Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
Everyone good with the basic idea of the Wakefield Doctrine?:
- it’s how a person relates themselves to the world that is important
- (it’s not about a list of likes and dislikes and quizzes and grids…that’s so 1990’s Psychology Today)
- we are all born with the potential, the capability, to experience the world in one of three ways (aka worldviews)
- Outsider: clark, predator: scott or herd member: roger
- we all settle into one worldview early on (called the predominant worldview)
- we never lose the capability of ‘the other two’ ways of relating to the world, which explains how sometimes you seem to be more than one type
- watch a person and, (from knowing the outward characteristics ), infer how a person is relating to the world and the rest takes care of itself
- look at yourself and, (from knowing the outward characteristics) infer how you are relating to the world and the rest is up to you
Here is a scene from the movie ‘Mad Dog and Glory’ (all rights reserved, respected and refrained-from-improperly-benefitting-from)
Next we will watch a scott and a roger interact. Easy to picture scotts, them being so…. so scottian …rogers, on the other hand, are more subtle. In this scene, watch how James Spader’s character defends against attack (by Jack Nicholson’s character)… not really as passive as they may seem at first, no? We all know how we can recognize scotts ‘by the eyes’, while the eyes are not a primary identifying characteristic in rogers, this scene does provide a very good example of ‘the look of a roger‘ And listen to what the Spader character is saying, it’s all about emotion… all in terms of feeling. And you all remember that the rogerian worldview is all about the emotion-thing, right?
Here is a scene from the movie ‘Wolf’ (all rights reserved, respected and refrained-from-improperly-benefitting-from)
Hey big shouted-out thanks to Stacy for the Comment that got me to thinking about how to better illustrate the types, ‘keep at it Stacy, you have the basics, let it go and the rest will fall into place‘ and to Molly, who in our weekly 20 Minute Writing Clinic (telephone conference) pointed something out about Alex (in the Calypso Club story), that lead to another point about writing which ended up reminding me about the Caruso video… and lastly, (at least for today) better go over to the girlie blog DS#1 has been busy over at ‘the Edge…writing stuff that might be considered, ‘Wakefield Doctrine for Dummies’ (provided the dummies are really imaginative, perceptive…outstanding language skills and pick up stuff real quick) ( …on second thought, better make that ‘the Wakefield Doctrine for smart-asses, giant-brains, head-in-the-clouds folks and the people who have them for friends’)
About clarkscottroger
This was truly a great idea and thank Stacy for giving it to you. Loved both clips and you truly did find the best clips. Thanks for sharing this here and just awesome!!
@Janine
yeah, thats the whole thing about (meeting) new people and interacting with those of different perspectives… just from what Stacy expressed triggered something, which lead to another thing…
I have to say, for my own damn self (a clark working in retail), I totally enjoy “staring” down the scotts. LOL
On a serious note, the moment of “confrontation” with a scott, that is to say when a scott makes his/her presence known, is crucial. Your initial reaction will set the stage for how that moment proceeds. My advice is to first: don’t take it personally, second: take a step back and decide if you will meet them as an “equal” or simply “submit”. To engage a scott on their turf is never without challenge:)
It’s difficult at times to separate/identify the scott from a “strong roger” but trust me, as you get familiar with the Doctrine the subtleties will emerge like roman candles on a hot July night. True, rogers will emote in a way that drips of self. Afterall, it is ‘all about them’ …whereas a scott is all about the moment, the actions and whether or not they be ‘higher over’ you! I see I am straying and not being clear. I stop.
Ok, Clark, NOW I understand why I’m so into literature. This is spot on. I would agree that the Roger personality type is very subtle….but does not express his emotions with a wham-bang sort of thing!! Yes, I am quite the sensitive sort. Thanks for these!!
@Michelle
yeah, I have watched the ‘Wolf’ video a number of times, but only this time did I really appreciate how the rogerian character was clearly perceiving the situation in emotional terms and that would be the only way he could express it as, well
Now this totally explains why I am so into literature-yes, I”m the emotive sort. But I don’t express these in a wham-bang sort of way! Thanks for sharing…NOW I know why I like what I like!
This was a great way to illustrate the Clarks, Scotts and Rogers! I love the first video especially, with DeNiro playing a Clark.
@Amy
He’s funny a clark yet not so geeky, but you watch the posture, the way of talking without maintaining much eye contact…very clarklike, especially in the contrast with the scott (Caruso)
Cool photo and hehe, I love the little blurb about “Wakefield doctrine for dummies” lolol…:D
@Cyndi
lol I know what you mean… but how about that James Spader as example of a rogerian personality type…smarm much dude? lol
Great idea demonstrating the different personality types in short video clips. This was fun, really enjoyed watching the second one with Jack Nicholson and James Spader. I also, like Cyndi, like the summary about the Wakefield Doctrine. For all newbies to your site, very cool!
@Melanie
Thanks Melanie! …you I got lucky (in finding these two clips) but I am encourage to get out there and find us some more! Maybe a Contest…best film clip to illustrate scottian female or maybe the very elusive rogerian female…will get to work on it! (If you can think of any or come across any film clips let me know!)