scotts the Wakefield Doctrine (“…then obviously we have to do ‘scotts’ in 12.5 minutes, I mean it’s only logical!”)

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


Given that most of the current week is, at least in our North American culture, focused on a celebration that is the essence of the rogerian worldview, I thought I’d get a quickie in about scotts*.

The very young human who is left to grow up in the worldview of the Predator, develops certain skills and abilities and traits, all appropriate to thriving and surviving in a reality where it’s (metaphorically, at least):  ’kill or be killed’ / ‘eat or be eaten’ / ‘fight or flight’ …pretty much all the time.**

We all have a scottian friend. (unless we’re scotts….then we have a clarklike friend (no! not her! she’s just a roger….the other one, the one who, while you might not speak on any regular basis, when you do get together, (be it a month or 13 years later), she picks up where you left off, without the slightest hesitation…that’s your clarklike friend)

scotts!!  they’re the ones who get us in trouble with the Principle in grade school (and)  in trouble with the cops in high school (and) …more frequently than we’d care to admit, in trouble with our spouses in adulthood. We all have a scottian friend. They’re the life of the party and the only person who, like a job applicant on her way to her first serious job interview…curriculum vita in hand, are on the guest list with a pre-emptive excuse from someone. (“Hey, sure it got a little rowdy last time… and he might have broken a lamp, but we all had fun, right?!“), That’s your scott.
Have you ever started the annual chore of cleaning out the gutters, and before you get the ladder set into the proper (and safe) 53 degree angle, you hear  ” Hey!  let me give you a hand!!” and before you can turn around, your neighbor is  climbing the ladder, without holding on with his hands and then stops and then decides it’s easier to just get up on the roof and walk along the edge and clean the gutters that way, rather than have to move the ladder…which is not really that bad an idea, until you see him climbing back up the ladder (you’re not sure how he got back down without seeing him)…. with a leaf blower on his back?  …yep, that’s your scottian neighbor.

scotts: energetic, loyal, mecurial, helpful, sloppy, hot-headed, impulsive, aggressive, natural leaders, inveterate trouble-makers, sexy, short-attention-span(ned), can’t-do-enough-for-others, can’t-follow-instructions-beyond-’open-caref….’,
male scotts excel at being:

    • mob leaders (and)
    • police officers,
    • gym teachers (and)
    • one-term politicians, (and)
    • surgeons

female scotts excel at being:

  • elementary school Principles (and)
  • sales trainers,
  • being female (and)
  • real estate brokers,
  • actress (ages: 7 to 23 and then 43 to 79) (and)
  • family matriarch

that should hold us, in this ‘week of Herd’! Remember now, the goal of the Wakefield Doctrine is to come to be able to see the world as the other person is experiencing it. Learn the characteristics of the three worldviews, observe the people in your life and when you’re able to correctly infer how they are ‘relating themselves to the world around them’, you will totally know more about the other person than they know about themselves.

… was just Replying to a Comment from Kristi and I think it would be a good way to end today’s post.

“…it (the notion of a secondary and tertiary aspect) is one of the best things about the Doctrine, it would have us believe that, instead of trying to be something we are not (often the biggest encountered on the path of self-developing ourselfs), all we need do is realize the potential that we have to cope with a different world (one shared by ‘the other 2/3rds of the population’). Rather than have to find and learn something new and therefore not genuine to who we are, we need only accept ourselves both ‘as we are’ and ‘as we might have been’. ”



* yes,  cue the ‘elbows and laughter’….pretty much have them ready,  this is about the scottian worldview, after all!

** note to New Readers: the Wakefield Doctrine is predicated on the notion that we all live, to a certain, but not overly weird degree, in a reality that is personal to us… think about, oh I don’t know, the last time you stood in line at the supermarket and the cashier was talking to the the kid who was supposed to be bagging the groceries and everyone is getting impatient, or maybe, lets say you’re at a child/Teacher conference and even though the Teacher is not only very young, but clearly very, very new at his job, and yet,  it’s  becoming abundantly clear that he’s beginning to lecture you on child-rearing practices…. thats where worldviews are found.


a) 10 , b) Things c) Thankful, d) all of the above -the Wakefield Doctrine- (yeah, why is it, there shouldn’t be too many ‘Ds’)

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


You know how when you sit and get an idea for a Post, and at first it’s all, “yeah! what frickin great idea, this’ll knock their socks off!”  but then, as you start to write it, you’re all… “damn! this is a great idea but either I got no clue how to express it, or it’s a monster writing job and there’s like an hour left before I have to leave for:  a) work, b) the Tennis Club c) the soccer field d) the Fields of Wamsutta   … well, am I in or am I out?”

Lets do this thing!

Ok. Fine… a little set-up is in order. This the Wakefield Doctrine and today is Saturday, which means we write a Post to participate in the TToT bloghop-and-weekend-extravangza. Please read the other Posts showing below, then you will not only get an idea of how beneficial an exercise such as this can be, but will enjoy the many outstanding and gifted writers and bloggers who join us each weekend. You’re bound to find something among (these other Posts) that will cause you to stop and think, “you know, now that she said it, I can see how I might look at my situation more positively!  Go TToT!!

1) I’m grateful to everyone who voted and the Mandate is clear! Thank you! Thank you! I am totally grateful and hope to not let you all down.

2) I am grateful that there is not a lot of discussion of the ‘real world’ in this bloghop ( Lizzi’s efforts on behalf the less fortunate are (an exception)  simply because she is advocates for what she is willing to do, not what others should do… big difference imo   …as to the real world depicted in all our blogs… those are all Tales of lives, the remarkable gift of the blogosphere to us Readers

3) I am way thankful to zoe and Denise and Liz for the stimulation last night*

4) well, sure  I saw the Poll results  (yeah, this is being written before anyone can vote so, there is a certain calculated risk on how I proceed, pollistically-speaking)

(For record,  Phyllis and I have always had a family of ourselves and ‘an only dog’. I used to be fond of saying, “yeah, but the advantage of dogs over human children is that they are always glad to see you when you come home and never get to a point (in their lives) where they have friends that they would rather spend time with and then go off to college.”
That being said, there is always the ‘well you’d have to have children to understand‘ situations.
I just got off the phone ( you see up there…#4?? I wrote that 27. minutes. ago.) When I read a blog Post from a parent, lamenting over the lack of adult romantic time available, what with the kids being just down the hall, I can say with complete conviction, “I understand. I had such a…. ambition  for this Post, what with the clever Polls and funny things I could …stick in them,  gone as surely as a voice in the night, “Daddy I just threw up on Billy”.  … if you don’t mind, I’ll finish this post,  because now it’s time to go to work…  maybe later in the day, I can sneak back here, perhaps I’ll remember the one Poll Questions that were bubbling up in my writers sub-whatever….)

5) Work… I am grateful for my work, even if it causes the occasional ‘postus interruptus‘  like this morning…. hey the photo on the ‘front’ page? that was from yesterday as I drove around rural Connecticut…. I enjoy driving

6) Phyllis.  she is as enlightened a roger as there is out there, which, in all selfishness, is great for me because I not only get a rogerian view of the Doctrine (as I enjoy from Kristi and Michelle) but, she, Phyllis is demonstrating some aspects of the rogerian worldview that is totally furthering my understanding and appreciation of that 3rd personality type

7) …awright…. not an overly funny or exciting (recovery time goes way up as a blogger ages, ya know ) Poll:

8) too soon, right?    $&#*&^^@!!  I really was looking forward to writing  this Post!  I know I should simply accept that, ‘the moment’ has passed and there’ll be another Saturday morning when I can come back and write a Post that will. knock ya socks off! 

9)  yeah,  zoe…. Lizzi!   one doesn’t mess with the Seven!  play with them and they will mess you up!  Hey!  Sarah…. we still are totally encouraged to comment-thread-jump, i.e. totally interrupt the conversation that occasionally develops when a Comment causes the blog author to see new insights!

10) SR 3.1  (the first and my favorite of the Secret Rules….) hey! if you have any Poll questions that you would like to see here… leave them in the Comments, I’ll be happy to put them in the Post



Ten Things of Thankful


 Your hosts

Join the Ten Things of Thankful Facebook Group

* barum…bump!  no, seriously we were on a Friday Night vidchat and it was all I have come to look forward to….


back to basics the Wakefield Doctrine ‘clark in 23 minutes, no re-writing or editing allowed*’ Friday Update… now with Polls!!!!

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


Seeing how we’re into the Major Holiday Season (Major Holiday Season motto: “no! no need to worry how to feel! we’ve got you covered!“) and, how I’ve promised Kristi an enjoyable Post for that celebration of the rogerian nature, i.e. Thanksgiving, I thought for the next week I would get back to the basics, Wakefield Doctrine-istically speaking. Seeing how this personality theory of ours started out as ‘the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers, lets spend 23 minutes talkin about the personality type that everyone thinks must be quite interesting, (but are secretly glad they are not),  clarks…. (get that timer ready)

clarks. the worldview of the Outsider. given that the Wakefield Doctrine is based on the idea that ‘personality type’ is nothing more than the coping strategies that we develop as we grow up, in response to the world that we find ourselves in, is it any surprise that, when considering a person with the clarklike personality type, that we often are reduced to saying (or yelling, in the case of a scott), ‘why do you insist on making your own life so difficult (on yourself?!)”

a clark awakens to a world that is fascinating, interesting, bursting with potential, hostile-in-an-impersonal-way, full of fear as the background emotion. and yet, the clark is (often) very intelligent, creative, funny and… and this is where are clues to understanding these people, compassionate to a fault. All of this is understandable when you can accept that a clark is a person, like a scott or a roger, but believes that they are living in a world that they are not a part of. ( a clark is the only one to make the observation that ‘they are here and the world is out there‘  and genuinely mean it.) a clark spends their waking hours trying to discover the information, to learn, to find out the secret of becoming a real person. (for a clark, everyone else is a real person….all you have to do is watch them! the scotts are active and confident and don’t seem to care what everyone thinks of their antics and rogers… well, hell  they fit right in, they are friendly without a hint of fear and they know exactly how to do it (whatever it may be!). clarks know that they don’t know. clarks know that they are missing something. clarks also know (and if you really want to know what it’s like to live in the worldview of the Outsider, then know this), clarks know that they must not be discovered. (clarks rarely explore this aspect of their day… the fear of being in the spotlight, the terror of un-invited scrutiny, the risk of being found out as being people who don’t belong.

clarks have a busy life. clarks are often thought to be: intelligent, ditsy, well-read, obstinant, arrogant, kind, stuck-up, lazy and well-meaning-if-only-they-would-apply-themselves. clarks live their lives, each day an opportunity to maybe, this time, discover how to stop the constant self-criticism, willing to work harder than anyone they can see, looking to the people have come to accept as friends (for most clarks, the bond they feel with their few friends is way, way stronger than the bond they feel with their blood relatives), hoping only to someday find the answer.

…out of time!   damn!  sorry, guys  a subtitle is a subtitle!  if you liked this, we can continue tomorrow, otherwise write us a comment and tell us to ‘hurry the hell up and get to the interesting personality types  Hey!!!

* except for the intro to the Post. Just wanted to be clear on that… wouldn’t want anyone thinking I was cheating**

** yeah, add,  ’irrational concern and focus on the positive regards of total frickin strangers‘  look at the big brain on the new Readers!


As astute Readers need not to be told, yesterday’s Post included Comments from FOTD (friends of the Doctrine) zoe and Christine  offering insight and advice germane to the topic of yesterday’s Post. As implied* in my Reply to Christine yesterday, heres the Poll!  (Anyone else want to contribute…leave it in Comments and I’ll add to the Poll!


* implied aka ‘a clark’s promise‘,  this is when. pressed by well-meaning people (i.e. scotts and rogers) to promise to do something good for themselves, clarks will ‘promise’. the difference between this ‘promise’ and what real people commit to is found in the statement of intent (that underlies the clark’s assent to the request).  that’s not overly clear, should give you an example….   I got it!   you know how scotts and rogers, smile?   …and you know how clarks smile (hint: lips pressed to together, the hint of an up-turning at the corners of the mouth, semi-eye contact, until confirmation that the other person was, in fact, smiling)  that’s ’a clark’s promise‘.  totally will to go all in, just waiting for full confirmation that we’re not being set up




Wednesday’s Task the Wakefield Doctrine (…to learn what I already know.)

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



So to continue our discussion of the woman and the dog:  why make a big/small/any-sized deal out of a mis-perception? Because the Wakefield Doctrine is predicated on the notion that we all live our lives in a reality that is, to a varying, but certain degree, personal. Of course, our little story of the hot and haughty woman driving her dog around in a Mercedes GL550, stopping at a traffic light in Westerly RI only to have the dog turn into a nice old, if not slightly dotty old woman and the driver become a gracious youngish lady out for the day, was meant, entirely for me, it does not prevent us from using it as an illustration of the underlying concepts, principles, tenets and assumption of our little personality theory. Yet the insights that are part and parcel with this 5.7 minute section of an otherwise normal and mundane day, are available to all who would avail themselves of it. This is because, if the Wakefield Doctrine is about anything, it is about perspective. In my case, what I derived from this experience is, in part:

    • as soon as I ‘decided’ that I was looking (in my rearview mirror) at a woman of (probable) wealth who was also quite attractive, I reacted in a defensive (and therefore, emotional) manner.* The value of perspective, to those of us employing the Wakefield Doctrine as a tool to enhance our understanding of the people in our lives, is found in our better understanding how the world appears to us. I would say that the most important value in it’s use is the opportunity to become more accepting of ourselves.
    • the dog in the passenger seat, reflecting my affection for dogs on to the driver, resulted in my being willing to excuse her, her socio-economic superiority and, ‘realize’ that she might not be as haughty as I first thought (though her hotness was never in doubt)
    • to see a dog turn into an old woman is not nearly as impressive as it is to see a dog (where there really and actually was a woman) in the first place and neither matter, it was the effect of my perceptions on my emotional response that matters
    • finally,  …. no! the Wakefield Doctrine does not expect us to collapse into intense introspection every time we notice something odd in the world, and no, my noticing (and reflecting upon all that is being described) does not require one to become focused only the three worldviews and the impermanence of reality or run out and buy a Mercedes GL550, it does expect you to remember that:

the Wakefield Doctrine is not an Answer * the Wakefield Doctrine is a bunch of fun and interesting Questions * the Wakefield Doctrine does not tell how to change the other person * the Wakefield Doctrine is a fun way to look at the world around you and offer a perspective * the(se) perspective(s) are what the Wakefield Doctrine is really all about…. discovering and understanding ‘how I relate myself to the world around me?’   …..and no, it is surely not all struggle and work, conflict between the old and the new, it is the simple realization that you don’t need to learn or otherwise acquire new information or knowledge to become a better you, you simply have to see and accept the ‘better you’ that is already there.

ya know?




* major little point here: despite my being a clark, the ‘why’ of any of the events, observations, inferences, assumptions, reactions and conclusions  are not important. The value in what is being described is, as the old saying goes, “…the benefit is not what is seen, the benefit is knowing that what is being seen is special”


of clarity and explanation the Wakefield Doctrine (“why didn’cha tell me how hard this writing shit was!”)

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


Before we begin, let’s see if I can tell a story*

This past Friday, as I was stopped at a traffic light, I watched in my rearview mirror as an expensive SUV pulled up behind me. The driver, a woman looking to be in her late 30s, was dressed, made up, (whatever the correct term for ‘looking a certain way’ ), consistent with the vehicle. She looked, in my rearview mirror, to be a woman of means. Naturally that caused me to ask myself, ‘why is it you think that and what does that tell you (about yourself)’? Nothing unusual there, what any clark would think, when forced to sit and wait in a car, surrounded by other cars and their drivers. But! I looked (in my rearview mirror) and noticed a dog in the passenger seat. It appeared to be a smaller, poodle-like dog, long curly hair, large nose. I smiled (I like dogs). Then I noted the change in my attitude towards the well-dressed woman in the driver’s seat. I now felt….more positive towards her. (Being a person who practices the Wakefield Doctrine pretty much all the time, this change set off a series of questions, mostly regarding why I felt on the defensive when I first saw the driver, but now was feeling decidedly friendly towards her.) All this took place in the space of about 3 minutes. I kept glancing back, (through the rearview mirror). at the woman and the dog, until the traffic light turned green. As I started forward, (turning left towards my office), I saw a person’s hand raised on the passenger’s side of the car behind me (it was, by the way, a Mercedes SUV) and  I saw that, sitting in the passenger seat, was a little and rather old woman with curly blond hair. I laughed. I felt grateful for the moment.

There’s the story.

The second theme (of) today’s Post is courtesy of 2 comments made about the Doctrine. One from our friend Kristi and one from an associate at work. Both gave me a new appreciation of my efforts to present and explain the Wakefield Doctrine. From Kristi:

I’m also excited and thankful for the upcoming holidays, but that really isn’t a surprise.
Family history seems to be one of those hobbies that transcends worldviews.”

From the woman at the office**

We were in the office yesterday and, at one point, I said to her, “hey, I know you don’t read the blog, but the newest concept is really very helpful, it’s called ‘the everything Rule“. I proceeded to explain that ‘the everything Rule’ (short for: ‘everyone does everything at one time or another Rule’), suggests that rather than try to see where something fits into the three worldviews, a better way is to assume that when person does a thing, i.e. ‘enjoy genealogy or eating in a restaurant or taking a shower’, what that thing is, is different for a clark or a scott or a roger. That, in fact, ‘taking a shower’ manifests differently in each of the three worldviews. She said, ‘That sounds like it waters down the Doctrine, but let me think about it a little’.”

These impromptu observations made me realize two things:

  1. that I must re-focus on the fact that the Wakefield Doctrine is talking about three different realities… sure, they’re personal realities, but it is still a reality
  2. this notion that we live in a reality that is personal, is the linchpin for the Doctrine, and while admittedly a difficult concept to accept, without it, the Wakefield Doctrine is just another clever categorization of traits and habits, quirks and smartass
  3. I need to work harder on expressing, in this blog, that what sets the Wakefield Doctrine apart from other ‘personality theories’ is that, rather than list likes and dislikes, phobias and secret desires, the Wakefield Doctrine says: your personality type is that collection of successful coping strategies and social adaptions appropriate to the reality you grew up in… if you grew up in the world of the Outsider or the life of the Predator or the reality of the Herd Member…. your personality type is totally appropriate, good and sufficient.

…so, thank you to Kristi  and to my associate at work for a reminder that this writing thing, while fun and enjoyable, is really fricken aggravating!





* my definition of ‘tell a story’ is: using the least number of words, convey not only an event, but do it in a way that allows a willing Reader to experience what I experienced.

** this person is a scott and she is fairly conversant on the Doctrine, at least to the extent that I have explained it over the years, she is not, however, a Reader of this blog


© 2009-2014 Francis Clark Farley All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright