of egos and empathy the Wakefield Doctrine (yes, I know! it’s already half past Monday! )

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

Sorry for leaving an undeniably out of date Post up there, I mean, it frickin says ‘Saturday’ in the damn Title. So while I rack my damn brain for some fresh Content, here is a reprint Post, which is actually surprisingly germane to where my thinking is on the Doctrine. Don’t want to get into it too much but I will say this: a) the Wakefield Doctrine stands to become a very cool tool for self-development (for those so inclined) and  2) those rogers have been relaxing long enough in the wings…time to get this show on.

But for now, please enjoy:


…we know now ( if you read yesterday’s Post, you know now ) the relationship between rogers and scotts is a very… intimate pairing. While it is easy to mistake the roger’s as ‘victim’ to the scott’s predation, we know that this is totally not the case. ( New Readers!  Go and listen to DownSpring Phyllis in Episode 13 of Video Friday), rather it is obvious that there is very much a symbiotic relationship binding1 your rogers and scotts.  The Wakefield Doctrine is gender neutral, however it is often where gender is the central feature, that we can see the relationship between these two personality types in highest contrast. We all know a couple** where the guy is a roger and the girl is a scott. He is always pretty and she is always sexy. He is socially adept and she is socially aggressive. It is when these two are observed tant qu’ensemble,  do we see the interplay of each personality type.  With a roger/scott couple,  it is the scott who is quick with the jokes about (the roger), ” oh yeah,  you should have seen roger on our honeymoon! he was so nervous”  (this kind of comment actually serves two purposes: a) make fun of the roger for the amusement of the surrounding group and b) (serve) as bait to entice any rogers listening to the story). The roger, in this situation, laughs comfortably and watches the reaction of the female members of their ‘audience’.  Think:  Bill and Hillary Clinton  or  (for you older Readers), Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton   …hell, lets throw in  Bobby Brown and Whitney Houston!  In any event, you will find ‘this couple’  in most social gatherings where attendance of ‘couples’ is appropriate. It needs to be said that this type of relationship ( roger/scott) is by no means exclusive to ‘couples’ in the romantic sense; anywhere there are people interacting, you will find the dynamic described here.  And, as Phyllis points out in her Video interview, the roger is not truly the passive partner. (From the rogerian perspective), the seemingly passive one is ‘leading from behind’  and reining in the scott, particularly in the public/social situations that we are using to illustrate the two personality types.

While the roger-scott relationship is relatively easy ( if not kind of…racydynamic… “ewww, I can’t believe she said that“…) to understand, what of the roger-clark relationship?

Before we continue with our discussion, a quick note!  You know how we have been accused of… making up words,  (neologisms, to get rogerian on it) for our own enjoyment?  ( No?  well we do! ) Real made up words, not rogerian expressions,  anyway with Molly’s help we went and sent in a word to the Urban Dictionary just last evening. While not up to the sublime, subtly-nuanced standards found with most of the entries there, we are beginning to spread more and more into the ‘real world’.  Thanks Molly!

The roger-clark relationship is much more stable, less wildly dynamic than is the roger-scott relationship. As the ‘active’ partner in a roger-scott relationship is usually the scott, the roger plays the more active role in the roger-clark couple. This is attributable more to the patience of the clark than (to) the aggressiveness of the roger.  Lets just say that in the ‘natural’ relationship between rogers and clarks

rogers are to clarks as:

  • a diploma is to an education
  • (the) record to the needle
  • the ocean to the tide
  • Thanksgiving is to Christmas

(As with yesterday’s Post, here is where we will relate an anecdote to serve as an illustration of some part of this Post.  So I was talking to the Progenitor roger just the other day, the conversation was great fun, ranging an incredible variety of topics. This is as much evidence of the rogerian skill at story-telling, as it is proof of a clarks ability to adapt to nearly any situation.  In any event, roger and I were talking and the topic came around to either:  a)dinner, b)body weight or c) both a & b, at which point,  roger made the statement, ” of course, you would be eating tuna casserole…” Now this statement should not mean anything to you (the Reader) however, what makes it so atypical of rogers is that at one time in the past (say …20 years ago) I was on a tuna casserole diet. Great meal, tuna…noodles…good hot or cold…perfect food! Being a clark, I could (and did) eat tuna casserole for every meal. The point of this story is that roger mentioned this…menu choice, as if it were (still) true. What is remarkable about the sentence that he made was not that it was no longer true, rather that he made the statement with such certainty and conviction that, for a second, I could almost smell tuna casserole. rogers do that, they maintain a (certain) worldview that they have decided is accurate, the passage of time (in this case, 20 years) has zero effect on how true the roger will hold their statement to be… This capability is at heart of the rogerian need to: preserve, to maintain tradition, to support their view of the world as lasting and consistent. This is perhaps the  reason that rogers are such effective story-tellers…they maybe be relating a tale, one that they totally make up, but when they tell it, it is ‘true’. The listener feels this (rogerian) conviction that the story is true, it must be simply because (the roger) remembers it so…)

  • musical technique is to creativity
  • machine operator is to a Teacher

Well that wraps up Chapter II.  Be sure to stay for the Video  (  isn’t George just so….dreamy??! )

1) lol…ask a scott

* the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers

** we mean it about gender neutral…the term ‘couple’ is not limited to simple heterosexual pairs… can include any relationship, sexual and/or friendship-based



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. From reading this, I truly got a bit of insight into my own marriage and seriously thank you for giving this background for all of us. Happy Monday, Clark!! :)

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:


      …it is the nature of the way this thing of ours is developing that views, insights (a slightly varied) insight is made possible, all adding up to having more of (an) understanding to augment what we already.

  2. Molly Molly M. says:

    So tell me… what does a scott-roger personality look like? (primary scott, secondary roger)

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:


      …a predator with patience lol! a neat and orderly house, an accomplished/skilled cook a scottian female with (a) rogerian secondary would be even more interesting (and difficult to spot*), I would be looking for a high school phys ed teacher, or a nurse (specializing in geriatric medicine would be a good bet)…
      fascinating ‘problem’ you have posed!

      *from a distance, which approach I am taking here, what characteristics… as with everything with the Doctrine, the process of trying to figure something out teaches one as much about the Doctrine (in general) as well as a little about oneself

  3. Interesting reading about relationships between the 3 different personalities. Very interesting! I’ll need to do a quick read up and find out what Geoff is. Have a great day!

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:


      I found it to be an interesting Post as well, as with everything using the Doctrine, ‘hold up’ the types, see which seems to match, then watch for a continuing matching (of characteristics) or a decreasing renounce. Probably a roger.

  4. ….30 seconds or so in, George is pretending to jump into the mosh pit. LOL

    An excellent post. My last relationship and the one I’ve been in for the last 18 yrs have both been with a roger. Both of these men were previously with scottian women. From my observations, there is very much an emotional component/dynamic that is consistent with the rogerian/scottian couples as you have stated. I would agree that it transcends the “couple” relationship as well.

    Enough of the clarkspeak. How do rogers choose what to “hold” onto? Is it random? What precipitates the latching onto a thing, in your case the tuna casserole? rogers do this thing only with clarks. Again, why?

    The worldview of rogers has it’s basis in emotion – the manifestation, motive and expression differing markedly from the emotion associated with scotts. rogers and scotts “feed” each other….

    ….words gelatinous in my brain….the Doctrine is an essential tool. Self awareness leads to self development leads to…..

  5. Cyndi says:

    Make up words?
    Ha! I rather enjoyed your “postingage” and I’m always thrilled to learn more about Doctrinisms so that I am able to understand the behaviorness of the world around me.
    Sweet jessupness.
    And my relationship with my hubby? clark/clark We’re almost too introverted for our own good, lol. We seek out extroverts sometimes so we can so something besides SSDD (same shit, different day). HAHAHA.

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:


      yeah the funniest thing about clark/clark (conversations) is the tendency to (conversationally) bump into each other…. not overly surprising…rthymns being the same for pauses as starts and such

      coming next is the facintating and (daunting) effort to find the touchstones for (ones) rogerian aspect* should be interesting.

      *rogers not eligible lol

  6. I think that in the past I was in a Roger-Scott relationship but as I’ve aged, my partner and I care less about social appearances and more about comfort. Or something. Or maybe it wasn’t actually a Roger-Scott relationship at all. Huh. And what about poor Clark? Who does he get to love? Only another Clark?
    Oh and you ate tuna casserole for EVERY meal? Wow.

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      it’s funny, clarks being the enablers that we are, are often in the shadow of the other person, be they scott or roger. Now therein lies a most difficult aspect of the clarklike worldview to understand. but at the same time it is the most promising (for clarks)

      not every mean… rogers will maintain a reality despite all evidence to the contrary but they do so in a manner that is distinguishable from a scott or a clark holding on… rogers are intractable scotts are unreachable and clarks… they, surprisingly are un-convince-able

  7. Angie Ryg says:


    I am so glad you reposted this so I could get an ever better understanding of the three( albeit always merged in bits and pieces into only one) personality.

    I appreciated this description:

    “…rogers do that, they maintain a (certain) worldview that they have decided is accurate, the passage of time (in this case, 20 years) has zero effect on how true the roger will hold their statement to be…”

    Thanks for the connection,

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:


      (one of the things) about our approach to personality and personality types is that rather than characterize any particular behavior or activity or career choice or bad habit as being a clarklike thing to do or a scottian job or a rogerian talent, we simply say, ‘everyone does everything at one time or another’. The objective is to infer what it means to a given personality type (in our example a roger) to hold onto the past. Clarks hold onto the past as do scotts, but it is very clearly a different experience for both of them

  8. Thank you Clark for putting into words an extremely vexing aspect of the rogerian worldview. I know the following quote to be true to the last drop!!

    “….rogers will maintain a reality despite all evidence to the contrary….. rogers are intractable…”

    So, the question is – how to “move” a roger. How does one facilitate it so that a roger will be able to release the version of “reality” he or she has created? Is this not a paradox?
    For example, I am a clark, my partner is a roger. Woweegeewilickers (that’ one’s for you Cyndi!), I’m thinking of a particular aspect of my life (with my rogerian man) that we both want to improve. I see several, and can think of many, options to explore that have the potential to improve these aspects. My roger, having a way different worldview, does not see the…value in exploring some of these options. If they (my suggested options) do not produce certain, quantifiable results then he (my roger) doesn’t/can’t see the value in the effort. Or something like that. Damn! How to be clearer, less clarklike LOL….
    As a clark, I can entertain any number of avenues for their potential to alter/change/improve. But then, that is part of the worldview/personal reality of a clark.
    Have to go. It really is a Wordless Wednesday for me:)

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:


      very good question, in fact, your question is at the heart of the effort behind this blog and the Wakefield Doctrine itself. I hazard to say, you gonna love today’s Post.