Gimme a “S”, gimme a “C”, gimme an “O”, gimme…screw that just pay attention

Ok, I’ve given you plenty of time to find your “eureka moment.” But I have yet to hear from anybody. Come on people.

What? You’ve been too busy?!

Give me a break. Why wouldn’t anyone want to take just a moment to read something that would change their entire view of the world and the people in it? It’s not rocket science for crying out loud. Forget about all of those left brain right brain, enneagram  nine personality types, briggs myers, Jungian personality theories.

They are confusing and quite frankly useless. You have to take a frickin’ psychology class to understand them.

Unlike those “oh look at my blog, aren’t we smart with charts and graphs and the rest of that rogerian crap”. Screw that! Here at the Wakefield Doctrine there are no personality tests. We’ve made it  fun and easier than ever to understand.
What do I have to do to get you to take a quick look?
You know that once you do you’ll be hooked,  amazed at how simple it is.  When you finally get around to checking it out, you’ll be thinking,  “Why didn’t I take a look at this sooner? I can’t believe what I’ve been missing out on. What a refreshing and useful way understand and even predict the way everyone behaves.”

So get over to the Wakefield Doctrine. Go ahead, take a peek. Yeah, I can just hear you now… “whoa… this is a lot to learn. I don’t have time for this…”  The beauty of the Doctrine is that you don’t have to read absolutely everything to get it. Just take a look at the summaries of the three types (clarks, scotts and rogers) and read a Post or two.
You’ll be on board in no time. Oh, and don’t forget to share your thoughts. Your Comments, as always, are welcome and are a key part of the Doctrine.


clarkscottroger About clarkscottroger
Well, what exactly do you want to know? Whether I am a clark or a scott or roger? If you have to ask, then you need to keep reading the Posts for two reasons: a)to get a clear enough understanding to be able to make the determination of which type I am and 2) to realize that by definition I am all three.* *which is true for you as well, all three...but mostly one


  1. Clairepeek says:

    Hello Clark Scottroger!

    I did as you suggested and read a few posts, but most of all, I read what the doctrine was all about. I’ve had quite a laugh because this is such a brilliant theory / philosophy / or whatever the doctrine is, as long as it makes me think. Now, applying the theory I should be a Clark… which is interesting enough…

    I, however, do not wish to be someone else; I am good with who I am with all my creative neurosis and other weirdness people might find in me. I cultivate that actually. It was not so conscious at first, but as I learned to know who I was, I grew to like ‘Me, myself and I’ as opposed to wanting to be a combination of the writers I admire.

    Intellectually capable… that I am; superior… nah! I don’t buy that, sorry. Is it reason that speaks? Not a clue. As you said, one has the potential of the three behaviors, which means that no matter which one is dominant, the other two will ultimately cover aspects of the main behavior that do not comply with its particularities. If that makes any sense ^_^

    I had a good time here… it was refreshing and fun, as I expected. I’ll be back for more and next time I’ll have a look-it at the discussion page. In the meantime, have a great day.


  2. clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

    Glad to have you stop by, Clairepeek! We do enjoy ourselves here, and that really is the first thing for us.
    Not sure if this in an indictment of the state of popular entertainment or the degree to wich we (those of us who contribute Posts and Comments and ideas) are so taken with what we have created!

    The drive to find commonality is, I suspect something we all share. The Doctrine is fun, because it is, somehow, now at the stage of development where is has become self-revealing/demonstrating. It seems that everytime we gather to talk about the blog and/or the Doctrine something comes up that no one had yet thought up! (for instance) In last Friday’s Video Interview Phyllis talked about the idea that roger, gernerally speaking engage in ‘leading from behind’; well last night we had most of the Progenitors together for a conversation and we were all totally taken by that concept. It had not occured to me that rogers, who appear on the surface to be completely submmissive to scotts (in a relationship) were doing their own manipulation.
    In any event, thank you again for stopping by.