Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘no, it has nothing to do with marriage or welding or, even ED… it’s Hump Day!’

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


Don’t you hate the term ‘hump day’?  Wait! don’t answer! We already know what you’re going to say, or, to be more precise, we know how you will answer this question. We know this, by virtue of knowing, ‘how you relate yourself to the world around you’  i.e. if you are of the personality type of ‘the Outsider, the Predator or the Herd Member, aka:

  • clarks will agree (inside their heads), will make the effort to be more aware of their surroundings1 and, if they have not projected a clear distinct answer to our question (yeah, as if) they will do that totally characteristic, clarklike ‘smile’  (you know, lips pressed together…the corners  with a slightly up-turned directions… eyes looking sideways, hoping to detect a corresponding smile from another)
  • scotts will spot the word ‘hump’ from a grammatical mile away and depending on a number of factors, ( a) how bored they are, b) when the last time they had a chance to exercise2  c) if they had something else to do.  You know, like a couple of rogers walk into the room and pretend to be having a private conversation…in the middle of the fricken cafeteria/waiting room
  • rogers will disagree and wonder why anyone would have a problem with such an innocuous and fun expression like ‘hump day’…

so, here’s an interesting post from, like 2012  asking Readers about when they realized that they were what they were… what jumps right out here is that everyone is a clark. (This actually is not a surprise, the Doctrine predicted that the first of the participating Readers would most likely be clarks… it is a compliment and acknowledgement to the scotts and rogers we hear from now that they are able to over-come the…. challenging organization of the information in this blog, learn the Doctrine and have fun with it.  Thanks, guys.

One thing has always been true, here at the Wakefield Doctrine.
It has consistently been true that our Readers are people of exceptional qualities. We have used the term, flexible intelligence and we frequently use the term FOTD* and most often we will simply refer to ‘the Readers’. Whether you Comment or not, ask for a hat (for your damn head) or not, or even send us a photo or not (Jasmine…the weather is nice now…send us your photo), this blog has grown because of the influence/input/suggestions and criticisms of you, the Reader.


(For the group) the First Question is:

“Of all the jobs you have had in your life, which was the one that you were awful at…because of your predominant personality type?”

Downspring#1:  I think I have to go back to the food waitress thing.  Not feeling very confident and a little more self-conscious than usual.  It was awful.   At the time, I needed a job and I really wanted to try waitressing (I had a scottian female friend who made good money),  which is why I showed up the first day even though I should have stayed in bed. The other thing I remember is not getting a comfortable “vibe” from the place or the people.  As a clark, if I can “connect” (but not with another clark - history points to a scott) with one or two people at least, then initially there is a feeling of “alright, I guess I can try this out”.  It did not take me more than one day to decide….”I’m outta here!”

Molly:  The job that makes me cringe, when I think back to it, was working in a Dry Cleaner as a tailor.  Tailor was the job description, but 90% of the work amounted to mending.  I was good at the actual job and the favorite amongst the customers… but I didn’t get the work environment.  All the bitching, moaning and backstabbing were beyond me.  My co-workers complaining about their miserable lives also confused me… especially since most of them had been in their perspective situations for years.  Good God — Do.Something.Already!   As soon as we could, we moved from the area.

clark: possibly my first, (maybe second) real job was pumping gas at a gas station, this was the 1960′s when gas stations were both gas and auto repair/service. My job was to get out to the gas pumps as soon as the customers drove in and ask what I could do for them and be friendly…and outgoing… I think I lasted 2 weeks part-time after school and weekends. The reason that the owner of the station gave was that I didn’t seem to have any enthusiasm (an employer refrain that I would become all too familiar with)…apparently I was not a sufficiently eager beaver. lol

Clairepeek: Just like Downspring#1, I have to say that my first and only job in London as a semi-gourmet French restaurant waitress was pretty awful. I was hiding behind the bar, doing the dishes and hoping nobody would notice me; of course at the time, this was an opportunity well provided by my employer, who thought that my English was not good enough to be anywhere near the customers. As an outcast waitress, I had to go up in the street, in the evening, and entice customers to come and eat at that place. I was dressed with a mini black skirt, a white shirt and black flat shoes. It was September and already freezing outside, but I was not allowed a coat. For two weeks I said nothing, until a new waiter came in who did not want to take this “crap”. He urged me not to take it either and we both quit one week later. As a “facilitator”, I have always despised conflict – whatever its form – so I needed the push of someone else to put my foot down in order to “facilitate” my own sanity and therefore well-being.

Phyllis: Chairside assisting for my Dad, a dentist, before I had a rogerian expression. My expression was definitely not assisting. Too much blood and spit and I never learned the names of the instruments. Dad ended up having me do the bookkeeping – more up my alley.

(zoe) Ivy:  Waitress in a greasyspoon diner ( the other waitresses were literally named Blanch and Lil…everything you think of with diner.. It was just like Mel’s on TV but with more drunks.)

Christine: Never had a job I was awful at.


(For the group) the Second Question is:

“When you look back at your childhood, with an understanding of the Wakefield Doctrine, when do you think you see the earliest, clearest example of being the type that you are?”

Molly:  When I was three, my parents moved from Montana to the family farm.  My grandparents were moving out of the house as we were moving into it… but I didn’t understand what was going on.  I didn’t realize we had moved and that this was now my home.  For years, I felt that the only place I could call my own was my bed.  I lived as a guest in the home for three or four years, until I finally understood that we were not going back to Montana.

clark: when I was about 5 or 6 years I entered the ‘age phase’ when my contemporaries ‘discovered’ tickling…everyone would go around and get the weaker ones on the ground and torment tickle the person until they cried or got mad. One day I thought, “I need to not be ticklish anymore, then they won’t have me at their advantage (or words appropriate to a 5 year old clark*)” and I proceeded to  make myself not be ticklish…on a physical level, not repress the reaction, not be able to hold out…just plain no more tickle reflex.

Downspring#1: this is proving a more difficult task than I thought.  So, with the caveat that I may come back in and delete this, here goes.  I cannot recall exact age, just that I was either first or second grade (6-8 range).  There was a Navy family that lived across the street (their name is on the tip of my tongue!).  My memory tells me there were about 4 kids in the family. They were somewhat of a “wild” family but  I was friendly with them.  The time of year is unclear but I remember getting into it with one of the older kids about the existence of Santa Claus.  I did not back down even at his obnoxious insistence that he (Santa) did not, nor did he ever exist.  The confrontation ended with me storming off to consult my Dad about this.  I may or may not have told the kid I’d be back with my Dad to set the story straight.  Or something like that. lol

Clairepeek: I have to say that I was not premature in starting showing my clark-like personality… I was probably around the teenage phase when it happened; the day I heard my teacher tell me that I should stop writing because I had no talent, no creativity and absolutely not the mind to become a writer. That day, although I first followed her advice and for a long time after that, on that day I knew I did not belong to the crowd; I knew I would swim against the current all my life and be quite solitary to the external eye, but my head was full of my own world already.

Phyllis: I guess it was when I started defining “my boxes”. I started trying to live within my means at the age 11. I did not want to be dependent on anyone. I started making log cabins (just in case my parents disappeared). I tried to be aware of all the purchases made on my behalf and be as minimalist as possible. I often wore hand-me-downs from my sister who was much shorter than I, even though my parents could afford new clothes.

z/Ivy: three… nuff said

Christine:  Kindergarten

(For the group) the Third Question is:

“(We know that we all have the capabilities  of all three personality types, but only one is predominant) if you could switch with one of the other two, which would it be?”

clark: I would go with becoming a roger. Mostly because, as a clark I know there is a place, way deep inside where I keep a reserve of…aggressiveness, directness, which ever of the words that describe the scottian characteristics and I know that, under duress I can get to those qualities and bring them to the surface…for a specific purpose, usually a situation of extreme threat or duress. I cannot do that with the characteristics of my rogerian aspects…and when I come close to doing that, the ‘after effects’…how it feels after a moment of rogerian behavior is decidedly unpleasant.  So, to step into the world of the roger (that capacity I know that I have) and act and feel and live as a roger would be interesting and then I could not constantly question everything… them rogers is so damn certain… lol

Clairepeek: Well, to follow in your footsteps Clark, I guess I would then chose to become a scott because it is the personality out of the three that I cannot summon at will. I’d love to see what happens when I finally get to act with such confidence that I become at last the boss of my own company. It would be interesting to see how, without any hesitation, I introduce myself to others without feeling my blood rushing to my ears and feeling my entire body screaming it wants to be elsewhere… ^_^.

Downspring#1: I’m with Clairepeek on this one.  I also would choose to become a scott. As a clarklike female, well as a female, it seems there is at the least, a fundamental ability (culturally stimulated) to be “social”.  I have found it easier to develop my rogerian characteristic  due in part to my having worked in retail environments during part of my professional career.  Claire has hit the nail on the head.  My scottian characteristics are such that I cannot easily “summon them at will.”  It seems that only under situations of duress or if I am too tired to care (and therefore not overly self-conscious) am I able to express/summon my scottian characteristic(s).  As a clark, I am not intimidated by the typical stuff – scary, screaming people, or traveling to new places…..but more like things such as being the focus of attention.  Again, like Clairepeek talks about:) Hey! has anyone noticed that so far only we like people are participating in this thing? lol Yeah, well fuck them, right?!! (see, got my scott on)

Molly:  At this moment in time, I am very content being a clark.
There is a line by Savatage that says, “The person I am are the parts that I play.”  I think this pretty much sums up what it is to be a clark.  We live in a world that is full of situations, and each one has different parameters…  We simply find out what our role is and fill that part, without really acting.
In regards to homemaking and making/keeping order, I am working on developing my rogerian aspect, while keeping the attitudes out of my relationships…  I don’t find the attitude appropriate for raising children, since it is too easy to take their behavior personally.  When they misbehave, it becomes, “Haven’t I taught you better than that?!?”  With an underlying attitude of, “How dare you embarrass me like this?”
Likewise, if my job is to meet people and make them feel welcome, I’m sure it is my scottian side that is on display.   Assign me the job of hostesses and I will greet every person and make them feel welcome…  I am always amazed at how many people think of me as a friend, or someone they can confide in, after doing a job like that.

Phyllis: I am happy with being me – a female roger.

Mrs. Skip/zoe/Ivy:  Scott. My roger is a pain in my ass.

Christine:  Just like Phyllis, I am happy to be who I am. Can’t imagine changing to another worldview.


Well this has been fun and enjoyable…


Until we figure out the how to display the names of the people who created this Post, we’ll just get all crayons and construction paper on it.  So in alpha-botanical order:

 Claire Perez Ekman                  DS#1                                  Molly                                   Phyllis


1) ever wonder why people seem ready to label (many) clarklike females as ‘ditsy’ or ‘stuck-up’  or clarklike guys as ‘arrogant’ or ‘lazy’?   Because of the amount of time clarks spend inside their head. In fact, one of the ways of identifying clarks is to look for that faraway look in their eyes, the ‘inward regarding gaze’…. that’s not just an affectation, it’s a fact.

2) scotts need exercise… they are predators and predators need to stay in shape! It’s not just that they never know when the next stray antelope, un-intentionally separated from the herd. might wander by, scotts are predators…. it is in the nature of predators to be alert, on the guard for threats, ready for opportunity.  Now, exercise of this type, (for a scott), is not limited to sports and running and chasing fleeing things (although, that is the preferred form)…. anything that involves another person and competition is exercise for the scottian man or woman. it can be playing games, card games are big among scotts…they loves scrabble and other games that 2) are mentally challenging and 2) allow the prey to be vanquished and totally dominated (in a nice, friendly sportsman/woman ly manner, of course!)  So, if yo have a scott in your family and they get all irritable and snappy and such, walk up to them with a basketball (or scrabble board) and say, ‘hey! who wants to play?’…


‘…the littler the fork, the sooner you use it’ -the Wakefield Doctrine- a little dinner party (Reader Participation required)

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


(from a Comment by Friend of the Doctrine, Kristi)

One week it was the mental image of the co-hosts as school children, now you have us at a dinner party. Here’s the homework assignment: write a post describing the event. (Of course, you will use the Wakefield Doctrine to explain the clarks, scotts, and rogers among us.) :-)


Allow me.

the scotts are ‘the Life of the (Dinner) Party’. the rogers are the reason that there was, in fact, a successful Dinner Party*. the clarks keep the children and drunks amused and/or distracted.

too brief?

(I will try to ‘write on the run today’, but I am, requesting that Readers provide one scenario of:  how they would experience a formal Dinner Party for any 1 minute section of time. )

clark: “no! you get out there and attend to your guests, I am quite capable of taking the roast out of the oven when the buzzer goes off… now get out there!”

scott: “No! I would not have missed this party for the world!  If that..?  excuse me, I need to go say hello”

roger: “Why thank you, I couldn’t! you get out there and join the guests… be sure to say hello to everyone and, no, the children are quite happy in their rooms.”

clark at end of the party, leaving:

scott at highpoint of the party: “Hey, are there enough of these spoons to play a game?” (Dyanne)

rogers at any point of the party, saying goodnight to guests:  ”I’m so glad we were able to get together. We’ll have to do this again sometime!” (Kristi)


Hey! less-than-totally-old Readers!! here’s a little chrono-cultural markers for our Dinner party, from my own experience (and discussed with friend of the Doctrine Lise):  the dinner parties, at a certain time in history (say, 1950s to early 70′s)  warranted bringing out ‘the good ashtrays’ this were usually some form of cut-crystal and was a favorite for the child trying to buy a Christmas present for parents.  a good set ( of ashtrays) usually came with a (special) lighter (Ronson Lighter fluid only, of course!)
Of course, there were special occasion coasters! All of things seem special (from my child perspective) as I look back… Maraschino Cherries for one… never saw those   even Planters Cocktail Peanuts  (excellently salty!)

OK…better stop now.

* meaning that, there was more to the party than… pizza and beer/potluck-but-not-enough-plates-or-spoons  unless, of course, the theme of the Dinner Party was  pizza and beer or … potluck


(pre)TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘since you ask, yes, you are in the future… how’s it goin up there?’

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


Of late, the percentage of ‘first time’ participants in our little gratitude ‘hop seems to be on the increase. That’s pretty cool. ‘being made to feel comfortable and welcome’ is a quality that has always impressed me with ‘the bloghop that Lizzi built’. Not surprisingly, we all tend to see those concerns and questions (as expressed/implied, inferred or simply stated) that resonate personally, so allow me to say, ‘hey new participants! not only is this the best bloghop in the ‘sphere, but it is the simplest, from a ‘how does it work/what are the rules’ perspective . No, really. I mean that!  (…come on guys, I’m being sincere.)  What I’d like to say is simply this: it is the participation in a gratitude bloghop (that) engenders the benefit, not simply how ‘grateful a list’ you might write. And there are benefits. You don’t need to follow a rigid guideline, it is the spirit of the idea (of a gratitude list) that matters.  Having said that, you need to have 10 Things (but…but!  that’s where the cool part begins…. won’t go into detail other than to say: SBoR…. hypo-grats permitted… numbering can be totally non-Euclidian.)

As this Post’s subtitle makes abundantly clear, I’m writing this list early. Friday morning early. And, rather than simply write a list…er  early, I thought I’d see what would happen if I set out to experience gratitude in situations that, though predictable, have not yet happened!

(to be grateful for, expect to have a choice to be (or not to be) grateful for…hope to be grateful for):

1) Looking out the window, it’s totally cloudy. That’s a good thing! As we all know, the really cold weather comes with high pressure systems and, (in this part of the country), north or northwest winds.  So, I’m hoping to be grateful for less, ‘are-you-fricken-kidding!?!’ temperatures today.

2) the previous item generates a reminiscence of days fishing… the wind direction was/is everything, when it comes to the ocean. A ‘Fair Wind’ (usually incorporated  into the phrase, ‘fair wind and following seas’), the part of the Ocean where I was, was a Southwest wind.  (picture Atlantic seaboard)… and, gannets   no! seriously if you haven’t seen these birds in action,  you owe it to yourself to watch the following, not CGI…thats exactly how it looks.

YouTube Preview Image

3) Phyllis and Una… (this will be an easy one) like everyone, a very balanced morning routine, centered on Una having breakfast and then going outside and settling into her day job (i.e. guarding the house from the lower level)… I try to hold her example of the simple approach to (a) day as I venture out.

4) car…. like the car, enjoy driving… kinda of a real long-standing ‘good thing in life’, this driving around through the world  (clarks will recognize the natural affinity for this particular activity)

5) work…. now, this is where the challenge begins… I recognize the choice I have (in virtually all situations)…. will report back on success/failure tomorrow (Saturday  (your present….my future…ya know?))

6) cows!  damn!  I’ll try to remember to get the cow-of-the-week photo, will add it below this item. (I know that some co-hostinae are ocean-challenged by virtue of their living arrangements… not that farm life is not an interesting thing… but, seriously   you saw the video of the gannets…. what could cows do that’s as cool as that…. Christine?  do the pigs do anything acrobatic when no one is looking?)  will get you a photo

I said, "are you talking to me?"

I said, “are you talking to me?”

7) Will cite the Wakefield Doctrine. Not that it takes anything special to feel a sense of gratitude for it… it’s a way of looking at the world around me that permits me to trick myself into seeing the world differently…. not necessarily a good thing, in and of itself, but I wouldn’t trade having it for anything in the world

8) I should clarify my point about using items of hypo-gratitude in writing a list for this bloghop…. totally permissible. Funny thing, as I write that, I think… “but, clark, dude! suppose someone comes in and gets all ‘the world sucks and ain’t nothin good about it’ with they list?  won’t that bring everyone down?”  Two words:  no.   I am willing to bet my seat at TToT co-host dinner-and-then-do-your-homework table that the effects of such a list would eventually result in the writer feeling better… provided they came back at least 2 more weeks…  (no, new Readers, there is no, actual, physical TToT co-host dinner table…though that would be cool, you got to admit

9) gratitude to be determined

10) 1.3 binyons!! 1.3!!



Ten Things of Thankful


 Your hosts

Join the Ten Things of Thankful Facebook Group

… aka ‘Diving Duck Blues’

YouTube Preview Image

4th Day -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘lets talk …get them clarks up here for a moment’

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


While the subtitle of today’s Post hints at a topic understandable only to odd-at-heart, there is much that can be useful to our scottian and rogerian Readers. Please, stay with us. While you may be a person living in the world of the predator (being a scott) or comfortably grounded in the reality of the Herd (as a roger, it’s tough to imagine a World without Rules, isn’t it?), you do have a secondary clarklike aspect. I say this with certainty, because I have gone out into the world and spoken of clarks, scotts and rogers to …well, to scotts and rogers who have only a predominant worldview (without any significant secondary aspect) and I’ve felt the stares and ‘that look’*  The look from a person who knows they are dealing with an Outsider. So, if you’re a scott or a roger and you’re still reading, then you have a significant secondary clarklike aspect. So what? Well, you’re not the only person in your life are you?  … oh, sorry roger, let me rephrase that… (lol  just a little joke for Michelle and Kristi and Phyllis and the other rogers who not only enjoy our little Doctrine, but are invaluable to our efforts to know all three personal realities. The point is, there is always something of value when we manage to ‘see the world as the other person is experiencing it’.

….to our Post.

hey clarks.  what’s worse about those days when you wake up and your creativity drive is somehow  ’on 11′?   is it the fact that you have a ton of ideas that you know you don’t have time for or is it that foreboding feeling that something bad will be the end result?  I mean, it’s not like we hate the feeling, but we always wonder why it only happens sometimes and, hardly ever, on purpose.  The other thing (about clarks)… the worse it feels (inside) the funnier we can be (funnier being defined as making other people laugh… for whatever reason, the quick and clever asides and observations seem to be of a  way higher energy level when we are heading towards that dark place… life can be frickin hilarious, no?)

Anyway, short post.  non-clark Readers?  this post should provide two things of value:  a) an increased sense of the world of the Outsider (’cause, like we implied a little earlier, you’ve got some of that your-own-self and 2) parents? you clarklike children… they get like this too  but, you probably already have a sense of that (by virtue of being a parent who has enough on the ball to be reading the Wakefield Doctrine) but… a tip: the eyes. Watch their eyes. It’s been said that, when you’ve studied the Doctrine long enough, you will be able to spot the clarks (and the scotts, for that matter) on the basis of a photograph of the person’s face…. and it’s true. You can. or could, if you want to… (bonus hint: the fear is the easy thing to spot (in the eyes of the clark)… the ‘distance’ is less easy. There’s something in the eyes of a clark, that if you look you can see that they are somewhere else… not necessarily all the time, but it’s quite clear that they do leave the world as you know it. (Kind of the opposite of the eyes of a scott, when you think about it!… with scotts, the totally distinctive characteristic is that they are totally there…. in the present …alert.)

Enough for now. This was supposed to be a short Post.


* clarks are quite familiar with ‘that look’…. hey, just because we’re invisible most of the time, doesn’t mean we’re blind


W -the Wakefield Doctrine- “well, no. I prefer the term ‘re-presenting the Doctrine, achronologically’, thank you very much”

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


….speaking of scotts.  If you get on over to ‘The Facebook’  ( Facebook motto: ‘just like you remember high school, except the parts that are embarrassing to remember‘) you will find a new group,   the First Annual, 2015 Bloghop World Championship SmackDown!’  and, by virtue of the fact that you’re my favorite Reader, we’ve saved one of the limited number of memberships…just for you. So get on over there and join up!  (no, I’ll wait)

thank you.  yes, there will be Tee shirts at some point… ok   here’s the deal.  you know how I’m always saying that the TToT bloghop (TToT bloghop motto: ‘you think a gratitude exercise doesn’t result in change?!?  one word: Lizzi Rogers)  is the best bloghop in the ‘sphere? Well I was thinking, if we’re so good, then the least we can do is go around and challenge other bloghops, (who, by the way, have been known to claim to be the best bloghop…), to a contest.  Well, thats the core idea. The details are in development, but, let me say…. ‘shirts with logos’!! (“sure, roger  you can can an exclusive limited edition one”)…. and they will be tee shirts (“…can a scott rip and tear parts of it to her liking? someone try to say no”) and you clarks?  you get to hang with an exceptional bunch of life forms.

Ok enough for now.  Remember to join up today!

…speaking of scotts   and  contests   and high school  (the scotts in gym class were never left standing, in that horribly exposed line of un-picked-for-either-team kids, waiting for someone to pick them, (even when each team already had enough kids to field a team)…hell, if they weren’t the ones doing the picking (that only happened when the teacher/coach assigned the captain of the 2 dodgeball teams… and 9 times out of 10 they would have been rogers) they would be the one to over-ride the captains choices and pick the clark standing in the middle (because scotts know that there is something…. about clarks  they’re not prey, not competition, certainly not a challenger for leadership of the pack… just something about clarks that appeals to scotts.)

So…brief review of our scottian friends

(from November 22, 2013)
Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)


Break Time!!  Yeah, we know what you’re thinking,* “hey  enough of the heavy introspection, already!  we came here for a break from our daily routines, ya know? The Wakefield Doctrine advertises itself as being a personality theory that’s unique, useful and fun.  Lets see some that fun!”

Well, we all know that if it’s fun you’re after (and you’re not concerned with the price), there’s only one worldview to go to… the scottian worldview. scotts!!!  (‘Say it baritone and you can hear the police sirens wailing, say it contralto and you’ll surely be paying‘).

We all have a scottian friend. There’s currently a TV commercial for Las Vegas and is premised on that guy, the one we all knew growing up who always had to push it. To go a bit faster, to take a bit more of a risk than is absolutely necessary. juvenile detention facilities structure their business models on the young scottian males’ natural proclivity for anticipating consequences.

And….and! lets not forget that the Wakefield Doctrine is gender neutral! ( ya gotta admit, in most cultures, the male is permitted a greater latitude in (their) choices of expression of drives and instincts and such, the scottian personality type is that of the predator and so they pretty high on the aggressiveness and impulsivity of action. if you are female, in most cultures, they will frown upon you going around arm wrestling, punching your subordinates on the shoulder and saying ‘fuck!’ a lot. fortunately for you (the scottian female) there are ….alternative forms of expression).

if you’re a clark you have always had a scottian friend, if you’re a roger you have never been able to avoid having a scottian friend and if you are a scott you’ve known of other scotts in your life.  you know them because as a scott:

  • they must establish ‘ranking’ in any and every social environment… you will spot the scott because they will alway first ‘work the room’, going from person to person, small group to small group and push everyone on the shoulder (literally and/or figuratively), by doing this they will establish their place in rank
  • they will command attention (or better, for the sake of the rogers) they will simply assume dominance
  • in conversational style:  a clark will listen to you talk, a roger will let you talk…a scott will make you talk
  • females will be identified as ‘tomboys’ early in life (‘from ages 5 to breasts’); with puberty, scottian females come into their own… (short form: most cultures do not permit the female members expressing aggressiveness physically)
  • you will have a clarklike friend, who you will consider a friend because they  do not act like prey nor do they act like as another scott
  • they will be total pushovers for a person who appreciates their mind ( in males it is best to admire their creativity… in females anything not involving their bodies will work  lol)
  • in social conflicts, as in dog training, to feel fear is to admit defeat
  • they are mercurial in temperament and loyal to friends and ferocious as adversaries

But they’re fun! It is easy to say, ‘hey of course we like scotts! they’re active and like to do things and are entertaining. whats not to like?’  True. But, this being the Wakefield Doctrine, we owe to ourselves to look a little deeper.

scotts are impulsive …and this appeals to us, albeit on an unconscious level, they live in the here and now!  (you remember the tale of the fiddle playing grasshopper?? tell me that, before you got to the ‘oh-so-correct-and-this-is-how-you-should-live-your-life’ sledge hammer ending…. tell me that you didn’t think of the grasshopper as the ‘good guy’! to varying degrees, we all would like to believe that, all we need do is throw off the cares and responsibility and life could be so much more….  and that’s true.

scotts are certain…  and this is why they are ‘natural leaders’… (the Doctrine saying is) ‘scotts are frequently wrong, never uncertain’.  people all too often equate certainty with wisdom

scotts represent what any of us would demonstrate as a ‘personality type’ if we found ourselves in the reality of the predator at a very early age and had to develop coping skills and strategies

scotts are attractive and aggravating, they are natural showmen/show-women, they see the audience as would a hungry lion a pack of gazelles  …

in the history of Man:  scotts are the conquerors, the explorers,  they are Alexander the Great (but not Julius Caesar) they are Genghis Khan (but not Charlemagne)  they are George Patton (but not Dwight Eisenhower)  scotts are cops but not firefighters….scotts are surgeons but not physicians … scotts are prima ballerinas but not Rockettes  …scotts are leaders but not Rulers

If you have made it this far…this is the link to the page on scotts

Hey want to see a scott in action?  watch this here video…everything you need to know about how to recognize a scott (there’s Robert DeNiro as the clark and some other guy as the roger).

YouTube Preview Image



* well duh!  this is the Wakefield Doctrine!


© 2009-2015 Francis Clark Farley All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright