“that’s metaphysically absurd, man! How can I know what you hear?”* the Wakefield Doctrine: it’s simple and it’s fun… for the whole family!

Welcome to the Wakefield (yes, there is such a place) Doctrine (well, maybe not so much in the proper sense, but it does have a certain air, non?) (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

Questionation Wednesday! (we used to do a joke about questions that I thought was totally funny, but the DownSprings kept saying that I was the only one who felt that way, so I stopped2)

Question 1:     So what do you say if someone asks you which of the three personality types they are?

There are several answers to this question (“…you’re thinking that there are three answers to this question! very good!”)

The (3) Answer is:

  1. (clarks) figure out which of the three they are first, if there is more than one person asking, keep your eye on the roger3
  2. (scotts) tell them
  3. (rogers) ask them questions about where they heard about it, what they think they know and why they want to know

Question B:  My spouse is very out-going and friendly, loves documentaries, especially by Ken Burns. Good with the kids and has a gift with scheduling and getting things done on time. I get the thing about rogers being orderly, but this spouse of mine is very aggressive when we go out with friends. Is this a scott or a roger or some kind of combination?

There is only one answer to this question. Observe your spouse very closely. Listen to them as well as watch them. You must infer how they are relating themselves to the world around them. This is an essential part of (the use of) the Wakefield Doctrine. The first step is the easiest: which of the three are they not? This is a valid approach. From your description, it is clear that your Spouse in not a clark. Good. Now it is for you to infer whether the person is a scott or a roger.
All three personality types have characteristics and some of these (characteristics) are more… blatant than others. Go for the ‘big indicators’ first:

  • eyes  the eyes/’the look’ of a scott is a primary characteristic. the eyes of a scott are very…alert, never at rest never simply staring into space (that is a sign of a clark, that ‘staring into space’ thing). So observe your spouses eyes… sure, they’re attractive but, do you ever get a very tiny voice inside that says, ‘quick move away!‘? That would be a scottian set of eyes. Now rogers, at least the attractive ones, will have prominent eyes, but they are eyes that you would welcome the attention of… but!… if you are looking at your spouses face, are the eyes somehow judgemental?  do they have a hint of critical evaluation?  then you might be dealing with a rogerian spouse. Hey! you want to know how cool this Doctrine thing is? That commercial on TV  for Angies List?  who out there doubts for a frickin nanosecond that Angie is not a total roger? hell, even the people doing the testimonials in the commercial are all rogers… there is not just a look of critical assessment in Angie’s face, but who has the least difficulty picturing her in Victorian garb saying. “Off with their head!”
  • in the environment of social interaction there is a clear difference between scotts and rogers.  scotts will always ‘work the room’, they will go up to people they have never met and have fun, draw a crowd and then move on. rogers they will find a spot and bring the people to them, build a herd, if you will. (The exception here is the rogerian male in a social situation with a scottian female present… need I say more?  lol)
  • count the pronouns!  serially!  a scott will use the pronouns ‘you’ way more than anyone else… a roger will use the pronouns ‘I’ and ‘me’ to a noticeable degree
Question 3:  hey, I am out of time this morning. Write a Comment and I will redo this thing (later in the day) and your question could be Question 3!!

 

* the Fire Sign Theater  you owe it to yourself to follow the link to these guys, you will enjoy their albums

2)  ’there are no stupid questions, only your questions!!’4

3) this alludes to an aspect of dealing with rogers that is way beyond this Post, but just as you would be wise to identify the scott in your little audience and enlist their support (without losing control of the them), it is totally essentially that you keep your eye on the roger in the group (and there will be one5) because you must sell them first6 and do it in a way that they feel is keeping the attention on them7

4) ha ha

5) they will not be the ‘active center’ of the group (that falls to the scott most of the time), but they will be ‘the social center of the group’********

6) very difficult to do, remind us in a Comment and we will try to layout the best strategy to achieve this

7) you know that about rogers, right?

8) this phrase is meant to allude to and invoke that feeling that, while the scotts may come and go, all entertaining and the center of attention, if you are dealing with anyone less than total strangers, then you have a stable group and that group is dominated by a roger9

9) this is a very interesting (social) phenomenon, the stable social group has a roger in the center and everyone stops by and interacts and everyone hopes that a scott will come and visit…

 

Share

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

Comments

  1. Cyndi says:

    Entertaining post. I have these rogerian friends who are totally herd-developers. Hehe. Whenever we go biking with them, we’ll sit down for a beer afterwards and they will always invariably invite people from anywhere to join us. If it’s just my husband and I and we sit down for a beer after a bike ride, that NEVER happens, LOL.

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      @Cyndi

      the behavioral metaphor for rogers and scotts is endlessly useful (and entertaining) and that Angie (of Angie’s List! god I think that former reigning queen of the rogers, Kathy Bates needs to worry!)

  2. I like to employ the process of elimination method first when figuring out clark, scott or roger.

    The challenge of identifying a strong roger from a scott? I look for either the emotion evoking darts (roger) or the blunt, just for effect, bombs (scott). LOL

  3. Totally loved how you answered the myriad of questions tossed your way. Great job and hope you are having a good morning Clark!! :)

  4. Emily says:

    Hmm, now I’m trying to figure out who/what my husband is…I think he’s a combo of a Clark and a Roger. He likes to go out with people, and boy does he like to talk, but I wouldn’t say he gathers a herd nor does he work the room…he keeps talking, even if no one is listening! :)

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      @Emily

      thats a good way to focus (for the purposes of inferring his worldview, i.e. personality type). And as you illustrate, sometimes the process is more involved than others. The process can (and should be continued) to further confirm your call (on your husband). A person’s sytle of talking can be useful. Both clarks and rogers like to talk and do so on a more detailed and sophisticated level than do scotts (who are pretty much ‘noun-verb-object’ people). Pay attention to the structure of his conversation, does he ‘branch off’ in conversation in order to to bolster his argument or does he branch off to augment the main thought?
      clarks love information for it’s own sake, so their branching is aimed to bring in information that may be related, no matter how obtusively. rogers on the other hand see information as the foundation for their thoughts, useful only in association with the main idea.
      …me a clark? nooo lol

  5. Emily brings up an interesting point about talking + rogers, clarks.
    I am with a roger and he is definitely a talker! I think if you are not sure whether he is a clark or roger look to “how” they are talking. A roger will relate a lot of personal stories and events from their past. Or they will often pepper the conversation with factual “trivia”. And they tend to not allow for easy openings in the conversation where you can contribute.
    clarks on the other hand, being better listeners, usually engage in more “balanced” conversations. Their extrapolations however may go on forever and anyone previously listening has probably politely moved on. lol

  6. Interesting way you’ve answered the questions asked. I enjoyed reading your answers and looking forward to reading more. Nice post!

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      @Melanie

      yeah, the (constant) goal ’round here is to find a set of words (hopefully less than 1000) that after reading, a person interested in this thing of ours would be able to get it. Not only which of the three types they might be, but how to explain the Doctrine to the people that might ask.

  7. Jennifer says:

    Good ways to identify the three. Even for oneself. When I first became aware of the Doctrine it was very tricky to me trying to figure out “who” I was. Initially I thought I was a roger (yikes) just going by some of the elements in the original “about” page of each. Based on a just a few similar aspects it seemed to fit. Plus, I wasn’t sure I wanted to “be” a scott. Again, based on the original “about” page of scotts. The description of scotts seemed very derogatory to me. Initially I thought that scotts didn’t seem like very nice people. But I came to realize that I’m a scottian female and was glad I was. And the current descriptive characteristics are spot on.

    But in the end, the process of elimination is by far the best way to identify both yourself and others.

Leave a Reply

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