Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘…of secondary/tertiary aspects, Cynthia and ‘Home and Heart: Chapter 2’

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


Today’s post: a question inferred by a comment over the weekend, Cynthia and Chapter 2 of ‘Home and Heart’ Lets get the week started!! (Tuesday? are  you sure?  … well then, I guess we better hurry up.)

Whats the deal with secondary and tertiary aspects and how can I tell:

We are, all of us, are born with the capacity to experience the world as characteristic of all three worldviews. As an Outsider (clark), a Predator (scott) or a Herd Member (roger). At a very early age we settle on/into one of these three. From that point forward we experience the world as does the clark, scott or roger; we learn to deal with/adapt to/contend with and master the people, places and things that make up our world. (A scott experiences the world as one of predator/prey and develops his/her hunting and fleeing skills, a roger experiences the world as one that is quantifiable, knowable and works on learning to express the rules of correct living and a clark hides and hopes to discover the information that will make her/him real and therefore acceptable to others.)

But…. but! what of ‘the other two’ worldviews? Good question! We never lose the ‘capacity’ to experience the world as we would if we had developed as the other two. Sometimes there is a strong affinity for a worldview that is not the predominant worldview. I’m a good example. I’m a clark (Outsider) but I am also here…writing (a lot) and even posting videos (yeah, videos of a clark, like that’s a natural occurrence) all in the name of this here Doctrine here, That’s evidence that I have a significant secondary scottian aspect. Some people have significant secondary aspects. Some people do not. Those that do not, all though they are 100% of their predominant worldview, still retain, as do we all, the potential to experience the world as do ‘the other two’.


Cynthia has this website. Intuitive and Spiritual. She is doing remarkable work with it, exploring the potential of reality (for herself) and making available whatever she might learn (for the rest of us). she is a clark (with a significant secondary scottian aspect and a decent tertiary rogerian aspect). In any event, Cynthia is doing one of those on-line things through ‘the Facebook’ today. So, I can’t find where I saw the time (that she would be online) I think it was 12-1 (or maybe 1-12… or Thursday… you’ll find her)  The Facebook link  and, to be on the safe side, this is link to her site Intuitive and Spiritual. (tell her, the Doctrine sent ya, she might still talk to you…lol)


Did someone say, ‘Hey! while jukepop is trying to get their act together, where can I go to read Chapter 2 of that new Sister Margaret Ryan story?  The answer is. right here:  Chapter 2  ‘Home and Heart’ (a Sister Margaret Ryan novel)


Monday Post on Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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


Given that this post is being written on Monday, it is, prima facie, a post intended for clarks.

(How do you know if you are clark, and therefore qualified to read this here post here?  Good question*)

The Wakefield Doctrine provides for three ‘personality types’: clarks, scotts and rogers. Further, the Wakefield Doctrine maintains that we are, all of us, born with the potential to become any of the three. Further, it is understood that though we become one type (predominant personality) we never lose the capacity of seeing the world as the ‘other two’ might. The development of our predominant personality type is the result of adapting to the world we find ourselves in, as but a child. The quality and characteristics of the personality types are a reflection of our personal realities, as opposed to inherent drives and impulses, urges and predilections. The Doctrine does not seek to identify your type by your description of what you like and dislike, hope for and fear. All we do is ask you to consider three descriptions of the world. The one that makes ‘most sense/looks good/feels right’ is the key to identifying your predominant personality type as:

  • clark: the Outsider living in a place apart from, a life of observation, a person who seeks to blend in for fear of being discovered yet does not tolerate being ignored; for a clark, the world (and it’s peoples) is a place, it’s ‘out there’, it’s always waiting for them each and every morning and chases them into the night’s darkness
  • scotts: the Predator the only one of the three who would demonstrate the rather banal (popular with rogers) expression that ‘Life is Good’. scotts demonstrate this sentiment, they do not embrace it, by virtue of the fact that, for (a scott) life is meant to be lived, in and of the here and now. reflection and conscience are drags on their efforts; scotts run towards the day regardless of what awaits them and they will chase the day (and the world and it’s peoples) into the night, sleeping only when their efforts exhaust their capacity
  • rogers: the Herd Member they lead perfect lives, orderly lives, lives quantifiable. to be a roger is not only to know what it is to be alive, it is to know why and what must be done to live properly; there are no accidents in the lives of rogers, there are only surprises and wrongs to be accounted for; the day is a set number of hours in which the goodness (and, don’t forget, perfection) of their time on earth is to be demonstrated; without the rogerian influence we would all be roaming the savannah, eating to live and hiding to survive.

So there you have it!

oh…yeah, one more thing!

How to apply the insights and secrets, help and cautions of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)? It’s all about ‘how we relate ourselves to the world around us’ today. Totally important note: The wording is critical and not what you might think you read. Once more, ‘how we relate ourselves to the world around us’. As we leave the computer or phone that are whispering these thoughts, do not be as concerned with ‘how you relate to the world today’….be it at school with teachers and friends, girlfriends-to-be, bullies-to-avoid or at work where your life can be twisted into a shape that is better than or into a shape that you are forced to drag through your life, returning home in the evening both embarrassed and fearful, or if you’re maintaining the life of your family (biological or social) and doing this and doing that,  don’t waste you time on how you relate, spend your time in consideration of ‘how you relate yourself, to the world’.

I didn’t say it, but someone did, ‘to thine ownself be true’




*  which, of course, is suggestive of being a clark! for most clarks, we’ve never met a question a question we didn’t find interesting!**

** if you understand the reason for the italics, and the inference… you can stop reading, you are so a clark


-the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘of rogerian expressions and insides into the worlds of scotts’

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

CSR copy

I thought I had anticipated every possibility and worried because if things started moving too quickly, there was a chance that I would get blind sighted.”

How long has it been since we’ve heard a new rogerian expression? As I type, I’m trying to remember the source of this most excellent of rhetorical terrorism, courtesy of our friends-in-the-Herd. No luck, can’t remember where I read it, however, I do know that I recognized it instantly. There is that existential stutter followed by a burst of surprised laughter that is characteristic of a true rogerian expression.

On another note: I was talking to a scottian friend/work associate and one thing led to the other and, in the spontaneous (and totally metaphorical) wrestling matches that frequently occur when a scott is involved, came the following:

scotts act (in order) to think

clarks think (in order) to act

being a scott, she affected to not enjoy the insight that resulted. scotts have that innate sense of control and will not play games they are not totally familiar with, at least not for too extended a period of time.

This sort of reminds me of the fun of the early days of Doctrine posts, when everything was new and the excitement was everywhere. It was fun to write posts because the Doctrine was in full self-reveal mode. Someone would say something and the next thing we knew I’d be writing about how rogers have a very distinctive relationship with towels (the cloth type, bath towels mostly, all through dish towels are not totally innocent). And how scotts, when in public but not in the spotlight, will self-narrate their actions and behavior.

Thats back when 500 words was a decent length post.

Guess that’s about it.

…oh, yeah  that post with the funny object in it, this weekend past?  It was a candle molder.


and, in keeping with the retro-ness of today’s post, here’s a music video of a song that I’ve got stuck in my head.


Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- “the second best day of the week for school lunch (not hamburger fricassee, but close!)

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

(not everyone may know this, but that red building in Chicago? World Headquarters for the Omni Corporation... read all about in 'Blogdominion'

(not everyone may know this, but that red building in Chicago? World Headquarters for the Omni Corporation… read all about in ‘Blogdominion

Lets discuss religion.

lol  wait! come back!  no, serially, I won’t say anything bad!  Well, I’m only speaking for myself, my secondary scottian aspect hardly ever listens when I try to advise moderation. But, hey, what are ya gonna do?

For the sake of brevity and to leave me time this morning to work on the final edit of Chapter 40 of ‘Almira‘, following is a reprint (of a reprint) of a Post from a couple of years ago.

We say with complete authority/certainty/confidence that the Wakefield Doctrine never challenges or otherwise criticizes (an) individual’s religious beliefs, unless it forms the basis of a really good Post. But since you raised the question, lets look at what the Wakefield Doctrine tells us about religion and it’s appeal to each of the three personality types.

When it comes to religion and the three personality types of the Wakefield Doctrine, the answer boils down to two words: rogers! It is not just that rogers are the personality type that is drawn to religion, they are/is the one who invented it! The link between the rogerian personality type and religion is so strong as to form the foundation of the description of the rogerian worldview.

As we do know, it is integral to the rogerian worldview there be organised religion. This is true simply because rogers have the need not only to establish rules and order for everyone, but to have these rules posess a degree of moral imperative that can only derive from a deity or deities

Simply put, rogers are religious, clarks are spiritual and scotts… well, that’s kind of a long story…  no! not a bad thing, it’s just that for scotts religion and spirituality are more about the features of the environment and therefore can be good or bad.

If rogers have the baseline lock on organised religion, where does that leave our other two personality types?

clarks?, they’re easy! clarks believe in the unbelievable. Unfortunately this capacity prevents them from ever having complete faith in anything. In regards to religious dogma, clarks will give convincing lip service, particularly the clarklike females (who have a slight edge over their male counterparts in terms of protective coloration); a clarklike female, especially one with a family unit, will conform to the local norms for religious activities. But the odds are, even these devoutly religious clarkmoms will be filling their downsprings heads with all sorts of apostolic nonsense at random points in their upbringing. If backed into a corner, most clarks will confess to a definite spiritual tropism, but you better have a thesaurus and a comfortable chair nearby! If you read the page on clarks, one of the primary characteristics of this type is the love of knowledge…useful knowledge…useless knowledge, knowledge for good and knowledge to anger people, does not matter to your typical clark. So as to organised religion, lets put the clarks in the woman’s auxiliary section.

scotts now, they totally relate to religion, even organised religion! scotts relate to the ‘product’/ the result/ the ‘output’, if you will, of organised religion. (Ed note: this section is written more to the male scott, though not inappropriate, as the Doctrine is gender neutral, it might leave a new Reader with the impression that all scotts will view religion simply as an opportunity, as opposed to a skill, which in the case of the female scott, it can be… I’ll leave the bullet-points in place, but check back for a Post on the scottian female and her pack.)
Back in my parent’s day, there was a ‘restaurant’ called The Automat, it was sort of cool for us suburban kids in the early 60’s to hear about a restaurant that was totally mechanised. (This was all pre-fast food as we know it today). The Automat’s ‘hook’, was to offer a variety of choices of foods to customers with no intermediary such a waiter or waitress, everything there was available and purely the choice of the hungry customers.
….Throughout history, organised religions have basically served as Automat for scotts.

Aight… enough with the free-form, echolistic rambling.

Final thought this Tuesday: rogers provide structure, scotts push and clarks create…. all in the name of god.


Friday Quickie -the Wakefield Doctrine- “as soon as our scottian readers stop laughing, we will begin”

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


You wanna know one of the most fun things about the Wakefield Doctrine? A post like this. Which is being written because I was sitting around this morning, after shoveling the driveway and talking to Phyllis about something that I had to do at work. I made the statement ‘clarks live with fear, in a reality characterized by fear’. ok, fair enough (and accurate, as well). Then Phyllis, who is a roger with a significant secondary clarklike aspect and is very well-versed in the Doctrine, said, “and rogers worry.”

We both laughed that special laughter that celebrates co-discovery of something new and good, not funny laughing but ‘yeah! you see it too?’

…and I said, “scotts live in panic

And the Doctrine insight was complete, ‘clarks exist in fear, rogers worry and scotts live in panic.’

Ain’t it cool?

(New Readers: word about the insights afforded by the Doctrine. The core element to the Wakefield Doctrine being an effective tool is that it’s all about perspective. We maintain that perspective is, for all intents and purposes, reality. Further, we say, if you can accept that and then imagine the world as the other person is experiencing it. then you have one more perspective on life and the world than when you started. And more perspective is better than less. The rest of the Doctrine is the real fun. Think of it as describing the world to another person by singing metaphors. the words are not important, the literal definition totally does not matter, just the fact that it feels right when you say it. And…and!, the other person can pick up the ‘tune’ and follow along, or as happened with Phyllis this morning, as has happened in the past with Friends of the Doctrine, she picked up the melody and found the next phrase.)

Try it.


© 2009-2017 Francis Clark Farley All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright