the Wakefield Doctrine<title> (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:56:37 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Thursday -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘…lastly through a hog’s head of real fire’ Thu, 26 Mar 2015 11:06:41 +0000

Related Posts:

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


Well! there’s a week, (or so), remaining before the beginning of the ‘Hay ‘n Seed April Blog Challenge’…and I’m all, getting into character and such. No! don’t laugh! Just because I’m a clark, doesn’t mean that I can’t capture the spirit of a really fun month of blogation! As we say in this here Doctrine here, if you use the Wakefield Doctrine to better understand the people in your life, you can’t avoid learning something about your self.  So, the rogers… the people over at the ‘Challenge’, they’ve been doing this for a fair long time and there is much that they suggest in the way of promoting my participation here at the Doctrine. Admittedly, I’ve missed a lot of what is recommended to make this a successful participation, but I did get out and introduced myself to my list-neighbors*  (See, Dyanne? clarks are capable of being…er outgoing  and all!)  In any event, yesterday morning, I went around my List number (yeah, the whole college dorm-suite metaphor)….and introduced myself to my fellow A-toZenans. Met a rather nice person, a certain, zannierose, who has a blog called ‘the Artist’s Way‘  like right ‘next door’… #1233

I should be promoting this thing more, as I get closer to the Start Date of April 1st. That way everyone in the ‘sphere will be talking about the whole thing and I’ll be accepted into the bosom (woo hoo!!) of the online writing fraternity …. sorority!  no, huh?  lol…. I can hear Z now…spitting out her coffee in an excellent Danny Thomas take, all over her computer screen.  Well, I’m still going to do this thing, one way or another.  I have letters that have not yet, (been) assigned, words!  Anyone wishing to participate, well damn! come on down! you can sponsor a letter or, if you want, you can write a guest Post! (some restrictions may apply**)

Ok… best stop here. I’m not a young writer anymore, (actually, I was never a ‘young’ writer…. I started when I was old.  yeah, clarks do have a bit of the Merlin thing going on), best I conserve my words for the big fight!


* the list of participants?!? it’s frickin up to 1300 plus!!  hey!! 1200 block!! yo!!  (we’re at 1232 on the list  1232-on-the-April-blog-challenge-list motto: ‘oh, I’m sure those blogs in that part of the list mean well, and a lot of them are here on special scholarship…no, lets not linger!!…. I have an invitation to the ’1-115 list blogs kickoff party’!!’)

** restrictions that apply: the word chosen (on a given day)  must be defined, used, presented, whatever, in the context of the Wakefield Doctrine, or, at very least, be one of the main themes of your (guest) post. Now, this being the Wakefield Doctrine, we will say, do not let your ‘not knowing the Doctrine well enough’ get in the way of volunteering! If you read today’s Post, you will remember that: ‘if you use the Wakefield Doctrine to better understand the people in your life, you will not be able to avoid learning something about your-own-damn-self ”*** so if you enjoy our little personality theory and you are of good intent, we’ll certainly look over your application to write a guest Post!1

*** man! quoting myself from within the very same Post…. I got this Berries-and-Cream Challenge nailed!

1)  ….ewww  (sorry, trying to get my roger on)

Click here to view the embedded video.


]]> 25
Tue Comments -the Wakefield Doctrine- …and Tue answers (plus…) Tue, 24 Mar 2015 11:45:23 +0000

Related Posts:

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


(from this weekend’s ‘hop… a comment from Lizzi regarding a statement that was made about (a) clarks capability to engage in social interaction. the block quotes being the thread)


“…the thing we don’t have, is that natural inclination to participate in the commerce of social interaction ” ORLY? (L.)

“But…I LOVE making connections and talking to people. Perhaps I’m more scottian than I think.” (L.)

I did not say ‘make connections’ I used the words: ‘…participate in the commerce of social interaction’ (c)

we clarks loves to make connections… we are better at it, (making, discovering, illustrating and generally, pointing out to anyone near, the connections that exist between all things), than scotts and rogers are, if for no other reason than the fact that we are on the outside looking in/over/at the world. Who better to see connections, than the Outsider? (And, yes, I do note that you used the word ‘make’  we’ll come back to that.)
commerce‘ in the above statement is meant to imply an exchange that occurs between people when interacting within a social context.  It’s said that, ‘clarks think, scotts act and rogers feel’ and, from this, we can view this (social) exchange as a bartering among people. a scott will (offer) to do things: play games, yell at people, chase down those who would flee, make people do things… a roger is aware of the things that people feel attachment to, fear the effects of, or covet a place that another may occupy… and a clark, well, a clark knows stuff, creates (that which did not previously exist) and, above all, clarks see the inter-relatedness (the connections) among the parts and things and people of the world (all three worlds, if we’re to be accurate).

Trouble is…. clarks give their thing of value away for free. a clark is said to be the most generous and (willing to) share of the three personality types, ( “...hey did you know? …hey, I learned the coolest thing the other day, …by the way, you want to hear something really neat?“) which one might conclude is a good thing. Unfortunately, not counting gift-giving, most people do not place a large value on things that are offered without a price.  In this ‘commerce’ of social interaction there is (a) bartering going on and clarks suffer from 2 very significant weaknesses:

  1. we learn and know and discover things, (mostly the connections among things), and recognize the limitlessness of this ‘commodity’ and are not concerned with getting an equal value in exchange (because we can always find more)
  2. we do not (normally) demand the highest price in exchange of what we offer (in this commerce), because the one thing a clark fears the most, avoids at all costs is ‘scrutiny’  (and, yes, I will stop at this point and let the questions create themselves)

…so, that is a little additional Reply to our friend Lizzi’s Comment



“this morning my question concerns rogers…..what happens when a roger loses his/her “rogerian expression” (not through choice)?” (D.)

good question! in part because (the) ‘answer’ is an illustration of how the Wakefield Doctrine offers multiple uses, (i.e. fun and insight), for all of us. It, (the Wakefield Doctrine), is a metaphor and it’s an analog that allows us to see the world from another perspective. And, because we have these additional perspectives, we can frame our understanding different ways (fun)… ‘she is such a scott! you could see her nose twitching as soon as she stepped into the meeting hall full of engineers!‘… ‘I saw two clarks engaged in a conversation the other night… I’m pretty sure I did, but, of course nothing, including the logic of their exchange, can escape the gravitational pull of the black hole of two clarks in conversation‘  you know, like that!

so Denise’s question can be interpreted as: can a person lose the realness of their personal reality?  This can also be framed as: does the set of strategies and coping mechanisms that are the product of our growing up and developing in one of the three worldviews (that of the Outsider/clark, the world of the Predator/scott or the reality of the Herd Member/roger) eventually wear thin, become less and less the personal expression of how a person relates themselves to the world around them… can age (or circumstances) diminish the clarity of expression of (a) person’s personality type?

the best answer must start with a question: what is the ’rogerian expression’?  (The short, but nevertheless useful answer is: ‘the rogerian expression is that which makes a roger feel as an individual while remaining a part of the Herd (which, by definition, does not recognize individual individuality…. ‘) lol   yes, more to follow.


from the blogger formerly known as zoe (tbfkaz):

When I started reading Denise’s question and your answer I thought you were gonna answer the question ive been asking since I met you! Did you answer it? I think you may have avoided it and reworked the question! E for evolution. …can life circumstances cause a personal evolution into another predominant personality type? Not just we all do stuff sometimes. ..???????? Whaddya think? 

No, no I did not. Where I am heading, (with Denise’s question), is a consideration of what ‘the rogerian expression’* is and what happens when it diminishes (as has been observed in aging rogers), all in the service of a better understanding of a) the nature of the three worldviews and, 2) by inference, what is the potential value to self-improving ourselves?  are we to gain by better understanding of (the) characteristic of (one of) the three worldviews .

But, addressing what I hear is your question…. can we move, evolve or otherwise go from worldview-to-worldview, personality type-to-personality type?  the current answer is, ‘no’  the current answer will have to wait for later in the day, as it is quite involved (i.e. I don’t have the rhetorical skills to concisely express the idea that these worldviews are real, the world is as described, it is not my ‘choice’ to act as would an Outsider…. my acts (as an Outsider) are appropriate to the world, the reality that I am experiencing today, (in fact, the reality I was faced with as a small, young life form)…. having said that, there is an argument to be made for ‘catastrophic’ changes in one’s life and, therefore, (possibly), a change in the character of a person’s predominant worldview. You might be thinking, “yeah, sure,  but what about your much-vaunted secondary aspects, what about those? huh? well… answer me, dammit!!!” (lol)  the key element to our ‘behavior’,  is the energy that is involved…. (no, the following probably will not make any, ‘standalone’, sense….), if our behavior is not related to the world around us in a way that produces/conducts/returns energy, then it is a fad, an affectation and has nothing to do with a worldview…. (more to follow)

you know, I was just re-reading this Post and next month’s ‘Apples-to-Zuchinni Blog Challenge’, will be very productive provided the right words are found. Clearly there exists a need for a comprehensive yet simple outline of our little personality theory, especially now with newer Readers such as Val and Lisa and them joining us in our pursuit of better understanding the world around us. ya know?

* not to be confused with ‘a rogerian expression’!


]]> 17
as ‘something’ is to ‘something(else)’ -the Wakefield Doctrine- the run-up to the ‘Hay to Me Blog Challenge’ Mon, 23 Mar 2015 11:22:40 +0000

Related Posts:

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


Have pretty much decided to do that ’12 to 4 Blog Challenge’ in the coming month of April. The theme will, of course, be the Doctrine and the unifying viewpoint is best expressed as  ’the ABCs of the Wakefield Doctrine’. So the real work is to find the best word(s) for each letter of the alphabet. My hope is that the result will be a comprehensive explanation of the Doctrine (on April 31st, that is).

So we’ll be accepting suggestions and donations of words in this week before the start of the Challenge. (I don’t believe that there’s anything in the Rules prohibiting  prep work on the Posts, in my case, finding the right words for each letter.  Naturally I’ll  wait until the morning of each day to actually write the Post. I’d love to have the writing skills to be able to pre-write and hone and polish each post, well in advance, but if I did, I be a roger and this would not be the Wakefield Doctrine). If any of you Readers have any favorite letters or better yet! a  lingering question about the Doctrine that starts with a….wait, they all start with a letter! Never mind. Here’s what I have so far:

A is for Apple  (yeah, I know…gotta go with the classics to start. figure to talk about the theory of Adam and Eve and the fruit of Knowledge.. (Spoiler Alert!!!!  Eve was so a clark))

H is for… Hostinae  (?!?!   …that apparently is all I have at this point  not worried…. I know words!! I know a bunch a words, not.worried )

so other than C and S and R   and W

C is for clark

S is for scott

R is for roger

W is for Wakefield Doctrine

E is for (the) everything Rule….  ok, I think I can believe I’ll have the words I need

I is for Identification…

so,  18 or 19 more words and I’ll be all set!

The above is an example of a clarklike approach to problem solving. Now, if anyone out there is thinking, “Excuse me, but if you’re going to say that a clark will approach a problem by breaking it down into component parts to be dealt with individually, I hate to disappoint you, but that is clearly the rogerian approach to problem solving.”
Allow me to retort,  ”yes, you are right” (rogers tend to always be right…repetitiously, meticulously and aggravatingly always right with the answers to questions….as they define the question.) However, this is an interesting example of the surface similarities of the three worldviews, more precisely, it’s an example of how, as we go through our day, we interpret the actions and behavior of the people around us, in terms of our own worldview. This is entirely natural, of course, but we can do so much more with the Wakefield Doctrine as an (additional) perspective on the world. What we try to do is imagine how the interaction is being experienced in the worldview/personal reality of the other person.

a roger would, in fact, break a problem into it’s component parts.

a clark would attempt to understand the question.

a roger seeks the definition of the problem, knowing (in their personal reality) that all is definable and quantifiable, everything is knowable, if not necessarily immediately identifiable. This is why you will see an inordinate number of rogers in the field of engineering and the other hard sciences.

the drive for a clark to understand the question is twofold and, at its heart the same thing: fear  fear of being exposed (by poor, or insufficient performance) as the Outsider. and so, when we do things like the ’30 Day Me and Thee Blog Challenge’ the first thing we try to do is defuse the open-ended parts of the activity, understand it enough to believe that we can perform just like everyone else… only then do we believe that we can enjoy ourselves. (here’s a fun contradiction seen in clarks:  we anticipate  …we try to imagine what a future activity will be, so intensely… imagining every possible variation… ‘if I do this, then she might say that..’ on and on…. so much so that, when we get to the actual, real event,  we appear detached and un-interested.  lol  not the case! it’s just that we’ve lived through the experience so many fricken times in our heads (all in the name of eliminating fear and risk) that we’re just going through the motions…. phoning it in, as they say.



]]> 14
TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine- Ninety Two (times incomplete thoughts, partial clauses…interesting random facts….better have a seat!) Sat, 21 Mar 2015 14:35:06 +0000

Related Posts:

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

…Hill cows!!!

…Hill cows!!!


I got information and I’m sitting on it. Nothing special… nothing salacious or cool or social status-enhancing or like that, but it does provide an illustration of one of the deficiencies of clarks suffer when in the social environment. We know stuff and we learn and we hear things, but one of (the very few) qualities that we (clarks) are proud of, is the ability to keep things secret/maintain personal confidences. Unfortunately, this quality (also) results in a disability to participate as an active member of society.*  ( “clark, can I tell you something and you promise never to tell anyone?”  ”you are such a good listener, I need to tell someone this…“).  It’s not that people of all three worldviews cannot keep a confidence,**  what’s interesting about clarks is that we can’t remember the direct and/or specific life-lesson to not repeat the things that are told to us in confidence. We just realized, at some point, that our ‘not repeating things we are told’ is considered a good and valued quality by the real people in our lives. And so we are told things.  But we have trouble asking people about their lives, past a certain….public level.  But, the thing we don’t have, is that natural inclination to participate in the commerce of social interaction…. it (information about the members of the group) is the both the binding force and the reward for those who willing become part of the herd.  You know, as I re-read this, in my ‘edit’ mode (ha ha)… I’m thinking, ‘yeah this quality is good… for them.’  Years ago, someone I knew, (a clark), said to me,  ’you need learn how to take’.

holy smoke, what a writing newb am I!!  why didn’t I know about ‘The Proust  Questionnaire’??!!

Here is Proust’s Questionnaire:

  1. What is your idea of perfect happiness?  (‘what’s it to you?!)
  2. What is your greatest fear?  (“not having answers to questionnaires…“)
  3. What is the trait you most deplore in yourself? (“tolerating questions like this….no, that’s not true… it’s believing that I should tolerate a question like that…hey, I’m a clark“)
  4. What is your motto? (actually this last was Question # 35 (!!) I want to think up something clever, but I’ll have to get back to you

and so, if I’m reading the wikipedia correctly, if we ask the characters we create in our writing,  these questions, the result will be: a) more compelling characters or 2) our grasp on reality is further eroded to the point that we’re not certain who, among those we meet on this internet, is actually real and who is a work of fiction.

OK… at some point, I need to mention gratitude and such.

Big Gratitudinous Item:  We heard from ClairePeek!   A Friend of the Doctrine from way back…. maybe even the 1st generation! (The first generation refers to the point in this blog where people learned about/taught themselves the Wakefield Doctrine (sufficiently to see the clarks, scotts and rogers in their own, personal, ‘real’ worlds), without having come into contact with me directly. Very impressive!)

Biggest Hypo-Grat Item of the Week:  it’s snowing today. Not just the cover-the-grass-in-white, snowing, like last night, no! it’s the couple of inches…. track it into the house, brush off the car level of snow… not happy for this weather. Here, here’s a pitcha:

not so much the snow on the ground… the snow in the trees! that's the discouraging part

not so much the snow on the ground… the snow in the trees! that’s the discouraging part

(Item?  damn… totally did not think of the Tenification of my Post)

…hey! just got off the phone with an agent and I helped her, without feeling bad afterwards!  so  that’s 3 Items in itself!  (a) being able to help, 2) remembering to engage the other person, not just spout information and 3) accept the fact that it’s alright to not be nice all the time…

wow!  this is one confusing TToT post!


ok…one more Thankful Item… (god! the Guard Virgins are gonna kill me for this Post…. hope it’s that new one! She seems kinda….sincere about her role***)

ok lets try to organize this here TToT Post here:

  1. I’m privileged to be a co-host at what is nothing less than the best ‘hop in the blog-o-sphere!
  2. Readers who will read, knowing that a post from the Doctrine is at times confusing, while recognizing the good intent… to provide insight of some sort (self or other)
  3. Christine and her ‘doing cool things and writing about them’…. i.e. road trips!  (one of my favorite life concepts)
  4. old friends visiting back… our Ms Peek
  5. vidchats and meeting virtual friends in as close to the ‘real’ world as I’m likely to get… last night  Lisa! in da house… (fortunately I had Denise and Z and Ms Rogers to provide the social enjoyment factor)
  6. help from friends (see item 5)
  7. job where I can practice my Doctrine…. no, I still always forget at times, but I’m remembering that I’m forgetting more frequently and that’s hugely encouraging
  8. Cyndorito  and our Ms Rogers    clarks on the frontier of their own personal journey  taking notes and sending them back here
  9. the work I do that allows me the chance to get a photo like the one at the top of this post (seriously!  I was driving along in rural CT and even though the land was pretty flat and clear on both sides of the road, I was, like right on top of the area where I took the photo…. and yes,  I was yelled to myself ‘ holy shit!! Hill cows!!!’  while trying to brake the car and find my camera… )
  10. 1.3, binyons!  1.3



Ten Things of Thankful


 Your hosts

Join the Ten Things of Thankful Facebook Group

* we’re using the word society in the sense of any group of people, at work or school or the store… the people we are friends with and associate with… that kind of society

** the ‘everything Rule’

*** once again, I have no idea!


]]> 41
phfridae wapup -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘Friday, the most sought-after day of the workweek’ Fri, 20 Mar 2015 11:36:15 +0000

Related Posts:

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


Hey, before I forget, tonight in a box at the bottom of this here Post here, I will paste in the link to the Friday Night Vidchat. Click on the link and provided you have downloaded the google hangout app, you will be on line with the Wakefield Doctrine and them. (Depending on who else stops in), you will have an enjoyable and interesting time, courtesy of 21st Century technology.

short, little post this morning. 1 request and 1 cool insight into the rogerian worldview.

  • I’m leaning towards doing the ’3 to Bee Blog Challenge’ this coming April (April motto: ‘yeah, go ahead dream…she’ll forget you by Memorial Day‘*) and my theme will be the Wakefield Doctrine. The question I have, does anyone know of anything like a word generator that can produce random words, but allows one to enter the first letter?  (My second thought is that I need to approach the month as, ‘The ABCs of the Wakefield Doctrine’… which, if I’m successful will leave me with something useful at the end of the Blues Challenge…. your thoughts?
  • ok, so we all know that the Wakefield Doctrine provides a description of the three worldviews, (personal realities) of clarks, scotts and rogers… and (these descriptions) are accurate and detailed enough to permit us to …kinda scare people with our insight into their personal lifes  (true story: back in the beginning of my blogging, when I met someone online who I knew their worldview from chatting with them** I’d sometimes say things like, ‘I know what’s on the floor of your bedroom closet’  (this being a clarklike female) and I’d describe the clunky but oh-so-comfortable boots and the sensible but worn shoes for work… etc  and 9 times out of 10, they’d be all, ‘hold on! how can you know that‘  (eventually more reasonable people around me at the time, Denise and Molly, said, ‘uh, clark? maybe you might want to lay off on the ‘I know you’ thing until they get a little more comfortable with you and your Doctrine thingie…’  (lol  and yes, I did take their advice)   anyway… back to the rogerian worldview. While we know enough about the personal reality of our rogerian friends to identify other rogers, there is a level of understanding that we can only acquire by inference. A good example is ‘referential authority’.
    (I just ran out of time. I’ll try to link to the post that initiated this insight and I’ll certainly try to carve out the time to add to this Post. Failing that, I guess you’ll just need to join us on the vidchat tonight.)




*                                      *
*                                                                                                                                                                                                   *

 * seriously, I have no idea

** well, yeah… it is possible to infer a person’s predominant worldview on the basis of the written word and/or chatting on line… just takes practice, yo


]]> 7
tjeursdae -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘talkin shop with Cyndi-lou, zoeta, Val and them’ Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:47:49 +0000

Related Posts:

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


Now I know we all ( from their commentation, Cynthia and zoe and Val ) agree that, if there were one day (of the workweek) that is most conducive to sitting back for a minute and ‘talking shop’, it surely has to be Thursdays!  (….Lisa  you will agree with us?…. there are a number of us, perhaps enough to constitute,  dare I say it… a herd?)  So, lets do this thing. (And just to show you that I can get causal…. casual! casual! I’ll bring on the comic sans!  nothing says, ‘we’re just having a conversation among friends as ‘the comic sans’, right?)

there!  First shop topic!  hey rogers (and anyone with a strong secondary rogerian aspect),  a question!  Do the Readers here at the Wakefield Doctrine possess sufficient intra-allegiance to comprise, constitute or, otherwise be a Herd?  My thought is ‘no’, at least in terms of how I might conceive of a Herd1….  anyone else?

second shop topic: the role of (a) blog in real life. I’m considering the A to Z Challenge. Looks like fun. But the aspect that everyone seem to mention, the ‘omg! a Post every day except Sunday’… that’s not exciting me. However, the ‘join in with others, be a real blogger, just like your vfriends are doing… it’ll help you bond with them and such2‘ holds some attraction for me.  I’m still trying to make up my mind.  That being said, I’m looking for  words to associate with the letters of the alphabet, because, in all due modesty, it’s not a question whether I can write a Post everyday, it’s really a question of which word (for the letter of the day) would I use to best illustrate my theme (the Wakefield Doctrine)?

shop topic three: z has what she thinks is the answer to the question posed yesterday, i.e. Taylor Swift’s predominant worldview. She (zoe not Taylor) is, undoubtedly correct, such is her understanding of our little personality theory, however, assuming that there might be Readers reluctant to state their call (for her worldview)…. allow me to re-emphasize how we look at this very common, fun and educational exercise (figuring out a person’s worldview).  The answer (which worldview) is not so important, why you pick the one that you did is. I’m totally serious about this… I want to hear the reasons, the evidence that supports your choice, because this whole damn thing is about perspectives and perceptions…
The recommended approach is to narrow it down to 2 worldviews, (find the ‘no frickin way’ worldview and eliminate that one), our Ms Swift is tough, not just because she’s a performer. I ended up eliminating ‘scott‘  because, even though her eyes are striking there is no hunger in them….  (see ‘the eyes of a scott’ in the section on scotts)… so that left clark and roger…. clothes are a bit funky (a clarklike female trait)…   but I don’t see the ….slump to the posture….the fashion choices are kinda   well, fashionable, so that does not speak to a clark…. I’m gonna go with roger…  only because there is something    calculated in how she appears to be relating herself to the world around her….  So, that’s my reasoning

Out of time…. one last topic:  vidchat anyone? Friday  sometime from 7:00 pm EDT on…



1) further explication of my answer and my Answer: as a clark, a ‘Herd of clarks‘ is not a possibility,  but, as Clark, I can see rogers (and scotts) gather here at and constitute a group-of-coinciding-interests, and thats almost a Herd, right?

2) god! if I had a dollar for every time that thought possessed my mind during my youth… and you know, I’m not, in fact, saying that it is a false or bad thing for a clark to think… the danger lies in expectations…. for a clark, expectations are a drug…the bad kind, addictive kind, with a decreasing payoff and an increasing cost  hey! topic for the A to Z  yes?? for the Letter E  I’d like Expectations, Pat!


]]> 18
Mid_week Post -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘it’s fun and it’ll help you have a better today’ Wed, 18 Mar 2015 11:35:10 +0000

Related Posts:

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


The Wakefield Doctrine can be fun.

The Wakefield Doctrine can help you do better today.

Hey, if you’re new to the Doctrine, lets talk about what you do after (stumbled over) this blog. Wait, don’t laugh (scott), don’t sneer (roger) and clark, wait hold up, don’t go off half prepared.

Damn! I had a really fun Post and then realized that I have to limit my reprints! Shit!

Nothing in the Rules against excerpts!!*

But the Doctrine will take the position that old people will show the characteristics of their individual types very clearly.

    • clarks will age the least, ’cause they have been old from the start
    • scotts will appear to slow down the least, until they fall over dead
    • rogers will get even crankier, even though most laws of physics say that is not even possible (except for the ones that are not… we have Kristi and a few of the other rogers to thank for their example of variations in the expression of the rogerian worldview) (which is simply… more…not more-additional, more-of-the-thing-itself)
    • clarks who by definition have missed the whole point of Life, will get increasingly active as they age
    • scotts will not notice the physical effects of aging when it starts, the psychological effects they have never noticed
    • rogers will sit more, but they will be the most compliant guests in the home, until they stop getting visitors


You know, speaking of age… time does impart change (despite what rogers may wish), and while it is all too easy (or tempting or seemingly necessary) to point out, things are different now. Take live musical performances (please! bar ump bump). I’m comfortable using music to illustrate changes over time because, anyone who would claim to enjoy music must, perforce** accept that all music develops from what has come before…

Taylor Swift (2012 or whatever)

Click here to view the embedded video.

(Note: I doubt I even have to mention this, but I have Taylor Swift’s vid up for 2 reasons: a) I like a lot of her stuff and 2) she is very, terribly popular. There are a ton of modern artists out there that may do a better job of supporting my point and there are surely 2000 lbs of musical acts that would contradict my point. However, this Doctrine is about fun.  Speaking of fun, free Wakefield Doctrine hat (‘for your damn head’) to anyone who can tell us Ms Swift’s predominant worldview!!***)


Deep Purple (19 ‘yeah, we get that you weren’t even born yet’ 72)

Click here to view the embedded video.

…no, this is not a re-make of ‘This is Spinal Tap’…. that stage is about 12 feet deep and yes, those are ‘roadies’ climbing around the equipment as the band starts playing, since I’ve been to concerts like the one in the vid, I will attest to the fact that the shows were that organized back in the day.



* Rules?!?  are there Rules to this here Doctrine here?  Well, yes and no.

** yes, I used the word ‘perforce’  did you not read the part about old people?

*** some restriction may apply. This is for old Readers as well as new Readers: you know how you’re with some one, say at the mall or a family reunion or the gym….or even at work and one of you says, ‘man she is such a scott‘ or  ’damn! gots to go deal with what’s his name… what a fricken roger, if I’m not out of his office in 10 minutes find a scott and send them in to rescue me!‘   well, a big part of the fun of this here Doctrine here is to figure the worldview of the people around us, especially when you have someone else who knows the Doctrine. I’ll say right here, when you decide you know the person’s worldview and the other person says, ‘yeah?!  why?  Why do you think they’re a clark/scott/roger‘  this is not a negative challenge. This is a part of how we’re all learning to identify the three personality types.  ….so, if you and I are sitting in a Taylor Swift concert and you say, “She is clearly a …..”  be prepared to provide evidence and I will thank you for it. I may not agree (initially or ever)… but this Wakefield Doctrine is a lot of things to a lot of people, but it is not a ‘damn…I’m not sure, better not say, someone will laugh’  personality theory blog.


]]> 6
Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘if everyday of the week were Tuesday, there would be no wars’ Tue, 17 Mar 2015 21:47:36 +0000

Related Posts:

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


No! I’m actually serious. Consider your day right now.  You’re over the strain (for some the assault) of the beginning of the workweek… you’ve given up your hold on the weekend.  You have your job, you have your classes, you have the home-to-make tasks… and, maybe for just today, you kinda think you can handle it! Hell, there’s a good chance that you’ll find yourself, maybe not enjoying it, but at very least, having a good feeling about what you do during the workweek. And the people you work sit by side with/ sit in class alongside/ talk to and instruct and raise into adults they’re not so bad today, are they? We all have workweek days and we all have weekends (maybe minutes at a time, maybe a lifetime’s worth), but Tuesdays are the day of the workweek and when what we do (during our workweek) looks and feels and gives us the most of what we thought it would when we started out, new in the job/first day of class/infant brought home to build the family…

So, if the world could just make itself see everyday as a Tuesday, there would be no wars.

What does this have to do with the Wakefield Doctrine?  a lot…

(I have to interrupt myself, this and the previous Post this week, were started at my usual time of day for writing Posts, i.e. 5:30 am, however, today I thought to try to complete the Post(s) in the later morning. It is now 5:30 pm  so I need to wrap it up.  What’s interesting is that when I write about a Day, it is the day (yet) to come, not the day that has passed… I suspect I may need to work on my scheduling.)

… a lot and nothing. The Wakefield Doctrine is not an answer, it is, however a very cool set of questions. And, even as a set of cool questions, it is not the implied answers, (to these cool questions), that is the value of learning this thing of ours,  it is the process of asking… that is where the benefit of the Wakefield Doctrine can be found. Simply put: every time I use/play with/look through/use as a inter-personal Cliff Notes/ or otherwise use the perspective that the Doctrine offers, I learn something about myself. There’s an old saying, ‘every window is a mirror’. To use the Wakefield Doctrine is to accept yourself, (the good qualities and the ‘oh-no-way-I’m-like-that‘ parts); when you set out to see the world as the other person is experiencing it, you will run into yourself. But that’s a good thing….not always comfortable, but good.

what time is it?

…oh!  oh!  vidchat this Friday…. we usually start at 7:00 pm (which as we all know is ‘are you still awake British Meantime’) but if anyone knows that they will not be able to join us until a later hour… lets us know! Adjustments and accommodations will be made.


]]> 3
Moanday -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘a fifth below or a fourth above’ Mon, 16 Mar 2015 21:27:42 +0000

Related Posts:

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

IMG_0855-2( courtesy of zoe and her friend )

Now we’re getting ‘old school Doctrine Post writing’. Today’s subtitle? On the way in to my office, the local college radio DJ was describing an Ella Fitzgerald ‘record’ (Ella sings Duke or something, I’ll try to find it and play it), and as he was reading the liner notes, he said, ‘…she sings a part that is a fifth above (the melody line) or a fourth above.’ I have no explanation why that phrase ended up as today’s Post Title… part of being a clark, I’ll assume.

…speaking of being a clark, of late I’ve been wandering in the wilderness a little, post-writing-istically speaking, wondering if I still had the energy and enthusiasm and all. But then, at the end of last week, a flurry of Comments and Replys relating to the vidchat and the Dark place (of clarks) and this followed up on the weekend with a conversation with a clark who, though he never heard of the Doctrine, picked up on the principles totally without hesitation (yeah, it’s almost axiomatic that clarks take to the Doctrine like a dog after a duck). In any event, these events brought home to me what I have known all along (but tend forget), and that is, the key to writing Posts is/are the Readers. To be a little more specific, the key is my understanding and appreciating the Readers that are out there (with questions and curiosity and enthusiasm for the fun and uses of this rather cool perspective on the behavior of the people in our lives) when I remember that this Wakefield Doctrine is for them, not just me, then I feel the fun and excitement that’s been a part of this blog thing from the very first Post.

ya know?

…now I gots to find that Ella Fitzgerald tune so the subtitle can make sense to the rogers out there (clarks are creative in terms of music, but when it comes to technical virtuosity… you really need to find yourself a roger.)

So, with Post number 1301, I believe I will start with the basics and see where that takes us.


]]> 16
TT-o-(synchronici)ty -the Wakefield Doctrine- Sat, 14 Mar 2015 12:15:16 +0000

Related Posts:

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



Christine has written that she intends to engage in the A-Z something-something blog Challenge, this May (or maybe it’s April). The hook is that participants write a Post every day (with Sunday’s off…presumedly to prevent the non-blogger members of the family from moving to a different address, “someplace where the people are flesh and blood, you know?”) but, the subject/topic (is there a real difference in these two words, I mean, really? “the subject of my paper is…”  or  ”my paper’s topic is”   hey!! I guess they are the same!)  Anyway…  this week’s TToT Post will be A-Z Practice (sort of)

(Saturday am: went over to glance at C’s Post… ok, if spring is the dominant thought on the minds of TToT(eers)

S  ( er  Something!  this different letter thing is not as easy and I thought.  But let’s try again) Spontaneity.  While not necessarily linked to spring in the minds of most, the notion of spontaneity is associated, (in my mind), as a natural by-product of the increased energy that seems to come with the warming weather. There is that sense, (during Spring), that it’s not as necessary to conserve energy and, in fact, there is a sense of activity for the sake of activity…. in a Spontaneous manner… I am grateful for spontaneity  (my god!  nine more of these?!!?)

P  Patience. alright, this one did impinge on my day, this last week. I’m not saying that I’m grateful for being patient, but there were moments this week that I made the choice to simply wait and the outcome was clearly better for my non-action. While Patience tends to be a quality more associated with clarks than ‘the other two’, the ‘patience of a clark‘ is not necessarily a deliberate, conscious choice. clarks tend to appear patient, because the alternative has a higher level of exposure to criticism and subsequently, clarks will take a chance and wait. Patiently.  now, scotts…. patient? yeah, absolutely!

R  rogers  (lol…. no, I haven’t given up on the A-Z  letters of the season as the template of the 10…. )  rogers are all about the Springtime. no, seriously! The whole cycle of rebirth, the end of the enforced quietude of Winter,  predictable and repeatable and reliable,  those are qualities that hold the highest value for a roger. Whether a carpenter or a cook, homemaker or choreographer,  rogers live in a reality where the world is quantifiable, understandable and reliable. the life of rogers is, (in part), a search for those qualities in their lives

I I was going to go for Inspiration or Insight (hey, did you know that one of the ‘test characteristics’ useful when trying to infer the worldview of a person, is to note the use of personal pronouns? Well it is!  clarks tend to use the plural impersonal pronouns,  we, they, themscotts tend to not use so many personal pronouns ( other than ‘Hey!’) and rogers….( this is where it gets interesting), ‘I’ and ‘me‘  are huge with our Herd Member friends.)

N   er?  othing?    no!  wait!!  Seagulls!!  the photo of the non-flying, semi-aquatic cow(-of-the-week) above?  that was in Narragansett!!!  N  cha ching!

G  Garden!  ok… this one is totally appropriate…. someone, (well, actually, a lot of people on the internet), was recently talking about gardens and gardening. I enjoy the idea of a garden, but it tends to take too long.. what the better word….  process, yeah, that’t it!  the process is too long (and deferred).  the best gardener among the three personality types:  rogers!

T he dark place.  (very much a quality/feature of the clarklike worldview. it need not be explained to clarks and cannot be described to non-clarks)

I Identification.  This one I am totally grateful for, in concept, if not in practice.  To identify with another, is to, on the basis of a common experience, know how a person feels or thinks, at least in certain situations.  I’m not doing an overly good job of defining this form of reality-sharing, but it is one of the single most remarkable things to come out of the Wakefield Doctrine blog. Not identification, of course! that’s always been there, a potential among people. Rather, I’m talking about the benefits of identification among clarks
Now scotts and rogers identify with people in various capacities and contexts, but they are also able to relate to people, in a manner that’s pretty darn direct. (for example:  right now Dyanne is smiling and thinking about typing….. ‘you better believe it!’ and her elbow is moving, as if on it’s own in a phantom poke to my ribs for making such a statement)  lol   it’s just that for clarks, the ‘commerce’ of relating to people can be difficult (‘commerce’ is not to imply any negative, it’s simply the give and take of most interpersonal exchanges).  for clarks, as Outsiders, it’s not always easy or comfortable to make the assumption of the right to engage in emotional commerce with another person.

M as in Man! are you serious with that last Letter Entry?!?   yes, yes, I am!  Something tells me that I might want to wait another year before taking on the A-Z Challenge!

E End?  my god! if anyone needs me to document my gratitude at hitting this one, you clearly have been skimming this Post! lol


(apologies to the A-Z and other lets-impose-a-theme-and-see-what-people-write contingent   hey, wait a minute!! that’s us too!)  lol


Ten Things of Thankful


 Your hosts

Join the Ten Things of Thankful Facebook Group


]]> 36