Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
Now that we’re all safely in Tuesday (the mildest day of the workweek) what say we check in our friends/Commentationers/-ettes
from Mimi:
In my reality, it’s good to be an outsider, but to see things through the lens of a predator or a herd member when needed.
then Misky:
I will say this: The Doctrine has given me a wee bit more patience for other perceptions that might’ve (well, actually, that really thoroughly) bugged the heck out me previously.
finally (the later episodes opening song lyrics ‘the Professor and Maryanne are here on….) Frank:
It sounds like we have better (I mean, worse) things to repent of than being either a clark, a scott or a roger.
How true (and perceptive)!
(In reverse order)
- the three ‘personality types’ of the Wakefield Doctrine, more properly referred to as one’s predominant worldview, is both label and description of the first/primary relationship we, all of us, establish with the world. It is this context that we maintain and build a set of coping (and thriving) mechanisms/social strategies that persist throughout our lifes.
- as an alternate perspective on the world around us, (and the people who make it up), the Doctrine offers a view from aside
- to see the world not only as it exists for us, but to understand (or, at very least, gain an appreciation of) the world and everyday life as those around us are experiencing it is the most worthy of ambitions
cool
hows about we close with a RePrint/ReMinder of the ‘Eureka Moment’ of this here personality ‘theory’ here?
In the early 1980’s, Scott (the progenitor scott) worked at a music store in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. He was the only full-time salesman and (also) ran the store’s repair department. In addition to musical instruments, the store provided repair services for a wide range of electronic equipment, including tape recorders and other audio equipment.
One day I happened to stop by the store to visit. While there, a young man walked into the store, went directly to the ‘repair department’ where Scott and I were talking and without preamble placed a ‘dual cassette recorder’ on the counter. A dual cassette recorder was designed to allow one cassette to be copied directly to another, what today we would call, making a back up. The controls on this ‘dubbing recorder’ consisted of two sets of tape recorder controls: Volume, Treble and Bass. Where it differed from a single recorder was that it also had a Master Volume control. As the name implies it controlled the volume level, for both recording and playback. The tape recorder the customer placed on the counter appeared to be new and showed no signs of damage or abuse. I stepped back, Scott looked up and said, ‘What can we do for you’? The customer said, “This thing is brand new, it worked for a couple of days, then it stopped working entirely. I can’t figure out what’s wrong”.
Scott looked at the device for a second, then, without a word, reached under the counter, brought out a roll of black electrical tape, and, tearing off a 2 inch piece, taped over the Master Volume control (after returning the dial to it’s highest setting). He then slid the device back over the counter and said, “There, it’s all right now.”
The customer asked to plug in the recorder. Taking a cassette from his pocket he put in the machine and ran it through it’s paces. Satisfied that his ‘broken tape recorder’ now worked like new, he thanked Scott and walked out of the store, a totally satisfied customer.
My reality shifted. For reasons unclear to this day, although I observed what scott saw as to the nature of the problem with the dual cassette recorder, I realized that the character of his solution implied a reality, a ‘context’ that was clearly different from mine. At that moment I came to believe the personal reality that I experience as I went about my life was not necessarily the exact reality of anyone else. That the manner in which Scott perceived the ‘problem’ was fundamentally different from the way I witnessed it.
From that moment, standing in a small music store in Pawtucket, I’ve been observing the behavior of others knowing with the conviction that what I could see was not necessarily what they are experiencing. That, in fact, all reality is personal to a small, but significant degree, personal.
This blog is all about: ‘Can I find a way to better see the world as the other person is experiencing it?. And, (through this effort), ‘Can I improve and enhance how I relate myself to the world around me and the people who make it up?‘
Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (already in progress…feel free to wander around)
(above excerpt from 2009)



Since I wouldn’t want to mar the new equipment with a piece of tape, I would have shown the customer how to turn the dial. So, I’m not a scott. A roger might go into greater detail about how dials work than I would. I guess I’m a clark.
ok.. your Comment serves the New Reader with a good illustration of the process of determining one’s predominant worldview:
throw out the ‘no fricken way!’ personality type
now its a matter of comparing, ‘side-by-each’* the remaining two.
hey! wait! what am I doing?!?!
nothing less than squandering a most excellent theme/topic for tomorrow’s post! thanks, Frank
*a great localism from a french/american neighborhood here
The tape worked in more ways than one, then.
yes ma’am
though I was spared the blindness (and the falling down on the ground part) lol you know like in the song, “…I was blind but now I’m three”
(shhh don’t tell anyone)
Learning to embrace the nuance of reality being both a distinct thing and a thing relative to one’s personal experience isn’t for the weak. It’s a mind bending exercise at times.
…and way more fun than it should be.
ok, we appreciate your stopping by, but this is where we provide a certain warning regarding this (fun and productive) alternative perspective:
“If you learn (the characteristics) of the three predominant worldviews, (‘personality types’), of the Wakefield Doctrine sufficiently to be able to identify and see them in your own day-to-day world, there’s a good chance you won’t be able to not see them.”
Protip: scotts are the easiest to spot… it’s in their eyes, as Predators, they are never not paying attention
Bonus Protip! we have a fun little ‘test’ for personality types that goes like this:
ask a scott ‘Hey how much does 2 + 2 equal?’ (they’ll narrow their eyes slightly and, if you’re lucky and/or their friend, they’ll laugh)
ask a roger ‘Do you know how much 2 + 2 equals?’ (they’ll pause and look around and finally answer ‘Four’ (with or without a sneer of condescension)
ask a clark ‘What’s 2 + 2 equal?’ (with little or no hesitation, they’ll ask, “In what context?”) (being a clark that one cracks me up every time)
I’m a bit behind; busy writing Sixes, but I wanted to offer a random thought of mine.
I was just thinking … I can sit for hours and watch (study?) things or people. At the moment, I’m watching rain clouds separating and moving in different directions, noticing blue sky reveal itself like a woman’s slip under a dress. I’ve always been like this: my mum would say “Stop staring, Marilyn,” but I wasn’t staring — I watching. Maybe a pigeon on the fence rocking from one foot to the other, balancing on a wooden slat no wider than a pencil is thick; maybe noticing the way their head and legs move together; stuff like that. Is that Predator? Only in the sense that I’ve always been very aware of my surroundings. But it also seems to me that it’s very scottian to take the most direct and shortest route between two points, which might explain the electrical tape.
yes…and the Everything Rule
lol
you are hitting on an aspect of the scottian worldview which I can go on for hours exploring, but first the Everything Rule
the reason being that for a New Reader, the temptation to leap to ‘scotts are the alert ones’ only shuts off a very enjoyable discussion of the question: with the Everything Rule in mind, how does ‘alertness’ ‘awareness of one’s environment’ manifest in clarks and rogers? and the reason this can be enjoyable is that we end up trying to see through the eyes of, in this case, clarks and rogers. they are, of course, aware of their surroundings but the key lies in character of the relationship of the individual.
so, scotts are simple… we have a behavioral metaphor Predator and how do they relate themselves to the world around them… and this brings in a point I made in my reply to Frank, the the phrase ‘relate ourselves’ is far more that the simple ‘relate to (the world, whatever)…
and no, it’s never a simple predator prey relationship… and this is where your Comment is insightful: by taking the most direct view assessment what benefits (and liabilities) are there for a scott (in the ‘real’ world)
and that’s the key a scott (tends) to be direct and economical in action (and this includes problem-solving) which among a whole bunch of other things, makes them appealing to another person “they sure know their stuff’ and on a different level ‘I can trust her, direct and to the point, nothing cluttering up the answer.
damn this is. of course, post-theme level commentation you’ve given us… so thank you and don’t be surprised if we revisit next Friday or Monday
as you, I gotta get my Six tuned up (the first will be our time travelers storyline… then maybe back to school!)
…which leads me to a person that explains a problem to the electrician in 200 words when 12 would do the same.
gonna have to borrow the implied question for Monday’s post
with your permission, of course
👍🏻