could tell he was trying new stuff out, mixing it in with old chestnuts. He came up a bit dry ay one point, and recovered by pulling out a blackberry, plugging “Rhode Island” into the browser, and improvised for 15 minutes on the article he found. Absolutely fearless. A good Roger would do this only with the rock-solid belief in his ability to use the prop on hand. You will never see a Roger without a prop. Absolute necessity. That’s why Rogers aren’t good front men. Ex.; Axl Rose- Scott, singer, good front man, mike for a prop if at all: Slash- Roger, cool guitars, 800 Marshalls… and the top hat. They’re all props, but the hat is critical. Take that away, you’ve got a goofy kid fron Wisconsin with bad, bad acne. A Roger can front stuff too, but absolutely must have the props. And must believe in them above all. So you know Slash has to do everything with the hat on. Should prove to be quite the pain in the ass as time marches on.
    Anyway, back to Eddie. Wonderful brain, and it is a joy to watch stuff going through his filtering system. Especially knowing that he’s not particularly concerned with where it might go. So the cool thing is that the material or subject aren’t very relevant, it’s how he filters it. And props? Oh my. I was terrified when I first saw him, then you sort of get used to that, and then you’re terrified again if he shows up ” normal”. Particularly recommend ” Dress to Kill”. It’s years old now, but Eddie fans go around chanting from it in much the same way that Monty Python guys do. Cake or Death!

    Ok, I’m done. Later, Binyons. ( Yet another Lady quote)

    clarkscottroger

    September 10, 2009 at 7:05 pm

  5. “…what occured to me was this; seems like we always choose our own kind to trumpet the virtues of, and pick a more unfortunate example of the “others” to use as an illustration of when things go wrong.”

    True statement. (The above film clip, ‘this is my gift to you’…T Montanya).

    Anyway.
    I agree that we all, at this point, take the easy route in our efforts to enlighten the werld about the Wakefield Doctrine. Maybe human nature, maybe not.
    But lest any of us forget, the Doctrine is about a predominance of qualities.
    There are no ‘clarks’ or ‘scotts’ or ‘rogers’. There are people who are primarily scottian, rogerian or clarklike.

    But within every neat, precise and demanding roger, there is a coke bottle-throwing, Ring Ding wrapper-dropping, yell-out-the-car-window scott. Sitting in the backseat (with the head-swelling-up, wishing-to-be-someone/somewhere-else clark.)
    And we are all driving around in the night, trying to get somewhere else.

    Clark

    September 11, 2009 at 8:12 am

  6. I get the Malcolm McDowell reference. This Eddie Izzard looks a lot like a lady. Is he a cross dresser?–or just an unmanly roger?( but I repeat myself). I saw a band recently. Opening act. Musically proficient. Hit all the notes. Comprised of three rogers and a clark. After two minutes of OK music, I wanted them to go away and stop boring me to death. A band without a scott just does not belong in show biz. Without a riveting focal presence, a band is just some random people making random noise while standing on a raised portion of the floor. Barely even noticeable. Most scotts in bands are not the most musically talented, but they have the talent of making people pay attention to them. Call it charisma. Call it “stage presence”. Whatever. Only scotts have it. Rock bands without a scott never succeed. Even bad bands with a good scott are entertaining. Us scotts gotta fuckin’ do everything…

    Glenn

    September 11, 2009 at 4:27 pm

  7. From the Roger;
    Okay, I need some help on this one.
    Just got done talking with the Clark on the phone about the blog, etc. etc. He also reminded me to go and check out clips of a favorite guitar player of ours; Jeff Beck. Recorded at Ronnie Scott’s in New York, it’s basically Jeff doing what he does. I’m very familiar with this, have been a fan for a very long time. This happens to be a very well done DVD, and is highly recommended. Could someone please insert a link to Youtube, right about here?
    That’s not the problem. Here’s the problem.
    I can’t figure quite where to place these people in the ClarkScottRoger scheme of things. I would have expected Jeff, upon analysis, to be a Roger. Guitar player, lots of props, etc. ( Speaking of, by the way, Jeff always does gigs wearing a bone-pipe necklace, ala Native American accoutrement). That rings a very Rogerian bell; I used to do gigs with an eagle feather attached to a beaded rosette hanging on my Marshall amp, until one night in New Hampshire, when it went missing just after we did a set with Steven Tyler, who was on vacation and hanging out. A week later, he drove a Vespa scooter into a bakery truck in Allston and damn near bought the farm. So I figured it was him who nabbed the feather, because you just can’t screw around with stuff like that and not have to pay up. Major karma. But on the other hand, he’s an American icon, and I’m a security guard. Freaking huge karma…still, I wonder if I should try the bakery truck thing… with my luck, it’ll turn out that it only works with certain types of bakery trucks, say a Wonder Bread or Hostess Cupcake truck. I’ll hit a Nissen truck and end up being… a handicapped security guard. LOL.
    Anyway, back to Mr. Beck.
    I must say that, as a guitar teacher ( that’s what old Rogerian guitar players do if they don’t have the courage to kamikaze into the nearest pie cart)I spend a lot of time getting students to develop a proper technique and posture so that they can fully reach the entire fretboard; learning to use the fourth finger to extend their reach; and especially not to hang the thumb over the top of the neck, which generally brings mobility to a dead stop. And then to watch Jeff Beck do absolutely everything wrong,apparently unfettered by his appalling lack of proper Rogerian scientifically proven musical theorem. Nine out of ten security guards ( and not just a few Harvard Deans) concur- he doesn’t seem to give two hoots about Playing Guitar Correctly.
    And thank God for that. He does just what he ( and everyone else too, for that matter) should be doing. He makes a glorious, joyful noise. Who cares how he gets there? I hope he never starts to correct himself.
    But he’s so unconventional, he can’t be a Roger. So I suspect… a Clark in sheep’s clothing. Actually, look carefully… they’re all in on it. It’s a Band of Clarks, for all love.( to quote Captain Aubrey- any Patrick O’Brian fans out there? If you’re not familiar, google him. Best novels ever- now that’s a proper Roger for you)
    It’s very good to see what Clarks can do when they’re organized. But what do you call organized Clarks? It’s not a herd, or a pack… a gaggle? goggle? google? Committee? Consensus? Ah, I know… a conflagration. A conflagration of Clarks has conspired to create some extraordinarily concise concertium. And those of us with ears are all the better for it. I would just love to see the shoes. How do you spot a Clark in sheep’s clothing? He’s the one with the wingtips on.
    And having planted that mildly disturbing imagery in your brains, I will bid you all a good night. I will count some sheep, but only the ones with proper sheep’s feet… hooves, I believe they’re called….

    clarkscottroger

    October 12, 2009 at 10:58 pm

  8. Lots of “stylish” writing on this blog. Lots and lots of it….Sizzle all over the place. Need some steak. This blog is “all hat–no cowboy”. Want to know why? Not enough scotts contributing. Rogers and clarks get all caught up in “writin’ fancy” so people will like them. How sad! Scotts usually start writing with an important ingredient that clarks and rogers apparently consider optional—A FUCKING POINT! The very idea of noodling around a bunch of cleverly placed words on a screen seems like such a waste of energy to a scott. Get a point–first. DO NOT SKIP THIS STEP! If you do not complete step one, do not go on to step two. WAIT! A point will occur to you. When it does, and only when it does, proceed to step two. Step two is write your point. Concisely. Succinctly. And get the fuck out. Like this.

    Glenn

    October 27, 2009 at 9:28 am

    • 🙂
      Come back soon Mr. Wayne and bring some more “points”. Oh, and don’t forget the A1.

      Downspring#1

      October 27, 2009 at 9:26 pm

      • Thanks for responding. I don’t get the “Mr. Wayne” reference. I’m a country boy. I don’t get out much.

        Glenn

        October 28, 2009 at 12:58 pm

  9. Thanks for responding. I don’t get the “Mr. Wayne” reference. Help.

    Glenn

    October 28, 2009 at 12:58 pm

  10. From the Roger;
    Thought I’d get this out before the Clark does.
    ” Sizzle sells the steak”.
    I want to attribute that quote to Alex, a guy that Clark and I worked for in sales a couple of millenium ago. A major Scott, Alex made a mechanical science of selling ice ( or whatever)to eskimos ( or whoever). A lot of freakin’ eskimos bought a lot of ice, or hats, or steak. It was actually time-share, and Alex wrote the pitch that was used in presentation. If you did it his way, you sold shit and made money, and got to keep your job. If not, then you didn’t last long. I didn’t get too far with it. Clark did much better. But Alex was fucking unbelievable. Alex would have an eskimo in a cowboy hat buying a side of beef on ice to take with him on vacation in Newport, and all happy about it, too.
    Oh yeah…the point. Point is, you can’t just throw something out there without some sizzle, or you’ll end up with a truckful of whatever at day’s end. You have to set up for the close, or there won’t be one. Cowboy needs a hat, but secretly still wants one that looks cool with all his other cowboy shit. That would be…too much cowboy, not enough hat…

    clarkscottroger

    October 28, 2009 at 6:06 pm

  11. Oh yeah, forgot to mention…
    That principle applies to this blog, too. The Wakefield Doctrine is actually pretty succinct, once you familiarize yourself with the three groupings. Not much to it, really. Definitely needs a bit of sprucing up for public scrutiny and consumption. Then it will practically sell itself.

    clarkscottroger

    October 28, 2009 at 6:30 pm

  12. Good points Roger. You actually had some. Read it. Got it. Liked it.

    Glenn

    October 30, 2009 at 12:40 pm

  13. Deconstructing the self…interesting concept planted in my head over the weekend by Clark. We all contain all three elements. One emerges as dominant–that becomes our “which one are you”. If I’m really honest. I know that there have been times when I was a complete fucking roger. God! It galls me to admit that. After a failed romance, heartbroken and wounded, pining away, indulging in emotional excesses all over the place. I WAS a roger then. Still embarasses me to remember it. When I was younger, still not formed, only about 18 or 19, I went through a clark phase that still scares me when I think about it today. I was thinking all kinds of crazy, schizoid thoughts all day every day about the nature and fluidness of reality. Very distressing conepts for anyone–but especially to someone who eventually mature into a scott. As a scott, I know reality is reality. If you run really fast into a tree, you hurt yourself. The tree is real. But when I was a clark for awhile, I could entertain thoughts about reality being nothing more solid than my own thoughts. Reality is perception. I distinctly, clearly remember those thoughts–and how disturbing they were to me. At that time I was terrified by the prospect that I might think like this for the rest of my life. It would set me apart. Isolate me. Leave me with nobody to talk with, because I was convinced that there was no other person on the planet thinking this way but me. Thank God, I matured out of that to the spitting, snorting, swearing, aggresive, competetive scott I was always destined to be. But, for a brief time, I have been both of the others. Not comfortable being either one–but I was there. And so, my roger and clark must still be with me. Not so far beneath the surface. The thought is not comforting, but must be acknowledged. There is something about the COMFORT factor. I CAN be a roger. I CAN be a clark. But I’m only comfortable being a scott.
    Brings up an interesting side note to this entire “thing” we have here. Years ago we used to talk about Bob Johnsons. A Bob Johnson is, theoretically anyway, a person who is equally a scott, roger, and a clark. Very rare. Also very unstable–and they usually self-destruct somehow. The effect of not having a dominant type, results in such undirected, unfocused behavior that usually ends in some kind of bad outcome. I’ve personally known only one Bob Johnson in my lifetime. His name was Ed Lees. After brilliantly inventing a business, and building it to an unbelievable level of success, he drank himself to death–quite publicly. Humiliation and defeat defined the end of his life. Because he contained all three elements equally, he was in fact brilliant–and hugely effective and successful. However it could not be sustained–and he crashed landed on his way to his eventual ignominious death. People shook their heads and acknowledged his brilliance–and lamented his strong self-destructive impulses.
    Bob Johnsons are rare. Like three-toed sloths. A historical figure I can name who was probably also a Bob Johnson is Richard Nixon. Same story.
    So be aware of your recessive styles, but be grateful that you have one dominant style. It seems a risky business at best to try and “develop” your recessive side(s). (Parentheses are for you, Clark. I know you like ’em). Too much development of recessive traits could cause you to become a Bob Johnson.
    And now, just because I need to do it….Fuck you clark, you intellectually constipated retard. And fuck you Roger, you simpering, frightened, child. Perhaps I am talking to my inner clark, and my inner roger, when I attack like that. But, maybe not. Fuck you anyway.

    Glenn

    November 16, 2009 at 11:46 am


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: