Happy Loving Couples? Hmm…

January 11, 2010 By clarkscottroger

Lets talk about COUPLES!   Yes, I’m talking about: two of a pair, walkin’ hand in hand, completing each other’s sentences…

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 is 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.  It makes the difference.  All of the difference.) All OF IT.

They are not friends…they are a Couple!

OK, fine.  What good does that do us?

I’ll tell you.  It gives us a 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 socialability 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 by which everyone that is listening wants to believe are 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.
Oh, and by the way, he does give every impression of enjoying this kind of exchange. The repartee (the rogerian male ) 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 to finish this discussion of scottian females/rogerian males in another post. And if we can through that onwards to other ‘couple combinations’.


Just a thought…

You know that this Doctrine is ‘gender neutral’, 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.

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)

‘Til next time yo….


AKH says:

January 12, 2010 at 12:19 pm

Nice subtitle. You (clarks) are the epitome of a talking head (without the cameras, of course)as it relates to the Wakefield Doctrine. Your “broadcasts” are a daily life line if you will, for the avid followers of the WD (at least in my humble opinion). Where else could one get such fresh, in-depth coverage into the inner workings of the clarks/scotts/rogers of the world, and from that the further understanding (hopefully) of themselves and others.

Attention all readers: Tune in tomorrow for the latest headlines of the day!

clarkscottroger says:

January 12, 2010 at 12:42 pm

(Thanks for the props…)

To the Post at hand, you are a scott (if your direct experience allows) or if you would care to venture a ‘scottian perspective’, whats up with those rogers?

(In terms of the rogerian male/scottian female relationship)…the obvious is the ‘dominance’ of the scottian half but less apparent is the nature of the dependence of the scott on the roger in this thing.

No big surprise in the idea of an interdependency, which by definition all couples have, but in this particular pairing the contrast will be the most illuminating. So if you could shed some light on how the (scottian) female views the dynamic, the ROI if you will, on this particular form.

Glenn says:

January 12, 2010 at 4:03 pm

The two country songs are related. The first song was originally recorded by Hank Thompson and was titled “The Wild Side Of Life” The response song was written by a MAN, JD Miller–and is titled “It wasn’t God Who Made Honky Tonk Angels”. It was recorded by Kitty Wells in 1952 long before anyone even dreamed of women’s lib. It was controversial in the conservative, male-dominated world of country music and was banned at the Grand Old Opry as being “suggestive”. The melody of the songs is identical to the melody of Great Speckled Bird–which is identical to the melody of “I Am Thinking Tonight of My Blue Eyes”

This entry was posted in Personality Types, Psychology and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Happy Loving Couples? Hmm…

  1. glad you like it. have you figured out who you are?

  2. Girlieontheedge says:

    You mention you will continue this post? Perhaps next you could focus on the scottian female’s amazing, awe inspiring ability to target and acquire rogerian males. Married, not married, committed relationship, not, if there is a roger of interest to be had, by golly, she will have him. Sometimes for sport, sometimes for keeps. Seems to me this information would be extremely helpful for the female population out there – you know, the clarklike females and rogerian* females. Heads up ladies! (you clarklike ones in particular)
    *they are more inclined towards instinctive protective behavior in these instances

  3. clark says:

    yes, you did catch me, asterixically speaking **

    The most helpful of the suggestions in this Post is the idea of looking to couples to see the three persoanlity types illustrated.
    But hey, if you are advanced enough…and want kind of a challenge…never mind your friends…take a look at your damn parents!
    (if there is any place to see the idea that we have all three types, with one dominant but the other two (types) slightly submerged, it is looking at your parental units!

    **the reference in the above Post to clarks being the one (of the three persoanlity types) most likely to jump to the bottom of the Post

    • Funny thing about the clarks being the first to jump to the bottom of the post. I think most people would have assumed it would be a scott knowing that they (scotts) have a propensity for distraction (“…look at the red ball..!) and at times not having the patience to sit through the “entire class.”

What do you think?

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s