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 Doctrine. In 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: