‘buttered toast, optimism and children’ the Wakefield Doctrine ‘disappointment and the three personality types’

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


I was taking out the garbage this morning, thinking about the Wakefield Doctrine. I was concerned that I’d be late getting the trash down the long driveway to the curb, because the recycling company had changed the pickup schedule and I was running about 15 minutes behind. As I took off the lid to the plastic garbage can and slid off the top of the recycling container (the first was a rounded-square shaped top and I simply popped it off the plastic ‘garbage can’, letting it fall to the ground;  the second was a rectangular lid that I slid off, carefully so that it remained  leaning on a slant against the end of the container), when, for no apparent reason I thought about:

  • disappointment
  • the Wakefield Doctrine
  • manifesting1 in the three worldviews
  • …if I hurried, I might get these thoughts to turn into a Post

Please allow me elaborate on each of the three bullet points, showing how each thought connected to the other and hopefully, the resultant Wakefield Doctrine insight becomes one that will prove useful to one of you today.

disappointment:   more akin to losing hope in goals, than it is feeling let down by others. This thought was represented (to me) as ‘the falling buttered toast’.  Does it land butter side up? does it not…  ( ‘…man it always lands butter side down’). For reason unclear, this lead me to think about Christine and zoe. One was posing a hypothetical question about adolescent boys and the other was reminding me that I needed to get more organized with the presentation of the…

Wakefield Doctrine:  Now, in this context, since my mind was already running down the path of buttered toast and how it represents the way a clark invest(s) (ourselfs) in goals, particularly the ‘public goals/amibtions/bids-for-inclusion-in-whatever-group-is-important-at-the-moment.2
What the Wakefield Doctrine would say about goals and disappointments was immediately modified by remembering Christine’s Comment, if there is a better form of presenting the Wakefield Doctrine, it must include specific examples of it’s principles being applied to everyday life situations. And so, I thought, how to understand why the child is seemingly more upset (or, perhaps, upset for a longer period of time than seems appropriate) at a disappointment, which lead to….

manifesting in the three worldviews:  the person3 is disappointed:

  1. clarks feel/experience disappointment as a judgement of insufficiency (it was not that they lost because they raced against faster runners, they lost because they were not good enough runners)
  2. scotts feel/experience disappointment as stimulation…. (the 12th girl of the night to tell him to go to hell could only mean two things: the next one was surely going to say yes or now he could enjoy a quiet evening with nothing more than a Coke, a bag of Oreos and a good book)
  3. rogers feel/experience disappointment as evidence that something is not right… their Opponent (who won this time) clearly trained better, had better equipment, knew the inside scoop on conditions at the track, the loss is actually an enhancement of the roger’s efforts…. the importance and value in training is made all the greater… there is no question about if they can win, it is simply what they must do in order to win.


1)  ‘Manifesting’ is the term to indicate that the same experience for each of the three personality types is experienced differently.

2) you definitely get points if, on reading this,  you found your eyebrow trying to crawl to the top of your forehead, (the better to try to signal the others in the room….. “hey!! guys!! did you just hear what he wrote?!! we got him now!”)

3)  your 16-year-old boy coming home from the track meet; your 17 year old daughter coming into the house after cheer… from the track meet; your husband returning to his family from the staff meeting that was called to make a big announcement; your wife standing at the mailbox after opening the long anticipated envelope


the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) “…Foreword” (at least, for the present moment*)

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


…because of a chance witnessing of an interaction between a close friend and a total stranger, the principles of the ‘theory of clarks, scotts and rogers’ made themselves known to me

…..because of my own worldview (according to the theory), I incorporated these principles in my effort to make sense of my world/my life/the people in my life

…….because of spending the majority of my life refining the principles and implications and uses for the ‘theory of clarks, scotts and rogers‘, I was finally challenged to do something with it

………because of this challenge (to do something with ‘the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers‘), I started a blog and added a name: the Wakefield Doctrine

………..because of the requirement of the blogosphere to write and explain, present and offer the Wakefield Doctrine to people from all walks of life, all parts of the world, all three personality types, a certain small percentage of the people in this virtual reality understood what was being said in the near daily Posts

………….because only a small percentage of the people to read the blog and the large number of people who enjoyed and understood and benefitted from their use and understanding of the Wakefield Doctrine, I decided to write a book on the subject of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

My need to present the Wakefield Doctrine in a form that is easily understood by anyone who has an interest in increasing their understanding of the behavior of the people in their lives has not waned. While the goal remains, the definition of the target must change. To write a book. To write a blog. One is seemingly un-possible, the other, un-sufficiant to achieving the desired outcome.

So the following  …neither book nor blog, almost an instruction manual and certainly (in part) a diary

the Wakefield Doctrine is a perspective, a way to look at the behavior of the people in our lives and it is an approach to self-understanding and it is a way to change the things about ourselves that have resisted our efforts. the Wakefield Doctrine is a game that can be shared among friends and a startlingly effective aid to the time-honored pastime of ‘people-watching’. the Wakefield Doctrine is the theory of personality that is predicated on the idea that, reality is personal.


Do not forget!!! Tomorrow is Thursday Guest Post Thursday!  (the rogers are coming! the rogers are coming!)


* yes, for a clark a present moment can be found at any number of different places along a (given) timeline.



the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) ‘…introduction

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


the Wakefield Doctrine is a perspective on behavior and people (which, in some quarters, taken together, comprise personality). the Wakefield Doctrine maintains that we, all of us, live in a world that is, to a small, but nevertheless discernible degree, personal. We, (at the Wakefield Doctrine), refer to this aspect of all our daily lives, as our worldview. the Wakefield Doctrine insists that there are ‘only’ three different worldview(s), common to all people and that these are: the reality of the Outsider (the clarklike worldview), the life of the Predator (the scottian worldview) and the world of the Herd Member (aka, the rogerian world). The way it works, (according to the Wakefield Doctrine), is that we are all born with the potential to live in any of these three personal realities, but, for reasons not understood (at present), we settle into one (of the three worldviews) and experience life as holds the characteristic of the particular worldview.  It is critical to remember that, although ‘our world’ is (whichever of the three that it is) we always retain the capability to perceive the world around us as do ‘the other two’ worldviews.  Your personality type? Simple. We grow up and learn about the world and develop our ways of getting through life, acquiring  successful (and not-so-successful) coping skills and other approaches and talents, skills and interests, strengths and weaknesses, all of these together comprising our individual personality, which are appropriate to the nature and character of the world as we find it.  This ‘world as we find it’ being both the common and consensual reality shared by us all,  in which: birds fly and camels do not,  happiness is earned, nice guys finish last, to the victor go the spoils, united we stand and divided we fall, wear clean underwear, look both ways before crossing, eat your vegetables, he won’t respect you, she won’t go out with you, your family is everything, kill or be killed, waste not want not, a stitch in time and to thine ownself be true. However, there is still and always for each of us, the experience of the world (and life) from the perspective of and (more importantly) in the context of:

  1. the Outsider  as a clark you know that there is a real world and it is all around you….and you are not a part of it
  2. the Predator  as a scott you know what is and what isn’t and though you ask no quarter and, if necessary, give none, everything about life could be so simple, if only they would let you
  3. the Herd Member  as a roger you know that the answer is available and the way you are meant to spend your life is appreciating this fact and, when appropriate, letting the people around you appreciate this fact

So, there are the three ‘personality types’ of the Wakefield Doctrine. How do you know which one you are? The answer to this question just happens to (also) be the answer to the question: ‘what do I do with this Wakefield Doctrine that will help me to better understand the people in my life?’.
First infer which of the three worldviews fits best (for you or the other person).  The reason that we do this is accounts for how  the Wakefield Doctrine can help you better understand the people in your life, we are trying to appreciate how ‘the other person relates themselves to the world around them’. Note the words, I totally did not say, appreciate how ‘the other person relates to the world around them’.  I said, appreciate how ‘the other person relates themselves to the world around them’.  Understanding this distinction is necessary for the Wakefield Doctrine to be a useful and valuable tool in the effort to understand the people who make up the world we all live in and will, possibly be the topic of the next Post!


(hey…spur of the moment thing  I ‘published’ a Wiki How to article this morning…seeing how I had this post and such…. go read it and tell me what you think (or want to do) or (how you feel)… Reader Advisory: the article is this Post..in article form… in front of strangers (which means mostly rogers and some clarks)

the article

..since this is starting out as somewhat of an odd morning, I don’t feel too funny about including this music vid (like the riddle that Oedipus solved, when it first came out, I hated it, then when ‘Airplane’ used it, I laughed at it, and now I enjoy it)



another ‘Wed-nes-Day’ Post …the Wakefield Doctrine, ‘no, nothing new and exciting…well, maybe a little new, but definitely not exciting!!!’

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

Picture 3

Hell, anyone can pose Questions and provide Answers, the blogosphere is full of Posts that will tell us: what women want, what men want, how to tell if you have a chance, how to get that job, how to surprise your wife, what to say when your husband is disappointed and three ways to put the fire back into: your blog/sex life/dreams/housework, you know? The Wakefield Doctrine prides itself on trusting the Reader more, after all, we’re talking about life, right? And it’s your life, right? So you already have the answers!  It’s just a matter of figuring out two things:

  1. how to get at the answers
  2. how believe that you have the right to know what the right answer actually is
  3. how to overcome a lifetime of accepting the wrong Answer (for yourself)

ya know?

(We better get some basic Principles established before we go any further, n’est-ce pas? )

the Wakefield Doctrine maintains that we all live our lives in one of three characteristic personal realities (aka worldviews), which are: the reality 0f the Outsider(clark), the life of the Predator(scott) and the life of the Herd Member(roger).  Our predominant worldview describes and defines our strategy for dealing with life, it is our ‘personality type’. While everyone has a predominant worldview, we always retain the potential of the ‘other two’ worldviews. These are called secondary and tertiary aspects. This is where the Wakefield Doctrine directs us when we ask, “what the hell can your damn Wakefield Doctrine do to help me change and be a better person?!? Tell me that!

In the coming weeks we will be laying out the process by which the Wakefield Doctrine can be employed as a tool for changing the things we want to change about our own selfs.

Step 1: Determine your predominant worldview

Step 2: Determine your secondary aspect

(…enough for now, we’ll return to this topic in the coming days and weeks. Try to take the first steps, take notes and  write us your thoughts and impressions and such)


You know how I started this Post with how anyone can pretend to be answering Readers Questions and how everyone loves to believe that there are others who are thinking the same as they are and when they see these Questions in a blog, they’re all like, ‘oh you are so insightful, everyone really loves what you say can I join in with the crowd?

…well, this being the Wakefield Doctrine, we kinda like to do things a bit differently. The Doctrine maintains that you already know the Answer, it’s just a matter of drawing it out and putting it in a new Context. So, instead of, ‘Questions that Readers Ask’, we’ll just go ahead with,  ‘Answers to Questions that (some) Readers are Thinking’


“yep, you’re absolutely correct!”

“No, it’s like that, but you’re letting your desire for a particular answer limit your picking the correct one.”

“…sure, if you insist, no…no one here is going to force you to do anything.”

“who the fuck cares?”

“why not?”


If you want to let us know when we have answered (any) of your Questions, be sure to Comment!


HEY!  before you go…if you haven’t taken the  ‘Predominant Worldview Assessment’  better go ahead and do that now.  and if you have, we are looking for additional scenaria to add to the test, so if you have some life situations  that you think might be useful let me know. I’ll follow up and explain how the process works.



‘Today, the 53rd Monday in the First 9 month Winter, ever’ the Wakefield Doctrine “…what do we know and since when do we know it?”

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

detail from  'Nighthawks'…Edward Hopper, of course

detail from
‘Nighthawks’…Edward Hopper, of course

In our Week ahead:

Wakefield Doctrine: principles (and such)

Wakefield Doctrine: funny shit (to us, anyway)

Wakefield Doctrine: video blog (more of that direct, personable and exciting driving context)

Wakefield Doctrine: video chats (Friday Night for sure, will try for Sunday morning as well)

So lets get started!

On this past Saturday’s Night Drive Call-in we were discussing rogers. Not unusual. We often discuss rogers because they are much more difficult for a clark to ‘understand’ than is a scott or another clark.

Consider the challenge we face when attempting to ‘understand’ a person who is inhabiting a worldview that is different from ours. the thing about worldviews is that, not only are they different from each other, but they are fundamentally, totally and completely different… in their basic essential premise. you know how it helps, when trying to distinguish between the three personality types, to remember that:  clarks think, scotts act and rogers feel?  Well, I’ll suggest that you try to keep in mind how literal we are being with this meme.

clarks think:  (a) clark’s relationship with their world is grounded in the premise that ‘the world’ is essentially rational, that the person with a predominant clarklike worldview expects it to make sense, be understandable, be (somewhat) predictable and, therefore, fit into a framework based on logically derived rules.  this is the basis for a clark’s relationship to the world

scotts act: (a) scott’s relationship with their world, being that of a predator in a world of predator and prey, begins and ends with action, movement, attack, retreat, aggression and submission, (as a predator) there is not a particular need for reasons or explanations, for predictability or rationality, life (for the predator) is to live. this is ‘the basis’ for a scotts relationship with the world

rogers feel: (a) roger’s relationship with the world begins and ends with their feelings, emotions, appreciation and sentimentality. they know that the world is perfect, at least it is on the most fundamental of  levels, what we hear as words are, in fact, their feelings about the world and the events and their actions involving the world around them. this is ‘the premise’ for a roger’s relationship with the world

So. Are we saying that clarks are little computers and scotts are animals and rogers are big, gelatinous masses of feelings?  no, of course not!  (well, maybe a little… but nothing weird, ya know?)

What we are trying to convey is this:

  • clarks think (about the world and think the world thinks and makes sense and can be understood with the intellect along)
  • scotts act (and though they feel affection and love, hate and remorse and understand that people are different, life is meant to be lived…now  while running and yelling)
  • rogers feel (they appreciate that people might not get that and they sense that others are trying to reach them but there is a Right Way and there is frivolity and life is too serious a matter to waste effort on anything but living)

yeah, I know… gotta pace myself for the week ahead!  so how about a little music?  a little bit on the long side, a touch of an oldie but what the hell…