if you’re not a clark, stop reading now! as this Post will only a) bore you or 2) annoy you the Wakefield Doctrine

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


I have, from time to time over the course of the years here, set out to ‘write to’ each of the three personality types. By ‘write to’ I mean (and meant): to pick the words, shape the sentences, carve the paragraphs, sneak in the clauses that would resonate with a Reader of a specific personality type. I have set out (on these occasions) to publish a Wakefield Doctrine blog Post that would be irresistible to a roger, totally exciting to a scott and interesting to a clark. Not an unreasonable  goal, what with my understanding of the Doctrine, to ‘get inside the head’ of a Reader. Ya know?

I have not been successful.  …at least with Readers from of 2 out of 3 worldviews. So the question: is this a worthwhile ambition for one who is writing a blog that is all about a personality theory that maintains it is possible to ‘see the world as the other person experiences it’? Or is there a secret flaw to this very ambition, something about it that I am not seeing, something inherent to the premise or is it simply a function of (or lack thereof) my current skill level at this whole writing thing?

Before we continue this, knowing that there might be a roger or a scott out there reading, or, more of a legitimate concern, a new(er) Reader, let me interrupt myself and give everyone a quick overview of our little personality theory. With the assistance of our favorite glyph, Mr. Bullet Point!  (Mr. Bullet Point, aided by the sexy and faithful, Miss Parenthesis, is totally the foundation in my efforts to communicate the principles and applications of this here Doctrine here), the Wakefield Doctrine is:

  • a perspective on people and what is (correctly or otherwise) referred to as their personality type
  • a way to understand the behavior of the people in our lives, whether immediate family or distant cousins, the girl at the next cubicle or your Manager in the office with all the ‘windows’ that look over the work area
  • based on the idea that we all live our lives in what can be described as personal realities… that part of the world between our minds and the other person’s mind
  • certain that there are, among the personal realities (aka ‘worldviews’) of all of us, three characteristic worldviews, the world of the Outsider, the reality of the Predator and the life of the Herd
  • predicated on the notion that we all find ourselves in one of these three worldviews and what others call ‘personality types’ is simply a reflection of the world that we are experiencing
  • certain that while we all live our lives in one of these three worldviews (our predominant), we always retain access to the ‘other two’
  • fun… when you see the clarks and the scotts and the rogers in your world and they start acting like we describe here… a lot like we describe here, you will scream and curse us or laugh and say, “damn! wait ’til I tell everyone at the Doctrine what I saw that scott do today”!
  • useful, it will help you better understand yourself

So, back to our question, ‘should I be trying to write, based on my understanding of the Wakefield Doctrine, Posts that will appeal to the rogers and scotts and clarks, in order to attract new Readers?

In the interest of encouraging discussion, allow me to say: I enjoy what I’ve been doing and do not feel that my efforts are of less value if I do not attract ‘the other two’.  While it is obvious to everyone that my goal is to present the Wakefield Doctrine to as wide an audience as possible, my satisfaction with the results to date are founded (and grounded) in the quality and nature of the responses of Readers to date, and not the quantity. I really enjoy what I am doing, especially  the people who are making this blog way, way more than it was when I started. I feel very lucky to have (fill in one of 53 names right here!) hang out here and such.

So to get this Discussion started:

  • hey! get some Guest Post writers!!  all three too
  • hey where are the videos!!
  • well, since you asked you would do well to emphasize a view that is more than…totally clarklike
  • how about the Video Brunch and the Saturday Night Drives or that ‘radio’ thing you started to do…. huh? what about them
  • ….jump in whenever you feel like  lol





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. You could think of the Doctrine as a piece of real estate. See…the clarks are the ones who will move to the sparsely populated (and cheaper) areas first, followed by maybe some scotts and finally the rogers.
    Eh, we’re in the bohemian stage. Though I will say: I admit I kind of see the rogers maybe a little off-put by the personality labels. My sister in law was kind of offended that I thought her a roger for awhile. She wanted to be a clark – and then, yes, she was when I figured out that she really was a clark.
    But yes, the rogers might feel a little…persecuted…maybe. I’ve been known – on this very blog – to call them stupid. The rogers who work on emotion might not take so well to that. Oops.
    For us clarks, though, everything’s changed: I use the Doctrine TO DICTATE how I might behave and or to ACTUALLY PREDICT and understand my interactions with people. I don’t take things as personally, especially when I know that I’m dealing with a roger, or that I know the scott’s outburst will soon pass.So, for me, I’m content. hahaha Not that that helps you. ;)

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:


      No! yes, it does help me! It not only makes this here blog here fun to write, but more importantly, your use and exploration of the Wakefield Doctrine is totally advancing our understanding and…with you (and Lizzi and Denise and zoe and Christine and them trying this thing out in the real world, I have that much more opportunity to pursue other aspects of the Doctrine that will, in turn further our fun and adventures and such).

      So I like your metaphor… damn we need to rent some loft space somewhere in the blogosphere sos we can hang out and smoke un-filtered cigarettes and black turtle-neck shirts and and that kind of thing!

      lol I know, I might want to get back to finding the next set of words to bring in the next generation and… the beatnik imagery might be leaving a little to be desired…marketing-wise.

      • zoe says:

        Ive already gotten my black beret inscribed with the Doctrine monicker.

        • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:


          excellent! did you know that berets can be a very effective roger-detector? yes, a beret on a man is almost certainly a roger (the man, not the beret). This does not carry to the female side of the fence…the role ‘n rules of female fashion is a whole ‘nother affair!

          it is well documented in these pages the eclecticism of (female) clarks, the ..efficacy of the fashion selection of scottian women and the wholesome and totally in style choices made by rogerian ladies

          • zoe says:

            Just met a new guy in my office… Nice man, total Roger was my take from the start…very emotive individual…wears a black beret. No kidding.

            • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:


              drives a Volvo (a Saab is acceptable), loves Ken Burn’s films, if (of an age) to enjoy physical exercise try: bicycling or some form of re-enacting (Civil War or otherwise); if not (young enough) then music or some type of woodcrafting that involves intricate steps and fastidious planning. on the interpersonal front he is a good listener and (appears) to bring an enthusiastic interest to the conversation, asking questions and laughing at the right places, but on closer examination your should find that a conversation with him amounts to an ‘secret debate’. You make a statement and he will make a statement, he will tend to not accept what you say to the extent of incorporating it and/or modifying his position (in the conversation) with an active acknowledgement of what you have said being accepted.
              Would love to tell you about his spouse, but am more interested in the changes that will occur when he discovers you are a clark…lol

              (thank you, Zoe we are totally looking for to your reports from ‘the field’…any and all notes, observations, reflection and annoyed-to-hell-with-this-guy will be appreciated)

              • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

                right here, this is what I mean! NO! not this Comment… the start of the thread! up there…see it?? lol

              • zoe says:

                Clark, you are painfully on target with this guy I met. I am finding him HYPER-paradoxical in conversation…he will be quite accepting then argue something Ive said while defending it at the same time. He is like the primary roger in the office…no wonder they don’t get along. While I don’t know what he drives I suspect you may be correct with that as well…He is divorced. Probably married a Clark.

                • zoe says:

                  Oops, I hit the send too soon…Are Clarks clumsy? LOL… this guy plays guitar, writes music and poetry (very nice stuff), used to run marathons but as he ages is now the “woodsy type.”

                  • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:


                    It might depend on the establishing of your being a clark (and how this happens within the worldview of the other person is not fully understood) but eventually and in virtually every interaction, he will totally need to have the last word… even better, once he gets comfortably established expect to hear him say ‘black’ anytime you mention ‘white’ lol

                    You can identify a roger by the number of personal pronouns they use (the highest of the three… clarks the lowest scotts…well whatever it takes to soften the message “hey!….”)

                    But as you know, the Doctrine is about inferring how the (other person) is relating themselves to the world around them and, in the case of rogers, this means ‘personally, very personally’.

                    Often it is difficult to distinguish between a strong roger and a weak scott… both a socially confident, assertive even, but a scott seeing the world as a predator, while taking everything ‘seriously’ does not take interactions personally. But listen to a roger speak (about themselves or a subject of their choosing, not, say a response to a question or a demand for information) they will always find a way to relate it to themselves.

                    I envy you… a roger new to the environment… much to be learned about how they assimilate themselves into the ‘local herd’… remember: ‘referential authority’ it is a feature in the rogerian worldview and is why they will almost always reference something/someone else when they need to convince another person to do something

  2. I think I might want ‘Miss Parenthesis’ to be my superhero name…


  1. […] you want to get some pointers on workplace Doctrine?  go read zoe’s  Comment here […]