The Ragman travels to the edge…for a bit of conversation and a spot of tea…not

Welcome RCoyne, welcome!  Thanks for visiting today.  It has been brought to my attention that (for some) the Edge is not always understandable or “interesting”.  Well, to be  honest, I hear this from rogers mostly. Yuh huh, really:)  Before we get into this today, would you care for some coffee?  “Well, yes, yes I do have the tea as implied in the title as well.  Whatever your pleasure.   I am, afterall, a clarklike hostess. LOL  Please, have a seat…..sure, that one is fine.”

Ah, I see you have made yourself comfortable.  So let’s get right to it.  clarks and rogers.  Visitors to GirlieOnTheEdge read a smattering of stuff – “eclectic musings”.  The following two words in this blog’s title are the most telling – “clarklike female“.  So let’s begin with a simple, yet important bit of info:

the Wakefield Doctrine
“The Wakefield Doctrine is predicated upon the idea that everyone experiences the world/reality differently, from one of three overlapping but distinctive perspectives. It also proposes that our personalities are but  a result of our perception, of our habitual responses to the world. The Wakefield Doctrine maintains that this characteristic perception of reality can be grouped into three distinct types, called for reasons stated elsewhere, clarks, scotts and rogers.”

Last post, GirlieOnTheEdge channeled her alter ego, Downspring#1 and talked about stuff normally found over at the Wakefield DoctrineIn this particular instance, the difference between clarks and rogers and how they view the “herd”.  This subsequently led to the following question from Clairepeek, a prolific writer and fellow clarklike female. (new readers today? read the post immediately preceding this one)

 “For a roger to feel it is to own it”: how would
 our own progenitor Roger elaborate on that?

and from Seven Ravens of the Order of Metallica, mistress of metal and all things heavy:

1) “Why do rogers go all mushy on someone when they do something nice for them?”

2) “What is with getting drunk before calling the people you claim are your close friends?
–I have 3 male rogers in my life who all claim I am one of their very best friends… but they never want to talk unless they are drunk. One of them is getting over it, but only because his trouble with the law has separated him from the booze”.

Mr. Coyne.  You have the con.  Oh, that’s right.  Mr. Coyne is a no-show.  I am disappointed.  But am I surprised?  Should I be surprised?  Can the Wakefield Doctrine explain what happened?   Let’s use what has happened here at GirlieOnTheEdge, the “lost Interview”, to have a Sunday morning mini-catechism lesson Wakefield Doctrine style. 

From the Doctrine point of view, we may be witnessing the rogerian version of control.  rogers need to feel as if they are in the driver’s seat.  There are times when this type of behavior is of the passive aggressive variety and then there are times in which, either Phyllis  (occaisional rogerian Doctrine contributor) or RCoyne, once defined as the infamous “leading from behind” (think backseat driver). 

Since I am a clark, let’s use my situation today to consider how a clark pre-Wakefield Doctrine might typically react to a roger exhibiting “control” type behavior(s) and how a clark post Wakefield Doctrine would be inclined to react to this same behavior.   

BEFORE:  What/how a clark would do/react – give the roger in question wa-ay too much time to respond thereby reinforcing what basically could be considered “negative” behavior (of both the clark and roger).  clarks are by nature “nice” and have the patience of Job.  Both qualities are admirable within the proper context(s) however it often serves ultimatelyto reinforce a roger’s sense of “my world” first, everything else second.  The universe does in fact revolve around them! LOL  So clarks, sit up and pay attention.  When it starts to take on the appearance of “begging” (indulging a roger) STOP.  Slap yourself upside the head and move on!  No one will be the worse for wear.  The roger knows what he/she is/is doing and will either enjoy the emotional fallout/residue or whatever or simply ignore you.  Until another/next time.

AFTER:  What/how a clark should do/react – using this case of the “lost Interview”.  A request was sent for confirmation of “guest reservation” and details of logistics.  There was/has been no timely response.  There are two conclusions that can be surmised:  1) RCoyne is simply being a roger or 2) something has come up that has prevented him from responding politely and timely.  The Doctrine tells me to not take it personally.  Why?  Well, if I can view the world as a roger, then I can understand the behavior (of the roger) and thereby avoid/bypass a shitload of worry, anger, fear, embarrassment, puzzlement etc.).  Having said this, it does not, I repeat, does not imply that by understanding a behavior one condones said behavior.  It simply means you understand the motivation behind why a person behaves a certain way.
Bottom line:  if the scenario is of the 1st type – do not indulge, tolerate or otherwise angst over it.  Move on.  If the scenario is of the 2nd type ….same thing.  Move on.  Life is short.   In the words of a locally famous rogerian female of the FB  “get over it”. 

Seems fitting that I leave you in the hands of this clark of clarks and actor extraordinaire:   

Advertisements

22 thoughts on “The Ragman travels to the edge…for a bit of conversation and a spot of tea…not

  1. Clairepeek

    Bugger!!! I who really thought I’d get an answer to my question… but wait (lol) I did get it ^_^…
    Clark, don’t be so condesending (hihihi)… a start you say… I am sorry to disappoint but this was an almost total surprise to me. Girlie & DS#1… this is one of your best posts (that’s saying something). It was extremely instructive and helpful, for personal reasons that I cannot share (very private). Thank you for that!
    That being said… moving on as advised by the hostess ^_^.

    1. To be honest Claire, it surprised a part of me as well.
      Thank you, I am flattered. It is very gratifying to know my words have been enjoyed and found to be helpful:)
      See you round the ‘spere!!

  2. To Roger:

    Manipulation. Let ’em squirm. And being a Progenitor of the Wakefield Doctrine why do you not feel compelled to leave comments (excluding the last couple of posts)? at the Doctrine. I would expound upon why I think that is. But let’s hear tt from the horses’ (or cows’) mouth.
    Don’t get me wrong. I don’t have anything against you personally, but….

    1. Now, now Ms. Wilson. In the spirit of witnessing the Wakefield Doctrine at work, I would reiterate that there very well might be a good reason our guest speaker has been unavailable:)
      (yes, I know that you would respond to that by saying: “yeah and monkeys fly out of my ass”.)

  3. clarkscottroger

    lol

    (Claire) …not intended to be condescending… this is all ‘learn as you/we go’ all of us (creator and Progenitors) are in new territory. The Wakefield Doctrine is ‘up to the task/any task we might set before it’ and if at times and in some situations it seems lacking, then it can only be our insufficient (as of yet) understanding of it.

    plus this fun is always instructive/useful/beneficial

    1. Clairepeek

      hihihihi…
      (Clark)… I was well-aware but it sounded kinda funny to me that you should say such a thing “Alright… that’s a start”. So as a fellow clark I had to tease of course. Aside from that, you are spot on and it is actually what I am trying to explain to my own “roger” that the doctrine is not a done deal… we are still in the learning/understanding process of what it is all about, ^_^ discovering the doctrine’s ramifications (gotta love that word) as we go…

  4. Mother of God. Will you people please calm down?
    This is the first I’ve looked at anything since Friday. Sorry, it’s called life in general. If my boss is out tomorrow, I’ll have at it then. If she’s in, then I won’t. It’s called life in general. Otherwise, tomorrow night at best. Once again, life in general.
    You know, it is sometimes difficult being on the bottom rung of a caste system. You are literally damned no matter what.

    1. Ya gotta love the Wakefield Doctrine though don’t you?! (especially, you being the Progenitor roger and all. Come on. Admit it. lol
      Here’s the deal – we’ll do something sorta, kinda like….um….Apocalypse Now Redux only instead of adding to what was, we will mix it all up! I am sure both Claire and Molly M. would like their original questions answered however I am thinking there may be a coupla new ones:)
      Looking forward to the collaboration. Strap on yer boots Mr. C.

  5. FYI Readers: I am awaiting word from a Mr. “Jackson” as to whether communication has been received. Once confirmed, Yours Truly shall commence work on a much anticipated post with the roger of all rogers, the Progenitor roger of the Wakefield Doctrine. Stay Tuned!

    1. Message, if sent to Metlife, will be received in the morning. Will see to it
      as soon as practicable. I could call my relief guy and retrieve it, but you never want to give a raccoon a screwdriver. He will destroy the toaster, and your blog.

    1. Actually Molly, he and I (well he is, I’m taking it easy at the moment lol) are presently working on a post here at Girlie where he, The roger, will answer any and all questions thrown his way! If you’ve got any more or more difficult questions, well you just send ’em this way!

  6. Jennifer Wilson

    Oh for Christ’s sake, what else in your “box” besides life and a raccoon are out of order? No offense. Just wondering…

  7. clarkscottroger

    well perceived, Molly! (While I am sure it is as DS described, a matter of focusing on the full interview), you have hit on a very good point about rogers: their need for control (which is in service of) their need to appear at their best. Or at least, their own judgement of what comprises ‘their best’.

    Since we are on the subject of jobs over at the Doctrine ( http://www.wakefielddoctrine.com ) and are discussing rogers here, I will add that another useful insight from the Doctrine is that in the workplace, if your ‘superior’ is a roger, you would do well not to confront them in public.

    Lets say you want something from the manager (in order to do your job better) you should always arrange to meet directly and in private to negotiate, as opposed to making your request in a staff meeting. In the former you can present your idea in the manner that you gauge most effective, in that the roger you are dealing with is simple to understand. (A roger is not likely to rise to the top of the World Professional Poker Tour). Under no circumstances try to negotiate ‘in public’ because not only will the roger be ‘playing to the audience’ but your asking for something may create an opportunity for them, one that would not have existed if it were just the 2 of you.

    All of this applies to any form of ‘negotiation’ business, familial, emotional.

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