An Interview at the Edge

GirlieOnTheEdge is a blog of  “eclectic musings of a female clark“.  I am often found making reference to The Wakefield Doctrine.  And that makes sense.  If you know not what a “clark” is, then get yourself over to The Wakefield Doctrine Blog. It will explain what a clark is….and what a scott is….and what a roger is.  Actually, what it does is present a rather simple, unique (and as everyone in the universe knows), fun way of figuring out the people in your everyday life.  Oh, and give you the answers (to the questions you have) about your own self.  In a nutshell, The Wakefield Doctrine, aka the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers is a personality theory that explains people and their behavior based upon how they view the world– ie. as a clark, a scott or a roger.  Enough said.

In a gesture to my own self, I invited FOTD (Friend of the Doctrine), and of recent bestowment of title, Downspring  Molly M. to be a guest at GirlieOnTheEdge.  I was most curious to get a newcomer’s view on the Doctrine and as luck would have it she is a clark.  

(GirlieOnTheEdge):  Welcome Molly.  Thanks for “coming on the show”.
(Molly M.): You’re welcome, and thank you for having me!
(GirlieOnTheEdge):  You indicated earlier that you came by The Wakefield Doctrine somewhat sideways?  Tell us a little about that.
(Molly M.): I first came across The Wakefield Doctrine when Clark followed one of my profiles on Hubpages.  As I read through his profile, I saw the word ‘doctrine’ and immediately thought ‘cult’, so, with a quick glance at the rest of the profile, where I saw something about personalities and a phone number, I was off to read up on this thing.  After all, if I was seeing it on Hubpages, I would probably be running into some follower of it soon. 
After reading a few posts, I realized it was just some personality thing and left.  Then, Clark friended me on facebook… and so I checked things out again. 
(GirlieOnTheEdge):  Huh.  “Just some personality thing”.  What do you think of it so far? Still think it’s a cult? lol
(Molly M.): Is it a cult?  That whole hat thing (for your damn head) has me a little worried, but other than that — NO! 
(GirlieOnTheEdge):  “Hat for your damn head” – very clarklike humor:)
I’m sure folks would love to know Molly what it was that made you decide you were a clark
(Molly M.):  “What made me decide I must be a clark?”  First of all, Clark kept calling me a clark, then there was this from the FAQs on his blog:

I think sometimes I am (a scott) then other times I must be (a clark). Whats up with that?
You’re a clark.

Hey, wait you can’t be that sure on the basis of one question!

Yes I can. (I’m a clark)”

And I knew I wasn’t a roger…. 
(GirlieOnTheEdge):  Have you identified your spouse? Your children? (given they are over the age of 6) yet?  How does it stand up against your own “system” for making sense of it all….
(Molly M.): I have identified my spouse and older children.  Amongst them, there are two scotts, a clark and a strong roger.  To be honest, I’ve never given my own system much thought, but I guess I basically labeled people as Big Fish (small pond), Tigger (bouncy, bouncy, fun, fun, fun), Sheeple (aka posers), and Dreamers (impossible = I’m possible).
(GirlieOnTheEdge):  Yes, all clarks have some sort of system.  Yours sounds intriguing.
 
For those who may have stopped by for the first time today, Molly and yours truly have been engaged recently in conversation as it pertains to identifying clarklike females via their headdressings (among other things).  Her questions have been indicative of an underlying, hm – maybe organic, instinctive, awareness/understanding of clarks but is still catching up on the nuances. 
 
(GirlieOnTheEdge): Tell us Molly your understanding so far of what it means to be a clark of the female persuasion?  Are you surprised that Diane Keaton/Annie of the film Annie Hall has long been considered the patron saint of clarklike females everywhere? 🙂
(Molly M.): From my perspective, being a clarklike female means being a free thinker who is not afraid to do my own thing or be different.  I feel no need to make others see things my way, as long as they don’t try to force me into their mold, but I am not afraid to share my ideas.  I’m also likely to question nearly everything I am told. “Live and let live” and “To thine own self be true” are mottoes I respect.
As to Diane Keaton, I have to tell you, I am not familiar with her or the movie. 
(GirlieOnTheEdge):  Bravo! In my humble opinion it takes a lot of strength, as a clark to stand as an individual among the throngs of rogers and the rampaging scotts of the world.. God knows, fear is a river that always runs through we like people.  As to our patronness, you best check her out and then  tell me she is not the most clarklike female!
(GirlieOnTheEdge): Last question – You made a statement over at the WD recently about recognizing the rogers of your past.  Have you also identified the scotts in your life as well? 
(Molly M.): I think I have, and the clarks too.
(GirlieOnTheEdge):  OK.  The real “last question“.  Are you finding The Wakefield Doctrine a useful tool?
(Molly M.):  Yes, and I will give an example of it.
There is one person in my life that presented themselves one way (Big Fish), but intuition said they were another way (Dreamer).  In private, they would agree that my intuition was right… but continued with the facade, despite the fact it made them miserable in the long run.
After reading through The Wakefield Doctrine quite a bit, I realized that they were a clark, presenting themselves as a scott, but without the motives of a scott.  This person made themselves to be the life of the party, but couldn’t handle the “fakeness” of false friendship (because a friend is a friend or they are not)…that and the crowd they were surrounded by bored them.
Knowing what I know now, this person’s behavior makes perfect sense, and tells me that I can trust my intuition when it comes to dealing with peopleIt also showed me why some people (scotts) get so upset with me for questioning their ideas, while others (clarks) seem to thrive on it.  And rogers… well, at least now I have an understanding of why having their own opinion on matters and/or doing their own thing isn’t as important to them as adhering to the group.
(GirlieOnTheEdge):  This has been fun Molly M. and I hope you have enjoyed yourself as much as I have.  It’s not often I get to interact with a fellow clarklike female. Perhaps next time…
 

(GirlieOnTheEdge):  “what?! he’s where?! well, get him to makeup and send him up stat! wait! skip makeup and escort him out here…”    Folks, we have a special treat for you! the author of The Wakefield Doctrine, none other than the Progenitor clark, has paid us a surprise visit.  Let’s give him a welcome scotts would be proud of….
(GirlieOnTheEdge):  Thanks so much for stopping by Clark.
(Clark):  You are welcome.
(GirlieOnTheEdge):  As Creator, how do you view the success of The Wakefield Doctrine so far?
(Clark):   Mostly with semi-amazement. That the thing has maintained itself and (even) grown in the last two years, is kinda of cool and gratifying. The gratifying (feeling) that I get when I stop and consider what we have done in the last two years is a function of the effect of the applications of The Wakefield Doctrine itself!  I know how I react as a clark and I have a sense of how I would/could possibly respond with a more developed scottian and rogerian aspect(s). Our understanding of the Doctrine has resulted in something that is getting more complex and more…’useful a tool’ than any of us had ever thought it would become. 
(GirlieOnTheEdge):  I see.  So is there anything you would like to do that you have not yet done with The Wakefield Doctrine Blog?  You know, cable TV show…that sort of thing.
(Clark):  Everything about The Wakefield Doctrine comes under the heading of what can I do to promote and present the
Doctrine to as many people as possible in as effective manner as possible. Now.  Radio might be fun.
(GirlieOnTheEdge):  Rumor has it you’ve been writing a screenplay?  A book?  Anything to those rumors?
(Clark):  The thing with the screenplay was something I thought might be fun with Mel (Spatula in the Wilderness) but that has languished. The process has been to keep doing what I have been able to do, i.e. producing Posts and look for opportunity.  As people join us, Claire and Molly, most recently, will I suspect require us to think more generally, more globally with our efforts, as we are joined by people with different sets of skills that can be employed in the total effort.
(GirlieOnTheEdge):  I have gone wa-ay overboard time/space wise (no pun intended lol) but before we close out the Interview Clark, would you clear up some misconceptions about clarks and emotion.  There are a lot of rogers out there that just don’t get it.  I mean, come on, we are so not robots! lol
(Clark):  I assume the question is about the apparent lack of emotion that many clarks seem to present?  That is a matter of a disconnect rather than anything else. Perhaps if you would provide a context, I might better provide an answer.
(GirlieOnTheEdge):  Context is important.  And much more important to clarks – you might say everything is about context, no?  By extension, since clarks are the “blue monkeys”, how can there be anything but a general sense of disconnect? I’m reaching now aren’t I? lol Hm…let’s see…alright – I have found myself more often than not, not finding funny a joke that has been told in a group setting (or singularly).  And I simply do not laugh. clarks are not the best at “fake” laughter (but we sure have the smile down). What a catch 22!  The joke teller thinks we have no sense of humor and yet as clarks we know we have a wonderful sense of humor, albeit, on the dry side. People often characterize that lack of a “sense of humor” as a lack of emotion.  Am I making sense? 
(Clark): Define “sense”.  Since you mention context and your place in it, then  you are disconnected.  Real people (rogers and scotts) do not reference their “context” as they go about living their lives.  Since you mention it, the reason clarks are funny is that they are able to see everyday “from a distance”, the reason clarks do not often find jokes funny is that they see the “context” “from a distance”. You will need to decide which is more important to you, to laugh with the others or be laughed at by others (which is inevitable when you don’t laugh at their jokes)…the choice is yours

(GirlieOnTheEdge):  Well, this has been quite an interesting – STOP!!! I can’t use this adjective! clarks everywhere are guilty of overusing it!  What else do we have…..”fabulous“!  It has been fabulous having Molly M. and Clark as guests here at the Edge.  I hope you both have enjoyed it as much as I have!  Until next time, this is GirlieOnTheEdge saying “good day and good living!”  

 
Advertisements

11 thoughts on “An Interview at the Edge

  1. Molly M.

    The subject of context makes a lot of sense. If you are going to do something, you need to know the where, when, why and how.
    You mean to tell me the other two types don’t think like this?

    Like

    1. Yes, as a clark, context does make sense. But not for the other two. scotts and rogers do not see/consider “context” like we do. scotts are of the here and now. They act/react to what is right in front of them – simplistically it’s a case of stimulus/response. For scotts It is not necessary (nor are they concerned with) motive (where, when hows). It’s all about results. scotts live in a world of “food” and “ranking” .
      For rogers the idea of “context” is simple. They live within their own world or “box” as has been discussed over at the Wakefield Doctrine. It has been said at the WD how rogers live by “storyboard”. Any sense of “context” is viewed first from a pre-established collection of criteria. Again I would refer you to Clark’s blog. It is challenging conversation getting to the nitty gritty of the 3 differing ways to view reality:)
      The thing to keep in mind is that clarks are the only one of the 3 who live inside their head(s). We live first there and then “out here”.

      P.S. There will come a time when this “theory” (of clarks, scotts and rogers) becomes crystal clear. Then, there will be no “confusion” as to a person’s motive(s) it will be apparent up front. Then it becomes a choice as to how to relate to that person or persons. I know this to be true.

      Like

  2. Jennifer

    i thought the interview was very telling about Molly (meant as a compliment). Obviously I already know all about Miss Girlie:) But I will say this:
    We scotts are akin to clarks as long as we don’t get stuck in their heads. That scares the fuck out of us.

    Like

  3. Very telling is Molly‘s description of the clark-like female persuasion as well as her obvious clark-like perception and her description of the usefulness of the WD.

    There is an inherent affinity, fondness if you will, between scotts and clarks. There is no immediate perceived threat to a clark by a scott and vice-versa. Each finds the other one interesting in an odd way. But by God, the next time you see a rabid wolf foaming at the mouth you better get your ass outta Dodge. It’s a scott stuck in a clarks’ head. All of that parallel universe, string theory, where the hell do I belong shit is enough to cause a scott to implode. I’ll refer you readers to Lunchbox Lenny’s scottian reaction during the Wakefield Doctrine Saturday Night video “Saturday Nights alright….alright watch and weep” when he found himself actually understanding a clark. Pretty much says it all…
    (if you would kindly put the link in for the video Ms. Girlie – I can’t do it here in the comment section. Thank you)

    Like

  4. Molly M.

    In the video there was quite a bit of talk, by the scotts, of first impressions, verse what is understood through the doctrine. Do scotts tend to put people in boxes based on their first impressions and expect a certain behavior, regardless of what the person shows them later?

    Like

  5. Do scotts tend to put people in boxes based on their first impressions and expect a certain behavior, regardless of what the person shows them later?

    …actually, that would be your roger(s), they will establish a certain image/perception/understanding of a person or a thing and virtually never change.
    Remember that the basic rogerian drive (after the drive to learn the Rules) is to preserve what is…rogers are the ultimate conservatives (not in the political sense of the word, of course). “As it was in the beginning, so shall it be”….roger
    This can be a good thing, in that rogers are the creators of traditions, the conservators of history….want to flush out the rogers real quick: “Your attention please!!! Ken Burns will be casting for his next documentary, the subject of this film will be the rich tradition and history of Civil War re-enacting, all applicants are required to present themselves at the casting call in full period authentic clothing and have a hardcopy of their family geneology extending back at least to the 1700s”
    You will see the rogers…
    thats the good thing about rogers….they predictable.
    As to their insistance that since you had a terrible stay at a Hotel 6 during your first vacation as a married couple, (the desk clerk was rude) if you win an all expenses paid weekend getaway in the town that (that Hotel 6) was located in…the roger will simply say, “Are you kidding ? They are awful there, I wouldn’t go if they were giving it away” (and no, it does not help to point out that you are going to a different chain hotel which happens to be in the same town and yes, they are giving it away) It won’t change a thing. And if you press the issue, you will be accused of hating the last vacation you took…(no does not have to make sense).

    Hope this helps…

    Like

    1. I agree that it is the rogers who decide the “box” an individual fits. What was so apparent in the video to me was the alliance of the 2 scotts. There was a certain “pack” behavior being exhibited. But is that totally unexpected? Naah….

      Like

  6. (voice-over from old Disney nature films) …Mama lion doesn’t seem in a hurry, just loping along behind the herd of wildebeests. The wildebeests are not concerned, but they should be, ’cause Mama’s brothers and sisters are getting ahead of the herd …and they don’t know it…lol

    Like

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