Non-allegorical Monday* the Wakefield Doctrine ( it’s so simple, even your spouse could get it**)

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

The Wakefield Doctrine is a way  to understand the behavior of people. It is a perspective that allows you to know more about the other person than they know about themselves. It is a tool with which you can overcome bad habits and self-defeating behavior. And it, (this Wakefield Doctrine), is fun.  Simple to understand for those people  with innate curiosity and intellectual confidence, the Wakefield Doctrine lets you see the world from a different angle, an angle from which personality types are discernible without the need to ask questions, get the other person to fill out a survey and totally without the need to employ any math involving chi square distribution or standard deviations.

The Wakefield Doctrine maintains that all people are born with the potential to relate themselves to the world in one of three characteristic ways, as an Outsider (clarks), as a Predator (scotts) or as a Member of the Herd (rogers). It is (the Wakefield Doctrine maintains) the character of this relationship that produces what is commonly referred to as personality or personality type. This is not overly unique in the world of personality theories. What is unique, is that the Wakefield Doctrine insists that not only do people relate themselves to the world in these three characteristic ways, but the world for them does, in fact, reflect the qualities implied by the relationship.
Plainly put, we live in what can only be described as a personal reality. This is not to imply anything overly mystical, magical or fantastic. Trees do not talk (unless we are willing to listen), prey do not yearn to be brought down (unless we abandon our reason) and the world is not quantifiable nor is it governed by Rules that we alone are able to appreciate (unless we are rogers).
This aspect of the Wakefield Doctrine that includes the existence or personal realities is the difficult part for approximately 2/3s of the people who come across this blog. They, (these 2/3s), are not able to imagine (for the sake of experiment) that everyone they know is experiencing a reality that is different (this difference ranging from barely noticeable to oh-my-god)  from what they believe is the only real reality. They might try to understand the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine (very likely to succeed) and they might even persist in trying to identify people by their personality types (many of them get it, sort of) but they rarely ever get to experience the primary benefit of this approach to understanding the people in their lives. They never get it enough to understand that everyone they  encounter in the course of the day (today!) is acting in an entirely appropriate manner, consistent with the world as they are experiencing it.
(We call these personal realities, ‘worldviews’ ).

Well this blog is simply not for them.

It is for you.

(I mean, seriously, if you have read this far into this Post, then I will say, without fear of contradiction, that you have the qualities that are required to find this thing useful and fun. And if you have any question about that happening, write a Comment and your specific question will be answered.)

The three personal realities are referred to as:

  1. clarks  (the Outsider)…the most likely to immediately understand the Wakefield Doctrine and the most likely to be willing to learn about and the one (of the three) who will benefit the most
  2. scotts (the Predator)…  the third most likely to understand the Wakefield Doctrine and the most likely to see the immediate benefits (lets call that the ‘advantages’ for this personality type)
  3. rogers (the Member of the Herd)… the second most likely to understand the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine and the most likely to pretend to employ the tools for themselves

Well, that wraps up ‘non-allegorical’ Monday.

Coming this week… (possibly) the next Installment of the Collision at the Calypso Club, probably another video Post and most definitely a Post about Wakefield Doctrine Road Trips

* refers to Allegorical Mondays which is a series in which installments of an allegorical Tale of the Three Personality Types is run. You can read it all in one place here

** there is a famous statement, usually attributed to David Ogilvy, ‘the average consumer is not a moron, she is your wife’***  this guy actually has insights that is a benefit to any of us looking to do something more in this blogosphere so here is a link to some of his other quotes

*** actually this appears to be a truncation of the full quote



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. Yes, this blog is for those like me and love being here. Thanks seriously as always Clark for doing what you do. Happy Monday!! :)

  2. Amy says:

    This post brought to mind my three kids and how I have avoided accepting that their world view would be anything other than exactly like mine! I have to think about this some more. My oldest (13) has this new phrase she says about everything. “That’s so mainstream.” And it is clearly NOT cool to her to be mainstream! A Clark I suppose!

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:


      the (most) valuable and the most difficult part of the concept of worldviews is the idea that (a differing worldview) is not that person choosing to ignore something or maintain a view in order to advance their interests, it is that (within the concept of worldview) that the thing (they seem to be ignoring, for example) does not exist for them. Personal realities are realities… luckily the Doctrine talks in terms of the approach, ‘just imagine for a minute…’ lol

  3. Cyndi says:

    Okay, here’s a question. I was having dinner with family from out of town last evening. I have a relative who is bi-polar and intense. I have trouble pegging him as a scott-clark or a clark-scott. He’s very creative and is an anarchist (or wants to be) and will vehemently defend his point of view (even if I did understand it, I wouldn’t really support it, though, because…well…I see anarchists as prone to conflict…but that’s just me, and I don’t like conflict). In any case, how do you discern different personality types when there might be an underlying psychological thing going on? My guess is that if I’m having trouble figuring out which, he’s probably a clark-scott. And while Rogers may be most common, I swear my husband’s family are all clarks peppered with some scotts. They’re all artists or creatives and do their own thing. My husband is for sure a clark, and his brother is a scott, his sister is a clark-scott, and his other sister is a clark-roger (sort of like me and we get along famously!). My mom in law is a scott…married partners might be rogers and extended family I would classify as rogers, but…yeah…I’m surrounded by clarks. Hehe. Still, though, if there’s an underlying psychological thing going on, for me, it makes it harder to discern your personality type and thereby understand your behavior. What’s your take?

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:


      Good question* There is a thing that we say, “everyone does everything…at one time or another”. This saying is most commonly applied when a person asks something like, ‘my girlfriend is a scott and wants to be a …lighthouse keeper, is this a good fit?**’ But (this saying) is useful in the situation you are describing… trying to understand the relative. There is such a thing as scottian anarchists and (ever) rogerian anarchists, the way to distinguish is by inferring the worldview of the individual by how they seem to express the issue (anarchism). For example, I would submit that a scottian anarchist is more concerned with the process than the end product…and a rogerian anarchist could be identified by the value they place on others understanding how necessary their actions are…why they are anarchist will tell you what worldview they are in and almost paradoxically, knowing their worldview would tell you how they would express and idea (such as anarchism).
      You know, the weird thing about the Wakefield Doctrine is that for all of it’s tremendous value in understanding the behavior of others, it (the Doctrine) does not depend on the individual…it depends on observing the individual and, form that, correctly inferring how they are relating themselves to the world around them (their characteristic or ‘predominant’) worldview.
      I think I should do a Post devoted to the means of identifying the three types, not so much because people don’t get the three, but when there is a confusion (which there often is between say, a strong roger and a scott) which are the ways that best help eliminate the confusing characteristic in favor of the more specific telltales.
      Great question.

      *seriously is a good question because it is grounded in an objective situation

  4. I like the way you continue to break down the Wakefield Doctrine. Thanks for posting, and I continue to enjoy reading your posts. Especially since you always have such good things to say about Clarks! ;)

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:


      lol no! there is nothing biased about my description of clarks.. Good Point (this is the benefit of having new Readers, sometime being too close to a subject creates a certain myopia). I think I had best make it clear (perhaps a Post) that there are no good personality types or bad personality types, or better to say, each of the three have ‘good qualities’ and ‘bad qualities’.
      yeah, think I will do that
      thanks Melanie!

  5. @Cyndi – your question is great. Doctrine basics deal with the characteristics that describe the personality types, clarks, scotts and rogers, yes. More importantly, the Doctrine is about the expression of, the manifestation of a person’s relationship to the world at large. Call it Doctrine 201. LOL
    One big circle and one of the more challenging aspects (but most rewarding) of the Doctrine. It provides the answer to the “whys”. Kinda like the shading that gives a painting it’s 3-dimensional quality:)

    Not to get all controversial but as way of example: gun control. You can have a clark and a roger both be pro (or anti) gun control but their reasons why would be different. Because of how they relate to the world.

    As to your question of identifying individuals (as clarks, scotts or rogers) with “psychological” issues. I imagine that it would depend on the “severity” and type of issues. I’m no professional so I can’t say with 100% certainty, but I’m willing to bet the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine would still be applicable somehow.(but I’ll leave that one to the professionals!!)