Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clark, scotts and rogers )!
The Wakefield Doctrine maintains that all people…you, me and the roger who you think you want to show this blog to (but know instinctively that it would be a bad idea), are all born with the ability to experience the world in one of three ways.1 The Wakefield Doctrine is totally based on the idea that, come a certain age (say 3 to 5 years old) all of us ( even that scottian friend who is so much fun to be with but is so exhausting ) settle on just one of these three ‘worldviews’ and we go on to live our lives as clarks or scotts or rogers. Even though we ‘become’ one of these three personality types, we never lose the capacity to see the world the way the other two personality types see it.
…so there you have the three personality types : clarks, scotts and rogers
The Wakefield Doctrine is both gender neutral and culture neutral. While limitations and conditions may be imposed by the fact of gender or the requirements of local culture, the drive will not change. a scott is aggressive, a roger is sociable and clarks are outsiders no matter what, sometimes you have to look a little closer at what kind of world the other person seems to be living in. What makes this a critical concept is that the Wakefield Doctrine is built on the idea that personality is not a collection of traits and impulses, interests and desires randomly scattered through the population of humans. The key to understanding and using the Wakefield Doctrine is the willingness to accept the idea that all of us have individual, slightly different but mostly the same realities and that it is the character of the reality we find ourselves in that drives our choices of behavior and therefore accounts for our personality. The advantage to this approach is quite simple, if I know which of the three realities you are in, I will know how you are likely to respond to any given situation.
But most of all the Wakefield Doctrine is fun! Fun to know about, fun to use in daily life, fun to share with certain friends2. And the cool thing we are finding is that once you learn to recognise the clarks and the scotts and the rogers in your own world, the rest of the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine will become apparent! Sort of on it’s own, it lets you see the world in a different way. Really. We are totally serious about this. We are seeing this ‘self-learning’ effect with the new Readers every day. Now to be fair, this is saying as much about (you) Readers as it does about the Doctrine. Anyone who finds the personality theory of the Wakefield Doctrine interesting (and who doesn’t?) has the kind of mind that likes to play with ideas. And it is this kind of person who will find the uses of the Doctrine pretty much on their own. A warning! Depending on which of the three you are, you may experience some initial difficulties getting past the initial, “well I get the three personality types, but how do I know which one I am“?
It’s all here in the Posts and the Pages. If you are inclined to do it all yourself then you will find all the information you will need. If you are not so inclined, then just ask one of us! Write a Comment. If you are not feeling like being so…public in your learning phase, then contact one of the DownSprings or FOTDs ( Friends of the Doctrine ). I assure you that they will be more than happy to help, either by sharing their experiences (the clarks), giving you simple instructions (scotts) or happily taking the time to layout the Rules and Regulations of the Doctrine ( if you choose a roger as mentor)3.
(How to choose?… whichever sounds like what you are thinking):
- “…alright!! I get the Rules and the Principles but wheres the fun at!!!” You so need to contact Ms AKH or Alx
- “…well, this is all very interesting, and you seem quite sincere about this ‘theory’ of yours…” your only real hope is to contact the Progenitor roger or maybe DownSpring Joanne, right now
- “what was the question”…”sorry, I was looking at”…. “what do you mean. ‘only one characteristic quote per personality type'”?”…”oh, I’m sorry, I really meant to follow the rules to the letter as I really think this Doctrine could be useful” you are in luck! Molly is there, as is DS#1 awaiting your question…
Alright. Enough for today. Got to come up with a Video Post for tomorrow…send in your suggestion for a topic and if we use your idea we will send you a (nearly free) Wakefield Doctrine hat (for your damn head)! HTFU!
Big shout-outs to newer Readers!! Debbie, yo… write us a Comment, already… Jasmine, Jasmine, Jasmine – come on baby, we are so totally waiting for your comment so we can send you a hat!! Anthea!! Don’t worry, this is a fun place for us kind of people…really!!
1) when we say ‘see the world in one of three ways’ we are totally serious, as in the actual world is ‘different’ for each of the three types….not “clarks choose only to see the (whatever) parts of life” or “scotts are active because they have so much energy” no! we mean the reality, the world itself is (slightly) different for the three personality types….thats why there are three personality types.
2) a word to clarks: the first person you think ‘would enjoy this’ is a roger…the second person you think of is a scott and they are the ones you should tell about this thing.
About clarkscottroger
Aha! The post I was waiting for. See, I have been working on a new post over at GirlieOnTheEdge and as is my inclination every now and then, I reference this here Doctrine place. This post you and I have read speaks to the simplicity of it all. What more can anyone ask for? How more simple a tool can one have with which to carry on one’s lifebelt.
Here’s the thing though – with knowledge comes responsibility. I put on the hat and yes, my heart has changed. My mind? A little more complicated. And less complicated. But then, I am a clark afterall.
(you go Grace….clarklike female that you are)
Here. We all like videos. Set her attire aside and look – you can identify Florence as a clark by her eyes (think last post).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GohXlv7bulM
er… Molly? we know you will help and address this observation (of DS#1’s)… help the new(est) of Readers understand how this person (in the video) is a shy-as-a-mouse, introvert, ‘why-are-you-staring’ person in real life, one who neverthless retains complete control even in the company of scotts ( yeah, glenn …DS#1 did say “clothing aside…”)* this all might be a touch confusing for those not yet grounded in this here Doctrine here.
…for my part, “damn!”
*’KH? glenn now he be in Jamaica….perhaps (as speaking for the scotts) you will provide glenn’s response for him?
Sorry to be a pain, but I know nothing about the gal in the video (great though it is)… But if I had to guess, I would say it is because she knows her part, and as a clark, I am always ready to play my part, whatever it may be, with complete confidence (as long as the objective is clearly defined).
Now, for clarification’s sake, playing a part does not mean acting. The part is completely genuine, real, and as much me as anything else I do. As another clark, by the name of Jon Oliva, said, “The person I am are the parts that I play.”
Clothes? Well I used to be in the backseat but was moved to the front (during the Saturday Night Drives that is). Maybe to make me “keep my pants on.” Fuck that.
Shy as a mouse? Are you fucking kidding me??!! She is one hot chick with the compelling and alluring female scottian siren effect. Now there are some clothes I would love to take off.
btw, nice job on the vid Clark. I actually watched the entire video. Thanks,
Earth to Molly! If we assume that my statement is true and Grace is a clark then yes, yes you do know
“about the gal in the video…”.
Re: the parts thing – clarks are often the most gifted thespians. And why? Because they can access another time and place as easily as going to the corner store for a gallon of milk.
Same to you Miz H! Earth yo!
(as to you undressing Grace…we don’t need that info. LOL)
Look at the eyes….I stand firm that Grace is a clark, not a scottian female. I have provide another excellent example of a female clark via a video link in my second comment from this morning. Go take a looksee.
I thought you were referring to the video of Grace on the post itself. So I think I’ll go watch that one again. I like it better.
There’s no way that Grace is a clark-like female. Her eyes may appear to be “thinking elsewhere.” But in her head that elsewhere is exactly what she is singing about if you get my drift. And very intensely I might add. I daresay that a clark-like female could not perform like Grace. The intensity in both the eyes and the body movements of Grace. There is no comparison between the two.
It’s very apparent that Florence is a clark. No explanation needed there.
That is not to say that clark-like females can’t perform as intensely. It’s just a different kind of energy.
I’m gonna go with Ms AKH on the Grace as scott… am not seeing ‘the space behind the eyes’ with her…no question about your little friend Florence being a clark
…if you would like to submit further examples/evidence (seein how you are out voted and all*)
unless, of course Molly will side with you and then we would both have to present evidence to support our respective contentions.
I’m not taking sides… I’m presenting an interview with Grace Potter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtvReDlx9KE&feature=related
I would have never been able to decide if Hetfield was a clark or scott based on his stage performances, but the interviews made things clear.
Really good arguments here…a discussion like this is to help us (and Readers following this thread) to better understand the Doctrine, so there are ‘sides’ but the value in this…give-and-take is about the why more than the what…I always learn more about this thing of ours when I consider why I think a person is a ( clark or scott or roger )*… well beyond the resolution of this particular question about Grace, will be a (greater) understanding of how the characteristics of each of the three personality types are manifested differently from one type to another.
*new Readers: the Wakefield Doctrine maintains that we all have the three ‘worldviews’ within and it is only a matter of the dominant one (of the three) that makes us clarks or scotts or rogers, the other two are always there in the background which is why you may sometimes see yourself behaving as a roger when you know that you are pretty much always a scott….not to worry
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HIHzJMGRp8
Gee whiz! Where do I begin…..
1) clarks are not inclined to go out on a limb unless they are more than absolutely certain infinity x infinity that they are correct (fear of being wrong. clarks view the world first through a lens of fear). I based my statement that Grace was a clark on a single video. Thanks to Molly, I searched through a couple of other vids and found the one above that showed me that Grace is, what consensus and the estimable Ms. AKH insists, a scottian female. (but why, you still ask?)
2) The Wakefield Doctrine is simple sure enough however, “learning” it requires a certain amount of patience. At the outset, it is more often than not a series of checks and cross checks until one becomes more comfortable “recognizing” the clarks, scotts and rogers among us. This, in and of itself can be quite enjoyable!
As we’ve discussed in the past, it is like learning a foreign language – first comes the vocabulary, the tenses, then practicing the conversation until one day when we find ourselves thinking it. Instinctively. Seeing the behavioral, physical and verbal cues. As clarkscottroger points out, the why of an individual’s behavior can be boiled down to how they view the world. That is simple, non?
This discussion has reinforced for me that if I know how a person views the world, then I can know not only how that individual will act (and why) but I will be more conscious of my own actions and reactions. Sure does take the pressure off!
(speaking of Jimi Hendrix as warm-up act for the Monkees…) Everyone knows that the big Tour in country music for next Summer is Kenny Chesney and Tim McGraw
…you will never guess who they will have opening for them ( lol yeah, really! )
right here , Debbie
who wouldv’e thunk that we are all simply put in just three catagories… but can’t argue- I am a newbee, but do see clarkscottrogers all around.
Debbie
…glad to have you join us…with time you will come to know the DownSprings and FOTDs (Friends of the Doctrine) that come here and read and Comment and wear hats (on their damn heads) and join in on the Saturday Night Drive, and they are a pretty frickin interesting bunch of people…and we are all at varying stages of knowing about this Doctrine thing. But thing we realized early on in this building this blog, the people who ‘get it’ who understand the Wakefield Doctrine and have fun with it are not normal, average people, lol. It takes a certain kind of intellect to not only understand the principles of this thing but also a flexibility to be able to ‘try out’ different realities… but, after all is said and done, the Wakefield Doctrine is meant to be fun and useful, but mostly fun…
Okay… finally I will give this a try. I’m a newbie, too ;) I find this all very interesting. The more I read, the more I identify with Clark. As for identifying others’ types, I seem to have an intuitive connection with some Clarks. I didn’t know it was because of Clarkness, of course, but I’m realizing that, always feeling like an outsider, when that intuitive “we’re the same” thing has happened it has felt like a big deal.
So, clarkscottroger…you said you could tell me what kind of shoes are in my closet…. ? I’m ready! hahaha ;)
Jasmine
welcome… interesting to read what you have to say about identification (with other clarks) about how it highlights the ‘otherness’ that we tend to share…good call on the intuition thing too, something that clarks seem to do better than scotts or rogers.
…speaking of the other two, there is within us all, the (unexpressed 2/3s) in this case your scottian and your rogerian potential, so if you start to see what are clearly scottian traits (which in clarks tend to be seen when under duress or when something close to us is threatened) do not be surprised.
as to your shoe collection…one word: combat boots
(I exaggerate for comedic effect), actually there will be a wide assortment of footwear, fashion eclecticism might be a good, if not made-up word. The thing about combat boots, is directed to a certain set (of footcovers) that you enjoy, are totally comfortable wearing and your closest rogerian friends tend make fun of…
I will invite our other clarklike correspondents to contribute more on the subject.
(Have you picked a location to claim (by Right of Hat) to model your soon-to-arrive Wakefield Doctrine hat?
hahaha! i have had my boots referred to as combat boots before as a matter of fact! lol (these boots are made for walkin ;)… but i am also known for my fashion eclecticism… ;)
hmmm, where shall i claim by right of hat? lol i will choose wisely…
Shoes — probably mostly boots — will either be high quality or funky. Maybe both. They will NOT be like everyone elses. If your shoe collection is limited or very basic, I would venture to guess that you have a number of hats and/or scarves.
‘cellent call on the hat/scarf (substitution)…where we actually discussing that on the Drive this Saturday with Ms AKH…she refutes the virtue of scarves as a fashion element (but then she is a scott)…
Jasmine! Glad you stopped by! I need to start at the end here….when you send your pic you might have the photo include not only the hat (on your damned head) but your fabulous footwear as well. LOL
As you have read, the Doctrine is about the 3 ways in which people view the/their world. Simple but not.
It is a true statement that it can be fun – who knows better than a clark that learning a new thing, aquiring some heretofore unknown artifact with which to fill our giant brains, can be fun:)
Within these here cyber walls have been many a discussion about “how to tell if….”. Among them is the oddity/beauty/weirdness of clarklike females and one of their modes of self expression: what we wear. Not only what but how. That is to say the accessory component. You know of what I speak. the clark perhaps unnerved you (as much as a clark can be unnerved) when he confidently told you he knew what footwear was in your closet. I sort of did the same thing with FOTD Molly when I first met her. It kind of broke the ice. There was the same “connectedness”, the intuition you speak of when you talk about being in the presence of a like person.
So, if you read this entire comment…welcome fellow clark!
Downspring#1, it is so true that what we wear and how we where it is a form of self-expression! So true! :) It is fun thinking of how to innovatively put a look together. (the spell-check is saying innovatively is not a word! is inventing words a clark thing, too? ;) my guess is that innovation in general is a clarkian quality…)
Molly, you’re right — high end and funky — and definitely not like anyone else’s! ;)
Great idea, Downspring#1! I will model my fabulous footwear with the hat!
Look forward to the pic Jasmine!
The inventing of words is more a rogerian thing, formerly and properly referred to in the Doctrine as a rogerian expression. However, the use of different words and learning new ones is definately a clark thing! We need special words and the special arrangement of words at times to express what we find difficult to verbalize.
I agree. You say innovative, I say cool, others say weird but we clarklike females know it’s all… beautiful.
Yes, Molly is right. Tastefully high end! I always managed to buy most of my coolest on the planet footwear on sale. Why? Because the rogerian retailers wanted them gone! LOL
You’ll have to call in one of these Saturday nights. A couple of weeks ago we got to talking about clarks (must have been down a scott or 2 in the dashboard lol) and in particular the whole clarklike female manner of physical expression which of course involves the shoe/boot thing. I expressed how (when shopping) I would sometimes find shoes ugly and yet beautiful at the same time. Molly actually understood what I was saying!
See how much you already know about Molly and myself simply by knowing how we view the world? Now that is cool…..
Hey Jasmine! Speaking of rogerian expressions, check out the post after this one “Video Episode 19…”. There you will see rogerian writing (in form of comments) by none other than the Progenitor roger himself.