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)

The Wakefield Doctrine maintains that everyone is born with the capability to experience life in one of  three worldviews (personal realities), characterized as that of ‘the Outsider’ (a clark), ‘the Predator’ (a scott) and the worldview of ‘the Herd Member’ (a roger). Depending on which of these three a person ends up in, 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; in other words, how do you relate yourself to the world around you?
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.  A person experiencing life from the  rogerian worldview, will ‘know’ that the universe is quantifiable, knowable, organized. The character of this worldview results in world that demonstrates and manifests this quality of being quantifiable-ness, orderliness,  as a result those people who grow up, mature and develop experiencing the world of the roger  tend to be attracted to certain jobs, careers and fields and very often are successful in positions in such fields as engineering, accountancy,  the law (judges and prosecutors), to name just a few.  Any endeavor that requires a very methodical, meticulous and controlled approach, the most successful will be found to be the roger personality type.

The principle applies to clarks and scotts. The Wakefield Doctrine holds that our ‘personality type’ is simply that practice of successful coping strategies consistent with the nature of the world that the individual grows up experiencing. The personal qualities ascribed to each of the three personality types is a direct reflection of the characteristics of the worldview/personal realities of that person. ‘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.

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 will find a benefit to knowing this Wakefield Doctrine.

One thing we hear from people who have begun to explore the Wakefield Doctrine 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 for this initial uncertainty is very simple: we are all born with the potential to experience the world from the perspective of all three personality types, clarks and scotts and rogers. However, at some point in early childhood, we all settle on one of the three worldviews. At this point we become  a scott or a roger or a clark. We do not lose the capability to experience the world as do the ‘other two’ personality types. They remain as secondary aspects and tertiary aspects. Suffice to say, we always have the potential to act as any of the three personality types, our predominant personal reality is how we see and experience the world most of the time.

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 distinct perspectives. It  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.

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.

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, Rhode Island. He was the only full time salesman and (also) ran the store’s repair department. Not limited to repairing musical instruments, the store provided repair services for a wide range of electronic equipment, including  tape recorders and other audio equipment.

One day I happened to stop by the store to visit scott while he worked. While there, a young man walked into the store, came directly to the ‘repair department’ where scott and I were talking and placed on the counter what was known as a  ‘duel cassette recorder’  (A device with the capacity to record two cassette cartridges at once. Often used to copy the contents of one cassette to another, what we would call today, making a back up. The controls on this ‘dubbing recorder’ were two sets of the normal tape recorder controls: Volume, Treble and Bass. It was different from a single cassette recorder in that it had a Master Volume control dial, which, as the name implies controlled the overall sound output of the device.) The tape recorder that the customer placed on the counter appeared to be new and had no signs of damage or abuse. 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 device briefly, then without saying a word, reached under the counter, brought out a roll of 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). Scott then slid the device back over the counter and said, “ There, its all right now”

The customer asked to plug in the recorder, took a cassette from his pocket, tried the recorder, and ran it through it’s paces. After proving to himself that the broken tape recorder that he brought into the store now worked like new, he  thanked Scott and walked out of the store,  a totally satisfied customer.

From my perspective observing this interaction, my world, the reality of everything I knew, somehow shifted. For reasons not clear to this day, I not only saw what scott saw (the nature of the equipment problem), but I realized that the very nature, the character, if you will of Scotts solution implied a reality, a ‘context’ that was clearly different from mine. At that moment I  accepted that the personal reality that I experienced was not necessarily the one that everyone else was witness to, that the way that Scott perceived the ‘problem’ was fundamentally different from the way it was for me.

From that moment, standing in a small music store in Pawtucket up to the present day, I’ve been observing the behavior of others trying to understand, “What kind of reality does this person exist in?”


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 :)

  3. Metanoia says:

    This is a really interesting concept! I’ve never heard of it before, and I’m excited to learn more. I am particularly drawn to the idea that everyone sees the world differently. I believe that I have known that for a while, but I appreciate the idea of constantly thinking that when you interact with another person. In your opinion, what are the positives and negatives to each type of person? Do you think you can change between types or change your type completely?

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      three worldviews
      three (characteristic) ways people ‘relate themselves to the world around them’
      learn the first and you can identify those in the second