the Wakefield Doctrine goes to the football game! 3 funny yet identifiable examples of the three personality types (clarks, scotts and rogers) of the Wakefield Doctrine attending a sports event.

By clarkscottroger 8 Comments

Show of hands, who out there visited the Doctrine the first time in the last week or so? That many?

Well, if you visited here and saw the dvd of Bella and stayed to read the Doctrine, I suspect there may be questions. And as for questions, (those) we do very well here. Answers, not so much. But we try.  And we are aided by the Wakefield Doctrine, which if you read and consider it’s basic premise, the Wakefield Doctrine provides a resource  (of answers) that impresses even me. And god knows, clarks are difficult to impress.

In any event, we thank DownSpring Phyllis for sharing her DVD of Bella with us. There is a ‘human element’ to the rogers among us that seems to lend a certain ‘accessibilty’ or, (if I may attempt at a rogerian expression) rogers have a certain ‘congenital warmth’  in how they relate to others that is unmistakable. This is a characteristic not shared by clarks, or scotts for that matter. Although, when it comes to communicating with the others, our scottian friends make up in volume what they lack in warmth and sensitivity. ….oh, oh…do I hear a Wakefield Doctrine Lesson of the Day off in the distance?   ( … om madre de dios, que es otro examen sorpresa, y no he estudiado!… ).
So, here is the Lesson of the Day. If clarks, scotts and rogers were at an athletic event and were waving pennants and cheering their team, what would it look like?

clarks: (2 possibilities):  A) a bunch of rogers with $5.00 bills sticking out of their pockets would wave a “Go! clarks” pennant 3 times, look around, start talking to their other rogers and forget they have anything in their hands and “go clarks” end up under the bleachers…to be found later by a clark, who would gather them up quickly so that no one would see them and get embarrassed; B) among the rogerian banners and pennants being waved from the full bleachers, in the upper left corner there is one pennant that says “go clarks….

scotts: they don’t need pennants, or if there is someone near with artistic skills, the scotts will have them (probably a clark) write words on their faces and chests in body paint. Mostly, “Kill”, and “Go Team! (KILL)” but for the most part the scottian element at the game will be happy shouting, “KILL (other team name here)” or “Get in the Hole”!!! or ” eee haaa” or similar ‘inchoate-high-volume-noise-meant-to-designate-a-perceived-freedom-to-act-in-any-manner-that-occurs-to-the-scott-in-question’ ( … aiiyee, Miguel! esta palabra, ‘incipiente’ ¿Qué quiere decir?… ).  Guess it is kinda hard to put into words, but then again, they are scotts

rogers: you know that  ‘wave’ thing that stadium goers do? Stand up and sit down in sequence?…rogers!  And the thing where the crowd holds up black or white cards that, when seen from afar (there is a hint right there) the whole half of the stadium appears to be spelling out the Pythagorean theory complete with proof and citations …rogers!   Hell, for that matter, every marching band in the western world… you know, the ones who insist on doing an arrangement of “I Feel Good” (James Brown) complete with choreography and solos by the horn sections and everyone, including the overweight tuba-playing guys, doing the splits at the end?…rogers!  Real simple concept here, if it is complicated to the point that you lose track of the original reason for doing the thing and requires a level of coordination that would make a school of albacore blush in shame, then you are talking about rogers

So, there you have it! In time for the football season, you now know how to identify clarks, scotts and rogers at the (high school/college) football games.  (… yes? Britney? you have a question?  the female clarks, scotts and rogers?  Why of course they are there!! The Wakefield Doctrine is, after all, gender neutral!  Let’s take the easy ones first…. {very funny Jimmy, besides the scottian girls…} the cheerleaders.  Not counting the male cheerleaders, who are rogers to a “man”. The girl cheerleaders will have the rogerian females on the ground-level of those formation things. Can’t afford to have anyone lose their focus and wander off, the rest are little scottian girls being thrown into the air by clarklike females (with the extra sparkle-things on their shoelaces and their hair a little weird).

I am sure there will be questions…that is why we have a Comments section right below here.  Go ahead. Are those exchange students finished writing yet?

http://youtu.be/ASMmSX4-b88

Comments

  1. AKH says:

    damn straight! we scotts don’t need no stinkin’ banners. we have our own individual “voices.” the banners are for the rogers who are unable to have any spotlight thrown on them. thus the “herd” waves. heaven forbid any of them should stand up alone and bring any undo attention to themselves. bunch of sissys. and clarks, well you’re content to watch and observe quietly in the upper corners of the stadium and quick to erase any sign of you as being a participant in something so wrought with excitement/emotion. why do you even bother to show up? you could just watch anonymously from the comfort of your safe haven. just sayin’….

  2. Downspring#1 says:

    Football season – a very good time/way to illustrate some basics of the Wakefield Doctrine. It is all so very true:) The most apparent and obvious(of the three) to spot are the scotts. clarks would NEVER think of drawing attention to themselves in such a way and rogers, well, too weird for them. Afterall, most of the audience is not wearing face/body paint. rogers prefer the comfort of being part of a uniform, inconspicuous group. (the majority)                 Good rendition(1st vid) How many young people out there know that “Time After Time” was first made popular by a female clark?:)

  3. CY says:

    Clarks hate crowds , would prefer to be somewhere else and would find the first excuse to leave. Too loud with too many obnoxious screaming scotts. Also clarks find roger formations dull after watching the first couple. We enjoy the game and would prefer to watch it without all these distractions.

  4. clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

    Excellent Commentation!

    AKH…the most amazing thing (about scotts at public/large crowd sporting events) is how many of your people are able to not run out on the playing field and….help. Therein lies hope, or perhaps the validation of the Doctrine, the inner roger or clark is probably totally busy inside the head of the scott….”Hey look moving objects” (stay in your seat!!!)…”Hey! over there cheerleaders”! (Stay in your seat!!!!), “…postgame party coming soon…” (Stay in your seat!!!!)

    DownSpring#1 good call on the Cyndi Lauper, heiress apparent to the Diane Keaton Chair in Fashion Design through Inner Conflict. But the thing about clarks, especially clarklike females is that for all the weird face and head shit they wear, there is something in the eyes. In fact, I would propose that second only to scottian eyes, the eyes of a clarklike female cannot (or must not) be mistaken for anything other than what it is…whimsical calculation.

    CY crowds? clarks? totally agree…but there is something to clarks and crowds. While rogers are busy being the crowd and scotts are working the crowd (not unlike the lion sitting in the tree in the savannah, watching the wildebeests go by, feinting every now and then, but until driven to final action by their hunger, seem content enough to play with their food), but clarks and crowds shows an interesting side of clarks…we do not stay stationary in a crowd or a crowded setting, even at the risk of giving up the appearence of being involved with people, we will keep moving. Slowly, hardly noticeable, we change position. I would suggest that, as clarks, we enjoy the concept of the crowd, as a whole, not like bunch of scotts with lobster bibs on screaming for the ketchup as they tear through the menu of roger a la carte. But more of that of an art fan (or critic) watching the ‘ding an sich’, almost as if the crowd was a living thing. Not a living thing we would want to take home to the parents and plan a family around…more a living thing like the shark tank at the aquarium or the lions at the no fence zoos that I saw on TV once.

  5. AKH says:

    very amusing… lol i would beg to differ that rather than “…stay in your seat..stay in your seat” (which sounds too sensible or like a command that a distracted dog drooling and frantically wagging it’s tail would remember his master saying as he whimpers to be let loose). most scotts would be thinking something like “…ok. stay cool. we’ve got this covered…”
    oh, and the bibs?! lmfao enjoy the leftovers.

  6. CY says:

    About clarks and crowds, oh man you are so right on. I just never realized it! Crowds are not bad, they are actually very interesting as long as you can keep moving. You know my nickname in college (from day one ) was ‘cloud’, – – no one could predict when I would show up or how long I would stay, even me. For 4 years ‘cloud’ was the name I answered to. Everyone thought that was my last name or that I was a space cadet. Anyway, enough history, thanks for the enlightenment. Hey are clarks space cadets?

  7. clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

    …no…clarks are space Professors

    The most common misconception among our…less…abled…brethren….(rogers and scotts)… manifested as the totally bullshit statement that is heard way, way too often, “…he is such a space shot”….”she is so ditsy”…etc

    the fact of the matter is this: clarks (both male and female) are simply pre-occupied a lot of the time…

    (a famous clark…well, actually it was me….) was once heard making the following statement to a good-sized group of rogers and scotts, “…so what is it that real people do with all the time in-between sentences…”

  8. Downspring#1 says:

    “the eyes of a clarklike female cannot (or must not) be mistaken for anything other than what it is…whimsical calculation.”

    Perhaps. At times. Let it be said that the eyes of a female clark hold all. It is this phenomenon that causes such an array of reaction(s). One cannot simply define what is seen in those eyes as they are as deep as an ocean and as endless as the universe. But then what do I know as I do not gaze into my own eyes:)
    What I find interesting is that there is not the same type of eye contact made by male clarks. They are inclined not to hold the gaze of another human whereas a female clark very often has no compunctions about looking directly at, through and into another human being.
    So. What is it? What is the reaction garnered as a result of being “eye engaged” with a female clark?
    And how does one hold the gaze of the male clark? I will have to actively work on that. It so happens one of my male co-workers is a clark and it is so very true – no more than seconds will he look me(or anyone) in the eye during the course of a conversation.

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

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 )

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