the Wakefield Doctrine (you can’t spell Monday without the O in ‘oh-my-god’ or the N in ‘not another Monday!’)

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


Today’s Post is largely, but not entirely, a re-print Post. The reason (that I’m telling myself) is that I’m on a Quest to discover a simple (and repeatable) process by which I can use my time/apply myself more efficiently in my workday. I am deeming this a worthwhile effort for two very important reasons:

  1. I do have a real world job; more of a business actually, real estate … it is, of course, a business in that I’m an independent contractor, (as in ‘make money, get paid…don’t make money. don’t get paid’)  but as Hyman Roth  (in Godfather I) so eloquently put it,  ‘And I said to myself, this is the business we’ve chosen;’
  2. I need to efficiently allocate the supply of written words available to me today, as I’m back on the trail of getting the Doctrine into a book-like form
  3. …as all clarks know, most scotts recognize instinctively (but, by definition, would not express in words) and rogers would not accept (as being redundant beyond ability to distinguish from their personal gestalt): my emotional state is what will determine how well I do today. It is not: the list I write (on yellow-lined pads), the schedule I create (in my Lesson Planner book) or even the schedule I create in my telephone (or tablet or computer)… not sure what I mean?  write us a Comment!

(From October of last year):



You knew this wasn’t going to be a simple, conventional, easy to ‘get’ approach to understanding the behavior of the people in our lives, didn’t you?

To recapitulate briefly:

the Wakefield Doctrine maintains that we live our lives in one of three worldviews (personal realities). That what others refer to as personality types are, in actuality, reflections of our efforts to contend with the world as we relate ourselves to it. Further, the Doctrine would allow that,  if we correctly infer which (of these three worldviews) the other person is experiencing, we will know more about them than they know about themselves. The Wakefield Doctrine is intended to be used as a tool to aid us in these efforts, meant as a perspective (on) the lives and behavior of the people around us that, correctly employed will lead to a greater understanding of why people do the things that they do.  Unlike most other personality systems and ‘theories’, the Wakefield Doctrine offers nothing that you can directly impart to another person. Your use of the Doctrine can only lead to a better understanding of the other person, the Wakefield Doctrine  will not serve you in any efforts to:  convince another person to act differently, treat you better, stop that annoying habit, know you for what you really are, quit smoking, have more frequent sex, show the world the side that you know is there, get ‘A’s, eat less, lose weight, get a better job and, finally start helping around the house. The Wakefield Doctrine is for you, not them.

If you learn and apply the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine to your own life, then you will be in a position to not just improve your life and circumstances. You will be able to improve yourself. As a person. A person who must interact and deal with people who: you work for, who work for you, those you love and those you would love, those you hate and those you would rather not be distracted by, family, friends, the man in the car at the gas pump ahead of you and the girl who delivers the mail. They are all a part of your world today and that is what the Wakefield Doctrine is intended to be used on. And….and! the best thing about using the Wakefield Doctrine as a tool in your efforts to self-improve yourself is: you do not have to do anything that you are not capable of all along.

So, first step:  read up on the worldview of the Outsider (clarks) and the Predator (scotts) and the Herd Members (rogers), now what? Now, the fun. Observe the people in your life. Fact of the matter, if you are still reading, it is a pretty safe bet that you get a kick out of ‘people watching’. Pay special attention to interactions between people. Find one person in your daily life and start with them. You have three personality types to choose from… go ahead and throw out the one you know they are not!… ok! now keeping the characteristics of the 2 remaining worldviews in mind, which seems to be more consistent with the behavior of the person. Don’t worry about getting the answer fast…they are not going to change their worldview. The more you observe them, the simpler the choice will be, no… the more inevitable the choice will be! This is the fun part. Put yourself in their head…go ahead, they won’t know!

  1. does the person seem distant…un-emotional when they should be emotional, emotional when they should not be, do they seem to shy away from attention, do they mumble when you know they are quite capable of speaking clearly, does their fashion sense seem a bit… conflicted?  boots and mini-shirts…too much jewelry, is their posture really poor, are they funny in a quiet surprising way?
  2. no way! they are quick and seem to be everywhere but they won’t know what you are doing, relax…do they seem to probe and challenge constantly? are they funny and aggravating and do they always seem to push it just a little too far? when you imagine ‘being them’ do you feel envious and then excited but at the same time, glad that you are not them?
  3. always have an answer…not in the form of new information, in the form of ‘the last word’, very comfortable to talk to, seem to always be listening, attentive without any curiosity, do they seem to be looking for the right way to act when regarding others or the wrong way to act when others are the center of attention, they nurture without warmth, are seductive without excitement

That should be enough for Part 2.

Ok  now out into the world with ye … gwan! get out there and find the clarks and spot the scotts and relate to them rogers…. check back here tomorrow morning.


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. zoebyrd says:

    Hey this was a great repost…how did I miss this one when I did the archives I wonder? I have to say the kissing pic gives me the willies… I keep feeling like i need to spit out a sock or something…

    I know what you mean about work … I too independently contract and that no work no pay thing can be a fickle bitch!

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      lol… remind me to tell you about the ‘Ward Cleaver job’ I had once (for a couple of year in the early 90s)

  2. Michelle says:

    I LOVE that picture…it’s so compelling!

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      yeah… totally can’t remember how it is I came across it (other than via google images) (probably don’t want to know…lol)

  3. Lisa @ The Meaning of Me says:

    Glad you re-posted this one – I love the descriptions.
    Getting quite a bit nervous about this self-employment thing…starting to what it myself crazy. What if nobody calls? What if I can’t get enough clients? What if I don’t make any money? I gotta stop…

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      yeah… fun (the post)
      yeah… not as much fun (the worries of self-employmenthood) part of the game, but as long as you focus on providing the service and keep your goals realistic (both in scope and in time)… everything will work out

  4. lrconsiderer says:

    Working on my distance and wanting a pillowcase to wear.

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      …ok (I think I got the pillowcase reference (but then you are a clark, so I would be loathe to underestimate you capability in discovering connections (of connections))*

      * yeah, I know, I simple, ‘what did you mean by that?’would have sufficed…’


  5. christine says:

    I’m not very good at that work for pay gig. I’ve never kept a paying job for more than 2 years in a row. No, I’ve never been fired. (could you have guessed that? Part of me thinks a scott would never be fired, yet I can see where an over-the-top scott could, especially if his boss was a scott. (Am I giving you a new post idea?)) Something just came up and I had to quit. Lots of somethings, apparently, because I’ve had lots of jobs.

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:


      yeah (to the idea of the workplace experience of scotts relative to bosses/management)… scotts do have very good survival instincts and I would say tend to not get fired (they may quit, after getting caught changing the company logo (on a holiday when all of management had the day off) or, perhaps hitting on the CFO and being rebuffed (yeah, I know, what the hell!). And the lots of jobs is not a reflection of non-persistance, I would say it is more a matter of being good at a lot of things (good enough to get the job in the first place, but not having an overly deep interest in whatever the job may be)… it’s about the challenge and the action and the novelty and the chase… of the three, scotts are the most likely to be able to talk their way into getting job (as opposed to getting a job offer on the basis of qualifications)

  6. dyannedillon says:

    When I read those three descriptions, for the first time, I really see how I am a Scott. Whadya know?