Technical! Tuesday(?) the Wakefield Doctrine….it’s not about the ‘what’, it’s about the ‘where’ *

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)


clarks think scotts act and rogers feel.

The Challenge: find a common ground for reconciling two totally disparate and non-relatable worldviews

The Obstacle: the worldview of clarks is characterized as being the reality of being the perpetual Outsider and, as such, clarks relate to the world on an intellectual/rational basis; the worldview of rogers is defined as a reality in which all is ultimately quantifiable, everything that is perceived is related and there exist abstract Rules that convey power and authority for the individual,  the ‘medium’ by which a roger manifests themselves is that of emotion/a non-rational expression of being.

Pre-preliminary, tentative conclusion:  an interaction between a clark and a roger would result in:

  • the clark stating: ‘I understand your words’  (the) roger responding, ‘that’s not what I meant’
  • the roger saying, ‘why would you think that?’ (the) clark ‘because that’s what you said’
  • the clark proceeds to doubt their own understanding of the interaction and (the) roger feels that nobody understands them

Readers who remember their school days (or are in their school days) recognize that the conventional format for instructional material is to start with the simple, then progress to the complex.  This is not to say that the Wakefield Doctrine blog is meant to be instructional material, at least not in the sense of being a text book, like say, Algebra I… ‘Africa! the Dark Continent’
Not at all.  However, since the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine are being called principles and  the simple fact that unless you are among the DownSprings and Friends of the Doctrine (“hey! S. write a damn Comment and get it over with, already!”) you are the only one among your friends and/or family who has even heard of the Wakefield Doctrine, we need to present the information in a way that you can easily understand.

Yeah, right…

They are telling me that the equine has long since passed on to greener pastures… you know, heaven? ( That reminds me of a statement from the Progenitor roger, years ago on the subject of dying and heaven and what was wrong with the world, he said. “The local Native Americans have a saying that when you die you go to live in the land of fat, slow flying birds.”)

One last Wakefield Doctrine Principle:

you know how most ‘know your personality type’ articles always have a test in it? There’s a quiz about your likes and dislikes and traits and such, after you take the test you add up your score and match it to a grid and it says, “Your are artistic and bright and everyone wants to be around you’ or ‘You are misunderstood, but have a gift for listening’ or even ‘You know what it correct but those around you mis-understand’ (this is the one you try to trick your gf or bf into taking).  Well, the Wakefield Doctrine? it is nothing like this at all.

Not even close.

So far away from the personality type systems and programs, that it’s not even funny!  in fact, the Wakefield Doctrine is simpler and more useful than any of those other quiz based things you might read. Only one thing. You gots to be able to imagine stuff that isn’t quite real. In a a nutshell:

the Wakefield Doctrine is focused on the personal reality of an individual, we say that everyone lives in one of three characteristic (personal) realities, worldviews we call them. The world of the Outsider (clarks) the world of the Predator (scotts) or the world of the Herd Member (rogers). All you need to do is learn the characteristics of each world, watch your spouse/friend/enemy/boss/child’s behavior and infer which of these three worldviews they are living in. Once you correctly identify it you will not only know more about that person than they know about themselves, you will be able to predict their reactions and responses to almost any situation.

That’s enough for today. Class dismissed!


* We just got finished explaining it to you, if you still don’t understand, maybe you should consider writing a comment. You know, ask us a question.




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. Downspring#1 says:

    Makes sense. The “where” part. The “world” part. The type of reality a person experiences every day. It’s the same as the next person (sometimes) but not. You have only to take your own self and your spouse or a family member or 2 and compare….notes. Sticking with the classroom theme (Brittany, wherefore art thou?), think back on a shared moment with said spouse or family member and look at how the 2 or 3 of you reacted to a shared “event”. If you have a clark and a roger or a roger and a scott reacting to an event or situation or person, look closely at what differentiates their responses. Do you get a clue from their response(s) as to what “world” they walk among?

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      Correct, that is the ‘where’ in the sense of in which worldview does a person live?

      Referring back to today’s Post, another thing that differentiates the Doctrine from the mainstream personality types systems, we are less concerned with divining the secret thoughts and motivations of a person, instead we observe the person and aided by our understanding of the characteristics of the three worldviews, attempt to infer what kind of world that person is experiencing.

      For Example: we all have birthday parties, however the Doctrine says, what do birthday parties represent in the world of an Outsider (clarks), how does a Predator (scott) perceive the celebration of a birthday, when you are in the middle of the known world (rogers) why would you blow out the candles?

      get it?