the Wakefield Doctrine

the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers

Posts Tagged ‘clarkscottroger

the Wakefield Doctrine ( From One Progenitor to Another)

with 2 comments

     Of course you’re still writing. Why in the world would you stop?  New readers, new acolytes, new venues… all truly and genuinely phenomenal progress. This has come many light-years from the park bench by the tennis courts, across from the Old Mountain field….and now, thrown as many light-years into the future, we are in a universe where the progressive musings of the Clark are changing people’s lives.

     No need to panic. Where the historic Clark would be long gone, it turns out that the new (est) Digital Clark is actually quite good at this. Posts still have a healthy dose of gut-wrenching Clarkian angst, but overall are longer, more smoothly composed and less abstract. People are getting it. Turns out that you don’t need a secret treble booster in the wah pedal; just turn the sucker up and fly with it. It works, that’s been proven; now just let it do so.

     As for me… not entirely sure. I just haven’t had anything worth offering lately. And I haven’t an editing schedule to keep, thank God. I have found myself noodling about with a bit of a new radical” concept of late. I just need a bit more to go on before allowing the idea to advance. Right now it feels much like the ending of  ” the Sixth Sense”, and somebody around here is Bruce Willis… now that’s cryptic. Can’t say anything more without some good solid forensic and detective work. Just wish I actually knew how to do good solid forensic and detective work. Oh, well. I’ll just have to push on anyway. Will check in when I’ve got anything of interest.

Advertisements

Written by clarkscottroger

March 15, 2010 at 3:49 pm

the Wakefield Doctrine (…you do not want to look down…)

leave a comment »

So, what shall we talk about? This is (or will be) a Sunday Post, which is a nice alternative to the dreary Sunday newspapers.(1)

Being the Wakefield Doctrine (aka the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) we will talk about the Doctrine but we try to put it into terms that are accessible and enjoyable(2) in the hopes of the benefits of this fine system being made useful to you, the Readers(3).

So…..no, don’t worry. Nothing too weird for this Post.  In fact, I suspect some you might be wondering to yourself (or perhaps to the children as you read them this Post, if as a bedtime story), “Well, Mr. (non)Specific Narrator, why is it that you try with each Post to come up with a different approach/theme/gimmick/hook?”  Well, that is a legitimate question, Mr. (pre)Supposed Reader. Why? You asking me (4)? There is a simple answer(actually 2 simple answers). One) because I want to engage the Reading in a ‘conversation’ about the Doctrine and it’s principles and applications and 2) I find that I enjoy the process of coming up with Posts*

So, I write.
So, you** read.

*(I really should qualify the use of the word ‘enjoy’. In my use of the terms I intend to denote a range of emotion extending from a feeling of quiet elation as the result of a well-received/perceived Post to abject despondency when confronted with an idea that while exciting when first occurring, plummets into a state that is best expressed as: where the fuck is the delete button on this thing, the hell with the whole blog/blogsphere/hell, the whole internet.)

**(‘

Shit…

…how about me?

Shit… ok I give up.  You are going to have to endure one of those ‘tortured writer’s’ Post.  Sorry, not meaning it the way it seems to look/sound.
Heres the thing.  Still working with the belief that ‘new content is king’ and that the ever hungry god google wants, demands, requires new content or this blog will be cast aside as casually as…as..(see? nothin is working).  I have a goal of a new content level set at a minimum of 3 Posts a week.  Three Posts that will say something about the Doctrine and will encourage our regular Readership to come back.   And hopefully, hook-in the occasional new Reader.  Fine goal.

But we are reaching the point (probably no different from every/any other blog in the world) where the low hanging fruit is gone and it is necessary to somehow step up to the next level.  I sense that threshold, I even have an inner confidence that I will find the way to get over the next hurdle because this thing of ours will not stop until I hear a totally un-related person (with no direct connection to this blog), (like on TV or other media) say something like: ‘how scottian is that’, or ‘he is such a roger’. Then and only then I can stop doing these Posts.  Unfortunately, that time is not here so there will be Posts like this, which require that most favorite thing of( any clark) and that is, ‘getting personal/writing stuff that might not be as clever as I would like’.

Well, that’s what we have today, so let’s get on with it, those of you regular Readers, feel free to go read some old Posts, (try the one with the pictures of the clarks, scotts and rogers (turtle, dog, cow  respectively).) You new Readers…well you’re kind of stuck.

(Despite how the above may sound), I am not un-happy with where the Doctrine is today.  We have a good core of Readers, who are beginning to get comfortable enough to write Comments.  We have a steady rate of readership and I am starting to look into getting some professional help with the layout of this blog, make it more user friendly.  Should know more this week….

See?  I can’t do it.  I just do not have the ego or the self-confidence or whatever you call it to sit here and just talk about things that are happening to me/to the Doctrine.  Damn.  I guess I will need to find it in myself to somehow come up with something anyway.  What are ya gonna do.  Blank paper + words = new Post.  Pretty simple, isn’t it?

(Yes, roger, you are correct, the fact is I am still writing…) So in a word, the Doctrine will continue.  I will continue to find something to write about and no matter how it makes me feel, I will make sure Posts are here that are new (new sounding anyway).  And while our scotts are stepping up and contributing more and more, the rogerian contingency is off by itself these days.  This is a horrible concept, but one I must in all sincerity warn the clarks about,  things do change.  As my boy Zeno says, ‘you can’t step in the same river twice, yo’.  So in that delightfully ‘horrifying- because-not-only-can-you-not-stop-the-process- but- most-of-you-does-not-want-to-stop’ the process, you do a thing and watch your world shift.  And it is not always a happy thing.  But you do it anyway.

Okay, okay…I was developed for a reason…attention Fillmore High Students…get under your desks..there is severe maudlin threat..yes..who else would this be?  jeez retain much backstory do we?..these people may have created me and the school and all, but sometimes…I just wonder…these are the Wakefield Doctrine people…no one said it was being written by SAG card carrying…lol  I know…I got here just barely in time to bail these guys out…so here is the lesson today:

the Wakefield Doctrine offers amusement and enlightenment…(no, Mr. M not a big word for a high school junior)…it’s a blog for goodness sake, it is not War and Peace…remember what the writer guys say: read, learn and buy a hat…don’t you love those hats?…lol yes I am pushing for tee shirts…ok, all clear,  I think, as your student monitor, that it is safe to come out from under the desks now…Mr. B  do something!

OK.  I think I have it out of my system.

Starting next Post, that is lol.  We will be doing Posts devoted to each of the three types.  The next Post will be about clarks, then scotts and finally rogers.

Thanks for sitting through this one,  oh and remind me to work on the content in the Pages.  Gots to get that more organised.

Always a chance to win a hat.  (Or maybe later in the season we will have the tee shirts ready…suggestions for designs are welcome.  Am thinking: Fillmore High Faculty (got to check and see how many real Fillmore High Schools there are first.)

OK some music then we are outa here.

…’the whole rythmn section was the Purple Gang’…damn!

Written by clarkscottroger

March 14, 2010 at 5:23 pm

the Wakefield Doctrine (…really? jeez a little caught up in this thing?…)

with 6 comments

‘All Along the Watchtower’ (…slight return) 

Yeah, I know.  How do you think I feel, I’m the one stuck with an idea that won’t go away and stays until it finds it’s way into a Post.
But re-writing song lyrics?  Dylan??!!  mf the things this Doctrine makes me do.  Damn.  Not that it matters, but every now and then I get a glimpse into the process that has been created by the Wakefield Doctrine in general and by this blog in particular.  And sometimes it scares me.  But then it passes, because the Doctrine will be served and melodramatics aside, I do this thing because I want to, for myself (and my people, of course).  Will not name them but only one of the three (types) see a value in the Doctrine  in changing (oneself).   (As we say out here in the damn troposphere:  read, learn and buy a hat).

(…so hum the melody, preferably the Hendrix version, and sing along!)   (…and don’t tell Bob)

the thing called the Wakefield Doctrine
this is our blogs name
theory of clarks, scotts and rogers
it will soon find fame
so hum the tune in your head
as you continue to read
it will all come to make sense by the time you are  through,yeah

there are just three kinds of people
among all that are alive
clarks and scotts and the rogers
I swear this ain’t no jive
each can be seen out in the world
if you just know what to look for
keep humming Jimi in your head, I have a whole lot more, yeah

clarks are the first of the three
they all live in their heads
they make up all kinds of stuff
they are really creative
but they barely ever relate
almost nothing is true
their only hope for a normal life are the other two,yeah

then we have friends that are called scotts
talk about a clear type
they might bark and they might bite
but they are a whole lot of fun
give them credit they know how to live
from them we can learn
to live and not think too much, always on the run, yeah

finally we have our rogers
the third of our three types
they are the exact ones, the engineers
the judges and the lawyers
they keep life civilized
if it were not for the rogers
we would not not have the damn internet and this would not be here, yeah

so my apologies to Zimmerman
for using his Watch Tower song
am getting near to the end,  it won’t be too long
I can’t believe I get like this
trying to just write a blog
but that is in fact my fate
let us end this now, isn’t the Wakefield Doctrine great, yeah

…excuse me getting me kinda nervous now.  I may be a developing fictional character, so am not easily surprised but wtf was that?  Teacher!  CSR101 Teacher, you might want to get some of that reality sawdust that janitor uses,  have  slight spill outside artsy class!  not that I don’t admire the effort but don’t these Progenitors have lives?  I did say that I was fictional, right?  yeah developing too, grow  up Mr. Miller!…really I just think that these Doctrine people…including those Downstreams? Handstands? whatever they call themselves ought to get together and chip in for a life for these poor people …either that or work a lot harder and get this blog thingie a lot more famous than it is…maybe more with their Fashion line, btw I love their hats…maybe tee shirts too!…I know! I know! how about:   “I (heart) Janie Sullivan”,  no! wait! even better…”Janie is a figment of your imagination…you wish”  lol get that out and sell a million of them on the internet and maybe these poor Progenitors can have a quiet time in their golden years…I understand there is a retirement home,  Weber Old Folks Home I think it is called  where the decor is done in mid-20th C  college dorm  and all the meals are served cafeteria style…they even have ‘stereos’ in the rooms – whatever those are…so all you Readers  write something so these guys can get some rest…I am not going to stay an imaginary high school student forever you know…ta

OK.  That about wraps up this late night edition of the Wakefield Doctrine. Oh, oh, before I forget…big shout out to our newest RITC (Reader Willing To Comment)  Lance.  Hey thanks Lance!  Let us know if you liked the Post you were Commenting on because it was written in ‘French’ and you live there or because it was written in French and you couldn’t figure wtf we were up to…in any case thanks for the Comment.  (btw went to your blog, I really, really hope you are a physician or at least someone in the medical field,  lol)

Want to thank Mr. B for his video to accompany our little ‘blog as lyrics’,  totally still prefer the Hendrix version.  Something a little light to take us out?

Written by clarkscottroger

March 11, 2010 at 6:24 am

the Wakefield Doctrine (…on with their hats…)

with 5 comments

There is much to talk about but first, the fun of fashion, Doctrine Style. Envy the owners of the scottian heads that will soon be adorned by this fine hat.             

A fine hat for your own damn scottian head.

 Look on this, and feel the desire grow within your heart on behalf of your un-hatted head.  Pretty nice, you say?  Damn right is pretty nice.  Maybe even too nice!  

The lucky two with these hats (Ms. AKH and Ms. Pixieblonde) are both fortunate and deserving of your envious thoughts, you should accept that you must earn such fashion.  There will be new opportunity for both Men and Women of the clarklike, scottian and rogerian varieties, to earn such  headcoverings.            

Alright, enough with the hats already.  They have theirs and you can get yours if you really want to, but we are not here, writing this to sell hats.

We are here writing this to sell* the Wakefield Doctrine (aka the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers).
And by *sell we mean present to as many as qualified** people as possible the principles and practical applications*** of said Doctrine.
And by **qualified we mean  people who upon visiting this blog and reading it’s content are capable of loosening the grip of  dogma  enough to allow the overlay of the description of the world that the Doctrine offers.
And by ***principles and practical applications of the Doctrine, we mean  it offers an alternative, an adjunct to the way most of us interpret the actions, behaviors and intentions of the people we live and work and play with every day of our lives****.
And by****lives, we mean the increasingly rigid lens through which we not only perceive the world we exist in, but we also use  as the template which informs our experiences as we live our lives.          

Let’s talk about practical applications (of the Doctrine)….the Doctrine  tells us that only one of the three (clarks, scotts and rogers) consider  a tool that is useful in altering themselves (and thereby their realities) to be a valuable thing.  In other words to change themselves.  You know who you are.
Another of the three will, if engaged sufficiently in the Wakefield Doctrine, consider the most valuable is as a tool to change others, changing the view that the world has of them.
Finally, the third (of the three) will view the Doctrine  as a tool, a weapon, to aid them in dealing with the hostile world they live in.         

Tired?  Bored?  You want what?  Come on people, learn first then have fun.         

(Alright…damn, I wonder if Rev Moon had to put up with this…alright…short break for you attention-span challenged Readers….I see you out there  scott.    Jeez,  try to bring the Secret of the Universe to the masses and what do you get…”More videos!!” and they are not even mine, if it wasn’t for the youtube we probably would have been shut down months ago.  OK  here you go…)        

OK  back to work…  

(Free hat to the Reader who correctly identifies which of the three Ray was; to enter you  need to write a Comment at the bottom of this Post.  You must tell us which Ray is (clark, scott or roger) and why that is the case.  Free hat to the first 5 correct responses recieved by 4:00 pm Monday March 8th)       

OK.  Back to work. 

… lets get all Readers Digest on this thing.   

  • clarks live inside their own heads because it’s all much better in there
  • clarks are the only (one of the three) to sincerely entertain the idea that it would be better to be someone else
  • clarks read a lot and to say that clarks daydream a lot is to totally go redundant
  • clarks work very hard at whatever they do but since we are bored very easily, do not do well at repetitive tasks
  • clarks are the creative one(s) of the three
  • clarks share, to a fault
  • clarks believe that if they work hard and help others unselfishly at some point they will no longer be different
  • ‘knowledge is power’ is a keystone concept to clarks

It can be said that clarks can believe anything and therefore believe in nothing. (If you know what that means, you are a clark).     

yeah here too, lets get all Readers Digest on this thing.   

  • scotts are leaders (because they are certain, not necessarily right, but certain).
  • scotts are self-confident/self-assured/certain (which is why, of course, they are the leaders)
  • scotts are emotional in a way different from rogers, it is for the moment emotion, not much grudge holding
  • in a band it is always a scott who is the ‘front man’, (see leader above)
  • at a party scotts will not hesitate to introduce themselves (to everyone)
  • for the most part, when confronted with a threat or other fear-generating situation, a scott will choose to attack rather than flee
  • scottian females can be ridiculously sexy or quick witted, hardly ever both.
  • (female) scotts can be spotted because they have prominent throat tendons (ask us why)

One of the most useful metaphors in the Wakefield Doctrine is: grouping (when you have more than one of each type, what do the characteristics tell us about the individual?)       

a group of scotts is a pack     

you gotta like the form, its a fucking bullet list, but lets get all Readers Digest on this thing.   

  • rogers are the friendly ones
  • rogers are the glue to whatever social fabric you might care to consider, civic, religious, scientific
  • rogers require rules and traditions, they are in fact the only ‘reason’ that history of human civilization has any continuity whatsoever
  • rogers are behind the creation or and perpetuation of virtually all human institutions, religious, civic, political whatever
  • rogers do not create, they maintain, they assemble, they are the machine operators
  • rogers are the engineers, accountants and physicians
  • rogers are the judges, the firefighters and high school teachers (except for gym teachers)
  • rogers believe in a quantifiable universe to such a depth that it is not seperable
  • when you are new to a neighborhood, rogers are the ones who come over to introduce themselves, and they will appear in a group ( herd), the scotts are the neighbors who always offer to help you with projects, scotts will feel comfortable asking to borrow and offering to lend things, but they will show up (at your house) alone.

    Herds,  rogers be in herds…  

 Well, that is helpful, no?  

Alright, we have covered a lot of ground.  No, there will be no questions from the floor, roger.  The eyes I see have a distinct glaze.  

But in all seriousness, read this shit and look around you today, right now. Pick one person only and decide whether they are a clark, scott or roger. And keep checking their behavior against the Doctrine.  I guarentee that once you find one, the others will be much more obvious.  You will probably spot a roger first, but any of the three will do.  Personally, I think it would be easier and more fun to spend a little extra time and find your nearest clark. (The clarklike females are totally easy to spot).  Don’t bother with which of the three you are at this point.  Not important.  You just want to spot the clarks, and the scotts and the rogers around you.  Like one of those old puzzles in the back of kids magazines or Sunday supplements,  “Find the tigers in the jungle”; once you discern the first pattern, the rest jump out at you.  

Now don’t think we don’t know that which of the three (clarks, scotts or rogers) you happen to be, will have an effect  on how you respond to this…but by virtue of the fact that you are still reading, still with us is proof that you have what it takes to apply the Doctrine in your own life. 

Good luck, don’t forget the contest and don’t worry so much… 

Written by clarkscottroger

March 7, 2010 at 12:02 am

the Wakefield Doctrine (‘…meant for someone else, but not for me…’)

with 3 comments

Hey, its a mid-week Post!  What say we go easy on the lessons and relax for a spell.  (There will be much to cover, but we’ll get to that in the end of the week Post).

We are always looking for different and (hopefully) interesting ways to present the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers), the thinking is the more varied the context that this thing is presented in, the greater the likelihood that our Readers will be able to apply these principles to their own lives.

So, what is more universal than an Advice Column?  Better yet, an Advice Column that focuses on relationships.  To that end we have asked Ms. AKH to help us out.  She has written a number of Posts that have been quite well received,  one on couples (from a scottian perspective) click here. and she has also written for our newest member of the faculty at Millard Fillmore High (as student teacher) click here.

(There’s the background of our Contributing Downspring, let’s see what Ms. AKH has for us…)

 

WD:  Ms. AKH Welcome!  After your Post on scottian/rogerian couples, we have heard a lot of interest in how the Doctrine can help people work through ‘relationship problems’.  We would like to pose some questions to you and maybe you would consent to be our Advice Columnist (for couples).
Before we start, in your Post on columns, you spoke so glowingly about your relationship with a roger, how are you two doing?

Ms.AKH:  Well, you’ll never believe it.  That rogerian guy I was seeing turned out to be an asshole.  Out of the blue he just stopped calling me. Wouldn’t return my phone calls either or respond to my e-mails trying to find out what happened.  It actually worked out well because I was starting to “not feel it” anymore anyway.  But still, he could’ve had enough balls to respect me and to let me know why.  Went from adoring me to ignoring me. What a typical weak roger.  Such a fucking coward.  Personally I think that we scottian females are too much for a rogerian male to handle.

WD:  Oh.  I see, but what are we to learn about the scottian half of a couple like this (your case)?  I am tempted to think there is a tendency of the scottian female to tire of the routine, hear the call of ‘the hunt’ if you will? Not for nothing, but we have all seen cats bat the little, soon-to-be-dinner mouse around for fun.  As a people (scotts) live for the hunt, perhaps a steady diet of pleasant company gets a little boring?

Ms AKHLove your analogy!  I think it depends on the level of confidence of the roger.  Certainly the scottian females enjoy batting the little mouse around, the mouse easily being a roger.  This can be satisfied in a scottian/rogerian relationship if the roger is strong enough and the scott is not overly predatory.  That being said, not all scottian females are as predatory as let’s say scottian males.  So my conclusion is that if the rogerian male is strong enough to withstand the antics of the scottian female, the relationship could be successful.  Being with a roger would both ground her and give her the upper hand as it were (in her mind) that she needs.      

WD:  We have a more generalized question about couples.  We all agree that the scottian female/rogerian male couple is very easy to identify.  What of the scott/clark couples.  How would we identify such a couple?  And what special characteristics do they have?

Ms. AKH:  From the outside, the scott would appear to be the “stronger” of the two.  In fact, the clark would be perceived as the subordinate one due to his seemingly lack of interest/interaction and subdued nature.  However, don’t be fooled by this.  The cogs are constantly turning.  And though the scott may think of himself/herself as being the “leader of the pack” and therefore superior, it is important to remember that the clark is extremely cerebral and always “on the hunt” mentally.  They are a pair of hunters with the scott being outwardly aggressive while the clark is inwardly insatiable.     

WD:  Since we are on the topic, do you think that a scott/scott couple is very likely?  Would they not eat each other… (not necessarily in the good way)?

Ms AKH:  You’re making me blush!  There are many scott/scott relationships out there which easily spotted, but inevitably unsuccessful. These are the turbulent ones.  Filled with constant battles, this couple would be in constant turmoil fueled by each other’s strong personalities.  For example, the couples who call the police for restraining orders against each other.  But then you have the other scott/scott relationships which are successful.  If both partners have the same life goals, they would be a couple to contend with.  Very ambitious and successful in reaching their ideals.  Just imagine, two hunters against the world.  Kind of a scary proposition. They would no doubt be able to catch their prey quite easily and effectively. It would be child’s play to reach and even surpass the goals that they intend to achieve.  So yes, a scott/scott couple is possible.

WD:  Thank you for these insights.  In keeping with starting a little ‘Advice for the Lovelorn’ column, I would like to pose a specific question and get your input.

(WD):  As a young clark I had a relationship with a scottian female, very ‘exciting’ …(that’s all you get from me, I am a clark, lol) Anyway, long story short.  She dumps me for a roger!  Like no notice, just withdraws and then (him) being a roger, it was all, “hey it’s not our fault it just happened, you need to get on with your life, clark.  Please dont hate me…”  So what could I have done differently?  Is there something in a scottian female/clarklike male that is inherently unstable?

Ms AKH:  Unless you wanted to be someone other than yourself, there really isn’t anything you could’ve done without compromising your integrity.  Your strong point is outwitting others mentally.  I’m not so sure about being inherently unstable.  In this case, I would have to say that the scottian female may have felt threatened and that she wasn’t able to feel she was in control of the relationship.  This would explain leaving you for the roger.  A roger is, afterall, non-confrontational and easy to control. Rogers pretty much go with the flow and are followers.  And this would give the scott the role of “leader of the pack” she so desperately needs.  Being in control without being questioned from a roger.

WD:  Thank you, MS AKH.  I am sure our Readers will have their own questions in the near future, perhaps we should plan on making this a more regualr feature here at the Doctrine.

Well, that was informative and fun!  There is a place, right below for your Comments  or questions.  Don’t be shy.  And no one will call you at home and ask you follow-up questions, so lets get some Reader participation here.

Mr. B, some traveling music? 

Written by clarkscottroger

March 3, 2010 at 11:54 am

the Wakefield Doctrine (‘…God said to Abraham, kill me a son. Abe say, man you must be puttin me on’…)

with 6 comments

(Man, tough Post.)

I mean, I know what I want to talk about, but it’s how to talk about it that has me dialing: 1-800-kitchensink.
You do not want to know how many drafts it has taken to get even this far.  But write it I will. (remind me to tell you later about how helpful our Miss Sullivan has been).

Let’s start at the beginning (…”and go on till you come to the end”  L Carroll):

‘The Wakefield Doctrine is built upon the idea that everyone experiences the world/reality differently, from one of three overlapping but distinctive perspectives… maintains that this characteristic perception of reality can be grouped into three distinct types, called for reasons stated elsewhere, clarks, scotts and rogers.’
…we also possess the potential to see the world as a clark or a scott or a roger.  It is only the predominance of qualities from one (over the other two) that makes us what we are.  No one is only clarklike or scottian or rogerian. (source:  About: The Wakefield Doctrine (italics added).

Why quote that which we all know?

To assert balance.
In the last few Posts we have received a good amount of input from the scottian perspective.  We appreciate this.  The Doctrine is being read by more and more (repeat) Readers because of this input.
(and)…it is the nature of  scotts to present strong opinion on all matters, the topic  of rogers being no exception.
(All Opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the person, character or self-identified entity attaching their names to said Opinion.  These Opinions do not necessarily reflect the Opinions of other Progenitors or Downsprings.  All Comments are possibly incorrect, with the exception of those from the one with the marked penchant for parenthes(es))1 

 So, let us go right to the matter at hand.

Rogers
are awful…
         they are awfully opinionated and parochial, they are awfully judgemental and closed minded and obsessed with the mundane and the measurable and the repeatable and the consistent and the reliable and…it is a good thing we have rogers or we would all be living on the open savannah, sleeping in trees and looking over our shoulders every time we tried to have a drink of water.

Our scottian brethren (in fact our individual scottian aspect) are not incorrect in their assessment of the foibles of the rogerian nature; they are simply limited.  Their Comments are direct and without nuance or subtely,  you know:  scottian.  But neither are they (the scotts) at fault, they are merely expressing their perception.
Having said that, I would not want to fly to Vegas in a plane designed by scotts (or for that matter, a plane built by clarks).
In the first case, the plane would have 5  over-sized jet engines stuck on various sections of the fuselage, mostly towards the back of the plane, painted bright colors and the pilot would be expected to be able to stick his head out the window to scream at other passing jets.  In the second case, the interior would consist primarily of couches (with pillows and quilts),  that while comfortable, would tend to slide around (a lot)  and there would be 6 or 7  bathrooms taking up the entire back half of the plane.

(You get my point).

It is a given here at the Doctrine that those who participate are assumed to be able to handle whatever forms of interactions occur.  And while we maintain the editorial right to shape expressions of opinions, it is with no small amount of pride that we can say that has not happened yet.  What you read is the direct and un-abashed thoughts and opinions of the contributors.

But that is only half of the challenge we faced sitting down at the keyboard here.

The other half (and possibly the half with the greater significance for this thing of ours) is how to speak to them (rogers and scotts and clarks),  as brother Malcom said:

“And during the few moments that we have left, we want to talk, right down to
earth, in a language that everybody here can easily understand.” (Malcolm X)

The simple fact of the matter is that if not written in the ‘language’ of the type, no message will get through.  Another way to say it:  if I do not manage to ‘speak scottian‘ to a scott, my message will be misinterpreted at best and totally unheard at worst.  If I cannot speak to a roger in the language of the herd then I will be treated as noise.

This is the dilemma we face with this Post.

But, fuck it.  We are writing (this) which is not the same as assuming that we are communicating (with the Reader).

Hey scott!  Hey!!  Don’t eat all of the local herd or you may find yourself having to go outside of your own hunting grounds…getting hungry…getting weak…finding new hunting grounds and finding…a whole new pack of scotts…(and we all know how social and co operative scotts are). (Can you say, ‘the weak and old simply get left behind to die’?  I knew you could!)

Hey roger…get over it.  The herd is all there is… until you look up.  Once you see the herd,  I hate to burst your bubble pal,  you ain’t in the herd anymore.  And try as you might, you can never, never bury yourself in historical novels and documentaries by Saint Ken, never go back to that bovine indifference to the werld.  And those scotts that you love supplying food for and the clarks that make you feel so better than…guess what?
They know that you know.  And know that you know that they know…

oh clark…don’t think you can type yourself out of this one…no, there will be no literary constructs to divert the Reader.  No mf…you of all of the three forms, you are the one to indulge in the ‘people? can’t we all just get along’  bullshit.  Which, when you really look at it, is a sin against all that the Doctrine stands for… goddamn dude, you really think that just sitting there and typing this shit week after week was going to change you into the real person you have always been afraid that you are not?  Well, you may be on track but you better be prepared to step outside of your perfectly defined-surely-this-includes-all-inferences-and-possibilties little world.  As the Lady would say, ‘You been told’.

Welll…that sort of went all toyota on us, didn’t it?  (Heh heh)  …oh Janie!

what? no…busy now…come back.. oh alright!  Now I am called in to lighten things up? Any of you real people/Readers think through the implications of using a ‘literary construct’ to lend a sense of reasonableness to the shenanigans that go on around here? Even a hint of how messed up that is?  No, I didn’t, think you had…
Hey, did you know that the old janitor/music video guy (Mr. B, I believe) was once a professional musician? yeah! he was just telling me…no,  not too old man tries to recapture… but I am an ‘A’ student in the Doctrine and I did not know that a roger could deliberately give up his rogerian expression…yeah me too.  Anyway  he had to run and left the following music  said that if you don’t try too hard you will get the connection…whatever
…can I go home now? this does get just a bit tedious…

1) In case of disagreement, the protocol will be followed:
               we are right and you are wrong…

the Wakefield Doctrine (…a Tale of a Fateful Trip…)

with 7 comments

Interesting? Simple? Informative?

(Alex? I’d like Wakefield Doctrine for $500.)

So today’s Post will give you a perspective on clarks, scotts and rogers  in the words of a clark and a scott and a roger.

With each Post we strive  to present the Wakefield Doctrine in ways meant to help you, the Reader to grasp the concept of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) in such a way as to be able to apply it to your daily life. Our  goal is that there will be a moment in the course of your day at which you will stop and say (to yourself or aloud):   “Oh my god! there are such things as clarks and scotts and rogers!” “And they’re frickin everywhere!”

So for today’s Post, something from (three of) the Downsprings (here at the Doctrine).

Question:  What is the most important thing about your scottian personality that you believe most people do not get?
 GlennPeople sometimes think I’m cruel—or mean-spirited. I am not. I enjoy people immensely. I am capable of more compassion and empathy than most people I know.  As a scott I am devoted to being the center of attention. I use humor as one of the ways to get people to pay attention to me. I love put-down humor. I love being the butt of other peoples’ humor—as long as it’s funny, I don’t care. But some (rogers especially) have some kind of “rule” against put-down humor. Oprah must have told them that good people don’t do that to each other. It’s “hurtful”. Fucking babies. I engage in humor only with people whose company I enjoy. If I bust your agates, it means I like you. A guy I play ball with, a classic weak roger, recently took me aside and ASKED me not to put him down anymore. As soon as he asked me, I stopped liking him—so, problem solved. He no longer exists to me. Here’s what people don’t get:  Ignoring you means I dislike you—not that I respect you. Busting your balls means that I like you—and I respect your ability to handle it—and give it back.  When I told a slightly stronger roger about this weak- assed request from this asshole, he said to me, “You have to earn the respect of your peers—not BEG for it”. Seems so obvious to me. Hard to believe people can be so intentionally sensitive. A lot of rogers LIKE victimhood. It’s the only power they’ll ever have.  Poor fucks.

 Question:  What is the most important thing about your clarklike personality that you believe most people do not get?
Downspring#1 Humor.  People (some) sometimes do not get my sense of humor. Granted it is on the dry side but I do have a good sense of humor and fun.  A kid at heart.  But here’s the thing – many people “do not get” a lot of things when it comes to clarks.  These are mostly the rogers of the world. To be fair there are a select few that do “get me” however, next to other clarksscotts “get” me quicker than rogers.  Perhaps it is because scotts see a little of themselves in clarks.  I actually am a friendly person but as a clark am often seen as “aloof” and “distant”, even “snobbish”.  How so very far from the truth.  It is just that it takes a certain amount of time for a clark to “reveal” him/her self – to decide how comfortable they are with another.  There is an automatic instinct in clarks that allow them to either dismiss or accept a person pretty much in the first few minutes of meeting them.  Similar in a sideways fashion to scotts in that respect but without the hunger element present.  Let’s not forget the “underestimation” of clarks.  Geez, I could probably go on and more in depth but  

 Question:  What is the most important thing about your rogerian personality that you believe most people do not get?
Phyllis: I guess, as a roger, I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about if people understand me or not. What’s to understand. If you don’t understand something that is important to me, I am quick to enlighten you. The task at hand is more important than the “personality” behind it. I am not friendly, not kind, not generous; but people tend to see me that way and why change their view.

So, there you have it, direct from the source(s).

These are not paid actors, no one has been scripted, prompted, encouraged, pychoanalyzed or dramatized, they are simply answering a question. One of the three above will resonate (with you) and the other two will make you think of someone you know.

Your assignment today is simply to go about your day and from time to time, ask yourself, ‘is this (person) a clark, or is she a scott, might he be such a roger’?
If you are not certain, jot a note to yourself and when you come back, if you are still not sure then write us a Comment, give us a description and we will be glad to help.

Mr. B?  A moment?  You know a lot of us like most of your videos. Yes, of course, you’re welcome.  What? No, we have gone over that and we agree that all that unpleasantness is behind us. Years and years ago, a different time and place, we both agreed. Yes, I understand.  What I wanted to talk to you about is that we need to get even more eclectic in the video music.
Yes, I relate to all of it, but there is a large part of the readership of the Doctrine that did not live through those times.  You have the music background, I am sure you will find samples of music that will ‘broaden our appeal’. Yes, even the Slovenians. As a group they are quite sophisticated, I know I feel the same way. So if you would…
What? Which other matter?
Oh, that other matter.  Yes I will concede that you were there before the (current) Progenitor. But we have had the name the same for all these years, well I supposed if you wanted to ask him. Yes, it was a trying time for all of us…yeah I’m sure she was worth giving up a friendship for…is there any doubt? We recently had a scottian female/rogerian male perspective in one of our Posts.  No, I don’t mind. Yes, being alone does afford you time, by all means, you may approach Miss Sullivan for help with something like that. We are all fond of Janie.

We’ll talk more later,  yes I promise. The music?  Oh yes, I believe the second floor Ladies Room is next on your schedule…no, no you’re entirely welcome. Yeah anytime.

not amused, Mr. B, not amused.

Written by clarkscottroger

February 24, 2010 at 7:51 am