B -the Wakefield Doctrine- Behavior

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


behavior (or, as ‘our Ms. Rogers‘ might have it, behaviour ) is today’s word, courtesy of Doctrine Friend Z.

Given that the theme we’ve chosen for our maiden voyage on the good ship ‘A-to-Z April Blog Hop Challenge’ is, the Wakefield Doctrine, the word ‘behavior’ for the second Post  should come as no surprise or seem, in any way, odd or out of place. After all, the Wakefield Doctrine presents itself as a ‘personality theory’, and, a perspective on the behaviour of the people in our lives. It would seem clear that our little personality theory is all about deciphering, decoding, deconstructing and otherwise figuring out why the heck people act the way that they do…especially the people in our immediate lives. From classmates to housemates, roommates to lovers, siblings and co-workers, we all live in an speeded up Lava Lamp of emotions and actions, perceptions and reactions, mostly directed towards us from the world but, of course, we get our opportunities to have at them too! So naturally one would think, ‘well, you Doctrinaires, you surely must spend your days analyzing behaviors and things and…you know, how people act and such.’

Of course, you are probably not that surprised to hear me say, ‘…well no. not really’

Simplest put: the Wakefield Doctrine is not so concerned with a person’s behavior, except for the purpose of providing clues and insight into which of the three is that person’s predominant worldview (aka personality type). It is (this) determining a person’s worldview, that is, in fact, (one of) the key aspects of the Wakefield Doctrine, i.e. can we determine: ‘how does that person relate themselves to the world around them‘.* How a person behaves is a reflection of how (that) person is relating themselves to the world around them and that is the first step to inferring the (personal) reality that constitutes their world. Understanding a person’s reality is to own the dictionary, whereas to trace one behavior to one situation (or conflict or misunderstanding or one preference) is like…well, like assigning one word to each letter of an alphabet.

Not to get too far ahead of the letters and such, but lets end today’s Post with this:

  • we observe behavior as clues and indications of a person’s predominant worldview
  • we make a specific statement in this regard, i.e. ‘how does this person/my child/that girl I want to go out with/that guy who is such a jerk,  how do they appear to relate themselves to the world around them?’
  • when we correctly answer this first question, we are on our way to knowing more about them than they know about themselves…
  • your behavior can only be a reflection of the context that you experience …these worldviews that we talk about, that, in fact, this entire Doctrine is predicated upon
  • (oh!  yeah…. there are only three worldviews (personal realities), that of the Outsider/clarks, the Predators/scotts and the Herd Members/rogers)
  • but we’re not going into a discussion of them now!! we got 27 more letters to assign a topical value to, ya know?
  • …(but, since you’ve read this far and you’re really rather nice, I’ll tell you this: this whole thing, the Doctrine and worldviews and the hats and shirts?  all in the service of being able to ‘see the world as the other person is experiencing it’….. mums the word for now.


What the Wakefield Doctrine has to offer regarding behavior comes down to this: ‘(with an understanding of the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine), we need never have to hear ourselves say, ‘how could they do such a thing, I really thought I knew them better than that!’



*note: we are not saying, ‘how does that person relate to the world around them’, that is fundamentally different from what we are concerned with, ‘(how) they relate themselves ….to the world’


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. valj2750 says:

    Well, um. Yes.

  2. ivywalker says:

    isnt how a person relates to the world the same thing as how they relate to the world around them? hmmmmmm…..lets ask Val.

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:


      • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:


        no, serioulsy, no

        • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

          one is just them, the other is their belief of who they are

          • ivywalker says:

            That was actually a friend question… I had him read your post….always spreading the Doctrine dont cha know.

            • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

              lol (I knew that!*)

              I know that you told him that it (the difference) is about a person’s perception of the world as it is about what they see..

              * no, really, I didn’t….

              • ivywalker says:

                What Im supposed to think youre psychic now???? lol!

                Actually I confess that I told him I agreed with him that I think its the same thing too…sorry….. *** hangs head in shame.******

                • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

                  my answer Reply was not very clear…. ‘how a person relates themselves’ versus (the statement) ‘how they relate to the world’…. the first forces a very personal consideration of the qualities and characteristics of the parties involved while the second is more…. ‘what they did’

                  ya know?

  3. christine says:

    Nice analogy. I’ll let you figure out which one. (Is that a clark statement or what? (I really don’t know. Probably should ask Val.))

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      ok… now you …. did I write something and then (deliberately or otherwise) choose to forget that I wrote it…. again!

      (820, btw)

  4. dyannedillon says:

    Your little summary box is perfect. If we figure out the world view of others we deal with, then we will know more about what to expect from them.

    • clarkscottroger clarkscottroger says:

      why thank you Dyanne

      Hey!! the rest of you!!! you see how simple this is? Dyanne has elegantly asserted the power in the simplicity in the insightliness of the … never mind!