February 24, 2010 By clarkscottroger 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 each of the three of the Downsprings at the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
Question: What is the most important thing about your scottian personality that you believe most people do not get?
Glenn –People 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 clarks, scotts “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” himself/herself – 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.
So 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.
Downspring #1 says:
I was eager this morning to open the Wakefield Doctrine to see if my words (as they appear in dayglow blue) were the ones I intended for presentation by the Progenitor clark in the newest Post.
To my complete and utter dismay what is appearing on computers everywhere(OK on maybe 20 or 25 of them), is my rough draft. Having had a case of the stupids, I inadvertently e-mailed THAT version to the clark. Bad timing took care of the rest. I did in fact re-work my rough draft, e-mailed the final copy and, with fingers crossed, hoped it would be what got posted. Not.
So how is this helpful? It is the reaction of a clark at such a mistake. Clarks don’t like mistakes and, despite appearances, do sometimes care what others think.
But let’s talk evolution. I got pretty upset with my initial reaction but luckily decided WTF! Why not let the(my) scott out? In the grand scheme of things does it really matter? It is what it is.
Remember kids, clarks think, scotts act, and rogers feel…..
Denise, we both referenced humor. With no prior knowledge of each others’ contribution, we both glommed onto humor as the way we are most misunderstood. Also, now I understand the lack of a picture on FB. “It takes a certain amount of time for a clark to reveal herself”. Of course it does. Mad respect, yo.
ok…put the innuendo down and step away from the Downspring…
…I was talking to the clark…(punchline to old joke).
I remember when I first met you at E.L. Freeman. Wasn’t sure about you. You initially struck me as being more cerebral than most people I knew. I was actually a little intimidated (I know… a scott being intimidated?) and wasn’t sure whether you would “accept” me. But we grew to know each other and our warped (speaking for myself)senses of humors came out. Think about all we’ve gone through and here we are. It’s something, eh? It occurs to me that being a clark and a scott we are close because we see a little of ourselves in each other. Wouldn’t have it any other way Miss Grace!
Miss Grace says:
Back atcha Miss Katherine! Definitely some mirror action. I do believe that clarks and scotts are most complimentary, and perhaps the most exciting(right Glenn?) matchup. Dancing aside:), I could never understand it. In my mind I am the most “un” or is it “non” intimidating person I know.
And here we are….I look forward to illustrating and validating the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers with you here at the Wakefield Doctrine.
…interesting series (of Comments) (visual: Peter Benchley…clarklike female swimming…cue the scotts)
I say interesting because there is a nice rogerian entree sitting there (with a sensible little salad on the side and ‘very acceptable vintage’ Sprite in a glass with a straw smack in the middle of Comment-ville).
Now to Phyllis’s credit, her statement from the rogerian contingency has a marked edge of incisiveness that borders on the aggressive. Much more the Camembert, to the average rogerian american cheese offering.
Come on, sophisticate-up scottian Commentationers! Can’t all be drive-through Wendys.
Indeed. I was surprised there were no scottian replies to the rather succinct statement by the roger, Phyllis. She minced no words and as we all know, rogers can use very many words and still go back for more. She extended the challenge.
There are more subtle aspects of the Doctrine yet to be discussed. (The)clark in a recent Post alluded to “aggressive” rogers and how to tell the difference(from a scott). He used the term again today.
Let’s put on the hats and delve a bit deeper.