Comments on: Scotts

By: Glenn

Glenn — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 19:29:20 +0000

Hope ya have fun thinking about it, Clark. Let me know when you DO it.

By: clarkscottroger

clarkscottroger — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 18:51:35 +0000

Do not disagree. Do agree with one of the statements in particular: …’in possession of institutional power are some of the most dangerous people in the world…’ (This is probably appropriate to another venue within the Doctrine).

As to your Comment,

‘Allow me to retort…’

I agree about the personal/visceral nature of dominance. It is an energy thing as much, (more in all likelihood), as an intellectual agreement between people. The extent to which it can be expressed, is constrained/limited by the social context.

I will, (with conditions), agree with the concept of victimhood and rogers. However I would add two perspectives that augment the core idea, a)for a roger the emotional content of ‘victim-hood’ is the whole point; b) the victim (in “victim-hood”) does not exist without a “victor”.
This is not of the nature of a counter claim, I am just making a point about how scotts are dependent on rogers.
(In a close, initimate, yet tasteful relationship).

BTW Am thinking about creating a page for discussions such as this, it would be easier to see and respond to and eventually incorporate into the Wakefiled Doctrine.
Let me know your ‘thoughts’

By: Glenn

Glenn — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:10:04 +0000

I like the prison guard analogy. However, I would posit that the Scott in prison is still dominant in an interpersonal context. The guard holds only institutional power. That is not dominance. The guard is most likely scared shitless of the prisoner. The prisoner effectively, still “owns” the guard. I have seen that dynamic repeatedly in correctional facilities where I have worked. The prisoner, upon being “punished” by the guard, smiles—because he knows the truth–”I own you you coward.” And he knows that the guard knows it too. Situational power is not recognized by scotts as meaningful or legitimate. In a thousand subtle ways the guard communicates his submission to the power of the scott every day–even though he has superior bureacratic power. Both know that that is ultimately no power at all. By the way, Rogers in possession of institutional power are some of the most dangerous people in the world. The justification to torture one’s enemies so prevalent in the world today is a totally rogerian construct. “If someone is bad enough, or dangerous enough, it is OK to do anything you think neccesary to them–or they’ll hurt you.” This is a coward’s construct—strictly rogerian. A roger does not perceive the evil inherent in this kind of rationalizing. They truly feel entitled to torture on the basis of their own “victimhood” . See the movie “Taken” for a sickening example of this concept. The movie’s message seems to be that torture is Ok and even useful when used against “bad guys”. Later I will expound upon victimhood, a most cherished status for a roger. Rogers LOVE to be seen as “victims”. It gives them a pretext for all kinds of emotional excess–rage, torture, righteousness, vengeance,etc…Rogers love their feelings.

By: Denise

Denise — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:35:56 +0000

Can you fool a scott? Can a scott spot the imposter (scott)? As a clark, I will go out on a limb to say that we like people from time to time affect different personas – mostly in a work setting. Sometimes this is intentional and done for sport. Then there are the times we look away for just a second and realize we just let loose some latent scottian energy. As way of example (I will try to keep this short): in my last life I worked in a law firm. I often had to deal with a lunatic scott attorney via telephone. One day, trying to get a somewhat complicated settlement done, I was talking with “Joe” and thought how rude of him – he’s yelling at one of his workers when he should be giving me his full attention. I held the phone away from my ear a few seconds and then with horror realized he was yelling at me. This was a first for me (the being yelled at) but what surprised me more was my reaction. I immediately (and still professionally) took hold of the situation. I told him (in what a clark might think harsh way) I would do such and such and call him later. Oh yeah, I slammed the phone down. When I spoke with “Joe” later that day it was as if I was his best buddy.

By: Clark

Clark — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 20:36:36 +0000

Depends.
(Assuming no self-conscious intent, no efforts by the scott to alter his ‘natural’ impluses, it comes down to the question of dominance. As Glenn points out in his Comment)

However, since we are speaking of humans, the establishing of dominance is not as simple as in the jungle. In fact in society it can be a totally open-ended affair.

The issue of dominance/submission is not simply a matter of force, of one power being greater than the other.
(In humans) it can also involve submitting, one person giving up (to the other).

So the question of dominance/submission regarding scotts and rogers is not as simple as you might think.

I would submit that in human society and it’s attendant social structures the roger can be dominant over the scott as often as not.
(Just ask the incredibly ferocious scott in prison and the relatively weak rogerian prison guard.)

Lets see if the rogers will weigh in on this.
If interesting enough, we might create a page of it’s own.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:22:07 +0000

Suppose you have business to conduct with a known scott. How can you adapt your style to collaborate more effectively with a scott? First, set aside some time. Us scotts like to talk—a lot. If there is any glory to be gained from our business together, the glory will belong to the scott–or the business will not be concluded. You might as well give it to him, he’ll take it anyway. Do not engage a scott in an open competition for control. You will lose–one way or the other. If you win, the scott will disengage. If you lose…well…you lose. Do not attempt to upstage a scott. Stay out of his stage light. He will shine for you, if you let him. If you thwart him, he will eat you, or leave you by the side of the road. Ackowledge his dominance–its quicker that way. If you challenge him for dominance, he will scorn you if you be a roger. He will be amused by you if you be a clark. If you are also a scott, go ahead and compete with him. It will bring out the best in both of you, and it will be settled quickly and comfortably. How does one accomodate a roger????

By: clarkscottroger

clarkscottroger — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 04:19:38 +0000

I posit there could be some meat eaters who turn vegan. Glenn?

By: clark

clark — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:33:59 +0000

can we?
please?
(if I might borrow some shit and mud to scrawl on the wall, I would be most honored to comply.)

By: Glenn

Glenn — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:13:41 +0000

Ain’t nobody wrote nothin’. Fuckin’ simpering Rogers. Get off your Roger asses and write somethin’. Fucking head-up-your-ass Clarks. Pull your head out and write somethin’. Fuckin’ Scotts gotta do everything.

By: clarkscottroger

clarkscottroger — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:00:42 +0000

Yes this is where you write stuff.
At this stage of the game there is no process to the process of gathering and making sense of the information. (I doubt if anyone would challenge your scottian nature).
So watch this space, lets see what happens when we get additional contributors. I would encourage you to stay on the lookout for someone/anyone who would add to the knowledge.

At the end of the day we will see that not only is there consistancy within the groups, but with a big enough pool (of observations) I expect we will see the rogerian under-belly that resides within scotts and clarks and the scottian aspect in rogers and so forth.