the Wakefield Doctrine (“…and you say this has been around since, what…1984?”)

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

Today’s Post begins with a question: How effective is the presentation (and explanation) of the Wakefield Doctrine ( in the context of this blog)?

The answer is:

  1. not bad for certain people*
  2. not (as) good for everyone else
The people that answer #1 alludes to are a) those who write blogs (and happen to have an interest in personality types) and 2) clarks (with a decided weighting to the female species*.  The fact that there is a significant percentage of the internet population that falls into the category of answer #2 really is what this Post is about.
Lets try to make this a little more manageable.
(For every blog), there is layout and there is content,  the Wakefield Doctrine is no exception. The layout (of our blog) is not something that can be changed at the moment, so the focus will be on content.  The new Reader going to the Wakefield Doctrine will see:
  • Posts: these present the ‘on-going conversation’ among those already familiar with the Doctrine;
  • Video Posts: like the written Posts, but different;
  • Static Pages: these include the Menu across the top of the homepage and the 3 Pages ( “What is the…”,  ”What do I do with…”(and) “tell me why…”)
The Post(s) (both written and video) will remain, a manifestation of  whatever occurs to the author(s) to say to the ’informed Reader’. It is the information contained on the ‘static’ Pages that is of immediate concern.
Following is the ‘About Page’ of the Wakefield Doctrine. I will be doing some edits, if you care to share any thoughts on how to say it better, we appreciate any input.

(the ‘About Page’ (who the hell reads the About Page?…rogers I suppose, maybe some clarks with secondary rogerian aspects (you know, girls)…lol )


The ‘About’ Page:

OK! You have made it this far! The material below is for later, for now a quick and direct overview of the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)…

All people are born with a potential to experience the world in three distinct and characteristic ways. Depending on which, we say that a person is a clark or a scott or a roger. 
When we say, ‘experience the world’ we don’t just mean things about you, we mean the way you see the world, the assumptions you make, how you feel about other people; all are in keeping with the description of your type. Not as difficult as it sounds.
Try this: if you are a roger that means that you know that world is based on rules and that people who know these rules gather in relationships and groups sort of like a herd of animals do, common interests in common. (Stay with me, now) As a roger, to your very soul you know that the universe is quantifiable, knowable, organized. It is entirely natural for you to see the things in the world that demonstrate this quality of being quantifiable, so you tend to like things in an orderly, traditional arrangement. You are naturally attracted to work or study that reflect this, rogers tend to be engineers, accountants, judges, historians, members of the clergy. Anything that is based on natural organization, you will find a roger.

The same applies to clarks and scotts. What our personality type is goes way beyond likes and dislikes, aptitudes and interests. ‘Who’ we are as personality types is demonstrated in what we do for work, what our idea of recreation is, who are friends are and what we reject the most in our daily lives. All in reflection, in support of our personality types: clarkscott or roger.

Now one of the best things about this Doctrine thing is that you don’t have to take a test or a college course, you don’t have to pay someone money to test you and you don’t even have to know anything about psychology, in other words,  none of the hoops and hurdles that most of the other personality typing systems require you to jump through before you can get any of the benefits.  Here at the Doctrine, all you have to do:  be able to step outside yourself, see beyond the most basic assumptions you make about life and reality. Do that and you can join us.

The other thing about the Wakefield Doctrine that we often hear is, “I read the description of the three personality types, sometimes I think I am a roger and other times it is clear I must be a scott. That must mean your theory does not work on me.”  The reason this happens is that we are all born with the qualities of all three personality types, clarks and scotts and rogers. With this potential, at some point in early childhood we settle on one of three, we become predominately a scott or a roger or a clark. The other two qualities do not go away, we always have them within and sometimes we will act like one of the other two types.

So that’s it. The Wakefield Doctrine. Step A.

(For more detail on the three personality types:  clarks  or scotts  or rogers )

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, clarksscotts and rogers…. (redundant?)

Born with the potential to view the world in one of these three ways, all people possess the characteristics of all (three) but soon (by age 7 or so) ‘become one of the three.  Put another way: we also possess the potential to see the world as a clark or a scott or a roger. It is only the predominance of qualities from one (over the other two) that makes us what we are. No one is only clarklike or scottian or rogerian.

The value of the Wakefield Doctrine is that once you can see the world ‘through the eyes’ of another, behavior becomes understandable. If a scott sees the world as a predator (would) then all action is predicated on interacting with the world as a predator. This is distinctly different from a roger, who seeing the world as a social being, predicates action and reaction on the basis of a world in which the interactions of the herd is the dominant theme.    (clarification?)

The above notwithstanding, following is the ‘eureka moment’ for the theory of clarksscotts and rogers (the Wakefield Doctrine):

In the early 1980’s, Scott (the progenitor scott) worked at a music store in Pawtucket. He was the main salesman and also ran the repair department (of the store), this included not only repairing musical instruments and equipment that he sold, but any equipment that a might be in need of repair, including various types of tape recorders and other similar equipment.

One day I happened to stop by the store to visit scott while he worked. While there, a customer came into the store, went to the ‘repair department where scott and I were talking and presented to scott what was known as a  ‘duel cassette recorder’  (This device had the capacity to record two cassette cartridges at once and was most often used to copy the contents of one cassette to another cassette, what we would call today, making a back up. Among the controls on this ‘dubbing recorder’ were two of all the normal tape recorder controls: volume, treble and bass. Where it was different from a single cassette recorder was that it had a Master Volume control dial, which, as the name implies controlled the overall sound output of the device.) The recorder that the customer placed on the counter appeared to be new and had no signs of damage or abuse. (As the customer approached the counter, I stepped back and Scott looked up and said, ‘What can we do for you’?   The customer said to  Scott, “this thing is brand new, it worked for a couple of days, then it stopped working entirely, I can’t figure out what is wrong”.

Scott looked at the recorder briefly, without saying a word and then reached under the counter and brought out some (black) electrical tape, and tearing off a 2 inch piece of tape, taped over the Master Volume control (after returning the dial to it’s highest setting). After completing this, scott slid the device back over towards the customer and simply said, “ There, its all right now”

The customer asked to plug in the recorder, took a cassette from his pocket, tried the recorder, ran it through it’s paces; seeing that the broken tape recorder that he brought into the store now  worked like new  thanked scott and walked out of the store without another word. A totally satisfied customer.

From my perspective the world shifted. For reasons not clear to this day, I not only saw what scott had seen (the nature of the equipment problem) but I saw that his solution implied a reality, a ‘context’ that was clearly different from the one that I assumed to be the same as everyone experienced.

From this point to the present day, I have been watching the behavior of others with the thought in mind, “What kind of world does that person live in?”

If you have made it this far, thank you.

And you are probably wondering, ‘Where the hell are the edits!?’ No, this is not one of those trick Posts… you know, like the TV series Episode, where all the characters are different at the start and then it turns out to all be a dream for one of the characters? How disappointed can you feel? Well, the fact of the matter is, I do intend to work the edit angle, but I did not realize how big a project even one page is!

(As the great Writer-dude, Samuel Johnson is reputed  to have said, “Shit! No way in the universe, this is a part-time job!!”)


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. OK. I get it. Satan is the scott (are we really surprised? LOL), the (vain) muscle man – the roger which leaves the female as the clark.
    What gives? Why is Eve the clark? I’ve got an inkling (think self sabotage).

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:


      lol so much for editing the content!

      But you are right, Eve is the clark in this triad, why we know that is so very instructive… (I will wait a bit, don’t want to stifle the conversation, of course!)

  2. I haven’t been here in a while, I know,… sorry! This was a great post. I must admit that I really liked that you highlighted a few parts! I’ve come to the realisation that my attention span is often quite limited. Even my husband complains, lol. I did read more than the yellow bits though! Hope you’re having a super Thursday :)

Leave a Reply

© 2009-2014 Francis Clark Farley All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright