Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- “…agents provocatrice

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


Sure, everyone in the ‘sphere, will, from time to time, write a post because of a cool-sounding word (or phrase). In this case, ‘agents provocatrice‘. I came across the term, (the feminine of agent provocateur), while wandering the the internet in search of information, (biographical and otherwise), on the characters in my current book, ‘Home and Heart’

Well, since you asked, while the ‘Everything Rule’ reminds us that clarks, scotts and rogers are capable of being agents provocateurs (and provocatriceses), we’d all agree that our Brethren of the Herd, rogers, would be inclined to be the most effective agents.

New Readers are saying, “Wait, what? How can he make that statement! We need to know how that conclusion was arrived at, and we need to know now!”


We have the ‘Everything Rule’ because there are certain elements of life that seem to be made for one worldview* over the other two. You know, being a CPA or a surgeon, a politician (actually two are suited, scotts and rogers, depends on whether the politician in question is exciting or inspiring), elementary school teachers, girls gym teachers, cooks, chefs, priests or carpenter (finish or rough, another double choice); while this is just a sampling of careers and avocations that life offers, it’s easy to be taken by how many are an ideal fit for one worldview over the other. Nevertheless, a clark can be a cop, a roger could be a stripper (one gender**: totally, the other…no way!) and a scott is capable of being a priest.

While the nature of the worldview of any of the three might result in personal qualities, traits, strengths, tropisms and interests that make success more likely for one (than the other two), that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try. And, since I’m trying to keep this post short, let me point out that that last sentence describes the foundation of the Wakefield Doctrine. It is our efforts as individuals to contend with the reality that we grow up in, that produce our ‘personality types’. I am good at being odd, mumbling when I speak, dressing creatively and seeing things that are not always there, because I grew up in the reality of the Outsider. I wasn’t born this way. I had to develop these skills to make it, as best I could, given my circumstance. My scottian friends are very quick to respond, loud and comfortable in front of an audience, totally aggressive and don’t seem to be bothered by not necessarily knowing what the hell they’re doing, only because, as little tiny babies, they looked up and found themselves in a (metaphorical) savannah with predators and prey all around. My rogerian friends? lol If you ask them, they’ll tell you that they are the way they are because that’s the only way a person could be. And they’re be right, (god! they’re always right…lol. I kid my rogers). They, as children grew and developed the interactional skills, coping strategies that were most effective in a world where there were Rules, (to learn or ignore) and Limits (to be exceeded or hidden) and, most of all, a place where people belonged.

Thats why we don’t have quizzes and profiles, tests and screenings.*** It doesn’t matter what you think your personality type is. What matters, all that matters, is ‘how you relate yourself to the world around you’.

Speaking of today! Two, (not one, two!) Chapters of ‘Home and Heart‘ (a Sister Margaret Ryan novel) are out on the jukepop! Hurry over, theres still time! (Ask the reader who came late to ‘Almira‘ what I mean. lol “oh! I see you’ve already written 33 Chapters! And, they’re, what 3800 words each? I’ll get back to you.”)  Heck! this, the second of the Sister Margaret Ryan series, is much easier to read. Come on down! I could use the votes. (jukepop  has a system of comment and vote)  Here are the links:

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Thank you.


*what others might call ‘personality types’. We don’t. Because, well, because we’re better than they are. At least in terms of having elements, (to our theory), that can be used for self-benefitting yourself, even if you don’t use the whole thing.

**never hurts to remind Readers, new and experienced, alike, the Wakefield Doctrine is gender and culture neutral (sure, go ahead and ask me how that can possible be)

*** actually we do, but only because one of our scottian friends insisted. lol


oh yeah! almost forgot #wakefielddoctrine (thanks, Cynthia!)


-the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘I replace the broken keyboard and the first thing I post is a ‘re-print’!?! who’s a clark? lol

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


Yes, I did buy a new keyboard. That means…. it’s ok to make mistakes because I have a delete key once again. lol  no, seriously …. I can!

Today is, of course, Valentines Day and being a High Faux Holiday in the Ecclesiastical Calendar of Hallmark, I naturally thought to write a post. Trouble is, I’ve been writing this blog since 2009. I may have written myself out. (The one saving grace: since I’ve been writing about the Doctrine since July 2009, I’ve been doing little else, (‘if it’s worth doing, it’s worth over-doing.’) Maybe something has happened in my life in the intervening 5 or 6 years that I haven’t discovered yet! oh boy!)

Anyway. I need to work on the final Chapters of ‘Almira‘ so here’s a Post from 2012, titled:

“St Valentine, was he a roger or was he a clark…the Wakefield Doctrine deals with the important questions of the day.”*

no, it's ok! I'm a Saint

“No, it’s ok! I’m a Saint.”

St Valentines is the worst, most contrived and cynical, gyno-centric guy-bait(ing), toy-with-the-emotions-of-innocent-bystanders, holiday on the whole damn calendar. Of course we are all familiar with the origin of the holiday and the internet is positively turgid with countless blogs, and stories and articles that tell us all about Hallmark and the candy industry and the rest of the sordid tale of this day in February. I will not try to compete with these other more skilled and capable Commentators ( and -torinis), as I do not have the time or the ‘writing chops’ to do such a ripe topic justice. Instead, let me tell you about my most lasting memory of Valentines Day.

Third grade, parochial school (St. Imelda) and a classroom of 25 students. The boys were required to wear blue shirts and blue ties with OLM printed on the front, fortunately ‘clip-on ties’ had been invented by this time, so easy-peasy; the girls wore the catholic school uniform, i.e. plaid skirts white shirt, socks. damn, little did I realize at that pre-pubescent time of my life how potent that little Roman Catholic Church fashion dictates would become for me and countless other men at a later stage of life.
So with much fanfare, Valentine’s Day arrives and we 9-year-old boys and girls are told that in the afternoon, before the end of the school day, we would have time to deliver our Valentine cards to each other. ( The day before we spent ‘Art Period’ making little baskets out of construction paper and taping them to the front of our desks. These would serve as ‘mailboxes’ for the cards we would receive the next day).
The thing was, the horrible twist to this introduction to the world of love, relationships and rejection was that, the time when class stopped and we were allowed to get up and deliver our little cards was not the end of the school day! It was right after lunch… and it lasted 15 or 20 minutes…as in ‘ now return to your desks and we will continue with the afternoon’ classes’. To sit for 90 minutes staring at the contents of the container on the front of my desk… I will leave it to the Reader to decide the emotional landscape of that afternoon on a February 14th.

Anyone out there not comfortable with finishing the story, or satisfied with their conclusion of this little tale, write us a Comment! Regular Readers Students of the Doctrine know that the rogers gave the biggest cards, the scotts received the most cards and the clarks delivered the most cards(….secretly without the recipient ever knowing who the really fun card came from.)

Now I better get back to work, before I get in trouble.


*edited for content and times**

** as in, ‘to account for the experience of (the) reality during which the events forming the subject of the post actually occurred and the effect of the passing time since, and it’s effect on the author.

ok, Back to Almira and the story of two girls growing up a lifetime apart but meeting once before parting.


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.


Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘on severing the ties of desire while still caring about the outcome’

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


Yeah, we clarks are like that…. all the time. Even when no one is looking, we’re trying to figure this, world and reality, people and relationships, thing out.

You know how cool this Wakefield Doctrine is, as a tool for better understanding the people in our lifes? Consider the last part of the last (complete) sentence. Where I say, ‘we’re trying to figure this thing out’. The Doctrine tells us that if you’re a clark, encountering that implication will increase your interest; if you’re a scott, and have nothing better to do at the moment, your curiosity is piqued, ( the essential difference: the amusement value a ball  or a ball with a little bell in its hollow center); and if you’re a roger, you’ll start to get annoyed. You know for a fact that, if the writer doesn’t want to (and can’t) express a complete thought, there are serious implications to how worthwhile any further investment of time might be and will look around (wherever you might be) and see how you’re feeling.


Today’s subtitle: ‘severing the ties of desire while still caring (enough to continue the implied effort) about the outcome’, is one of those goulash insights that we like people are totally prone to, as we go through our day, absorbing knowledge and information (mostly information and of that, the bulk of which might, on first blush, seem to be useless information). Every now and then, a set of stray words clump together in a new and interesting way. (Sort like, on the science channel, when they illustrate the galaxy and the solar system formed…. only way speeded up.)

So we’re all familiar with the famous observation/ lesson/ inference/ hey!-check-this-out-about-existance that asserts: ‘Desire is the root of all suffering’. Clearly this is an accurate assessment. But the question that popped into my head, (while playing solitaire, my preferred form of sitting zazen), was, so how then are we to self-improve ourselves, if we don’t care whether we succeed or not. (Imo) (the) desire is not, in and of itself, destructive; the relationship created (between us and the desired), is the culprit. To desire something (someone, whatever) is to identify outside of the self. And, as any good salesman will tell you, you not only want what you can’t have, you want what you can’t have more than is supported by the benefits inherent in the desired.

whoa, is it me or is this getting a little dense for a Tooesday post?

…fortunately, the Wakefield Doctrine has an answer. Well, not quite an answer, more of an illustration of how to not get trapped by the me/not-me conundrum so often waiting for those of us who try to be better lifeforms. The approach taken by the Doctrine to self-improvement can provide(an) additional perspective. And if there’s one thing we like, here at the Doctrine, it is to have additional perspectives.

Pick a quality, a personal characteristic that you believe would make you a better you. Chances are it’ll be something like, ‘I want to be more confident at work.’ or ‘I really would be happy if I didn’t lose my temper so quickly.‘ or even, ‘If I could stop being such a perfectionist, that’d be great!

The Wakefield Doctrine maintains that what others refer to as one’s personality type is simply a reflection of the character of our ‘predominant worldview’. Example: I live in the worldview of the Outsider. What accounts for those personality traits and characteristics that identify me as a clark is the fact that I grew up and encountered the world of the Outsider and so my social strategies, coping mechanisms, all the things that I say and do in the course of interacting with the world are those of a clark. This worldview can also be thought of as our personal reality, that part of life that is a melding of the subjective and the objective world. In a way, the Doctrine’s view of personality types is that each of us are demonstrating the best coping strategies we could develop, in response to the reality we grew up in.

Lucky for us, the Wakefield Doctrine allows that, though we live our lives in one predominant worldview (the Outsider, the Predator, the Herd Members), we never lost the potential to experience the world as do ‘the other two). As a result, when we talk about self-improvement, we’re actually focusing our efforts on discovering qualities that we already possess, albeit as a potential. But the important thing about this approach is that we’re not trying to learn something totally new. We self-improve by discovering and accepting and practicing those traits and characteristics that we would be exhibiting (as our personality type) had we grown up in one of ‘the other two worldviews’.

Well, that’s all the time we have today. Be sure to follow along in Part 2 as we continue the exploration of ‘The Passion of Mindfulness’


Hey!  You want to do me a favor?  Go to ‘Almira’ and read the latest, Chapter 37 and click on the ‘vote’ at the bottom of the chapter. It will help me with my standings on the site. And as we all know, we never really left high school and so the appearance of popularity is pretty much all thats necessary to succeed.




Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine- ‘and nothing can ever be the same again’

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


I thought I’d indulge in some nostalgia and use clips from a wonderful movie that I can’t say for certain I seen in it’s entirely and, by doing so, flash back to post-writing as it was in the early years of this here blog here.

That second point, the way we used to write posts? That was during the time when I would post something every single day. ‘But clark,’ you might be saying. ‘what possibly could provide interesting content in sufficient supply to fill a post every day?’

Good question.

But first our movie clip.

The Time Warp from Javier Martínez C. on Vimeo.


Almost too late. The future is eating my past. There is no clip from the Rocky Horror Picture Show that begins with Rick and Janet knocking on the door of Dr. Frank N Furter’s castle to ask to use the phone on youtub. There are tons of videos of stage plays based on the movie, clips of a movie about the movie, even some totally well-intentioned local drama club productions. But simple clips from the original? Gone like a life-giving nutrient inadvertently absorbed by a malignant tumor. The tumor grows and the host dies.

Well, that certainly puts a happy glow on the work week ahead, doesn’t it?


Anyway… the subtitle to today’s Post is from the above song. And it represents the second manifestation of nostalgia. There was a time that a song lyric or commercial on TV or even the label on a jar of pickles proved provocative enough to write a thousand words*… in the original sense of the word, of course

mid-15c., “eliciting,” from Middle French provocatif (15c.) and directly from Late Latin provocativus “calling forth,” from provocat-, past participle stem of Latin provocare (see provoke). Specifically of sexual desire from 1620s  (courtesy of our friends at the Online Etymology Dictionary)

Perhaps the point of today’s post is to remember that, just as the Doctrine would have us understand self-improvement, positive change is more a matter of will than effort.

The Wakefield Doctrine is a tool for understanding the world around us, especially as it’s applied to the people who make it up. The proper use of the Doctrine will allow a person to better understand themselves and therefore lead happier, more intentioned days.

So when you’re out there today** and you encounter people doing things that annoy or perplex you, consider:

  • if the sales clerk (who’s wearing all sorts of metallic shit on her/his face) looks back at you with an evasively hopeful expression but mumbles so badly that you want to shake them by the shoulders (which would result in a funny, cartoon dust cloud with things flying out of it, at first an earring and maybe an eyebrow stud, but would quickly escalate to, like, tin cans, nails, wrenches and finally a full-sized anvil) and say, ‘speak up’ Ask yourself: “Could this be one of those clarks that the Wakefield Doctrine speaks so enthusiastically of? Maybe, in the world of the ‘Outsider’ all that crap on her/his face is not awful, but a well-intentioned and thoroughly sincere badge of honor. Too bad! All that they have to do is speak clearly and look at me!”
  • your shift manager, boss, VP of HR, who always says ‘Good Morning’ or ‘Good Night’ (and follows each with a list of details describing what will follow in their lives for the day, whether they’ll be going to the gym, picking up the kids or mowing the lawn, there will be more information than you really need) has sent you an email, note, message or asked the admin to say something to you that makes you feel on the defensive, stop and ask yourself, “If this person is a roger, which given his/her deliberate choice of clothing, pronounced punctuality, giant (and sometimes mean-sounding) laughter, how the hell do I make certain this warning is about me and not the person to my right? Well, those Doctrine people seem pretty sure of themselves, and they say that this personality type is like a Member of a Herd, so whats the best way to interact with a member of a herd without causing a stampede?”
  • holy shit! that guy talks fast! always fun them fun but jeez, if they slowed down just a little then their: test scores/batch quality/performance review would be a lot less stressful, maybe he/she is what they call a scott in that blog. well, only one way to find out, “Hey! How you doin!” (damn, it worked! they’re not running away and they’re not at my throat!) “I need your help on a thing.” (would you look at that! don’t know why they call this personality type a Predator…) “Listen, I know you mean well, but we have rules here and we all think it’d be best that you stop…..”
  • (lol)

Enough for now. Am out to try and not let the hours slip.

*well, sure, there is so,thing to be said about the difference between writing quality versus quantity, but that’s for another post

** a totally clarklike way to express the thought


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