Featured | the Wakefield Doctrine

T-Minus Apocalypse -the Wakefield Doctrine-

November 26, 2025 By clarkscottroger 6 Comments

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

So, if we can agree that ‘Imitation is the sincerest form of Flattery’, (and surely the rogers will concur, albeit begrudgingly), then by extension ‘Repetition is the highest form of Self-Respect’!

Can we get a ‘boo-yah!’?

Still haven’t decided to post the traditional Wakefield Doctrine Thanksgiving post today or tomorrow.

Wait a second.

Yeah, we’ve decided.

Tomorrow.

Since you’ve invested this much time in our Wednesday post, (and we have psyched our ownselfs into some ‘how-easy-is-this?’ reprintage), what say we go and copy/paste (surely the motto of (the) early adolescence love relationship formation phase), something interesting and/or entertaining.

But in service of the moment (again!! adolescent ‘self-restraint’ lol)

From the beginning days. Actually it says, ‘August 21, 2009’ (permit us a ‘Damn! That was a while ago.)

FAQ(s) Wakefield Doctrine

I think sometimes I am (a scott) then other times I must be (a clark). Whats up with that?

You’re a clark.

Hey, wait you can’t be that sure on the basis of one question!

Yes I can. (I’m a clark)

The question you should be asking is, ‘why does it seems that sometimes we are one form, other times others’. And the answer is that we have the potential of all three, we just get in the habit of seeing the world one characteristic way, i.e. clark, scott or roger.

Is there any scientific basis for the Wakefield Doctrine?

No. (see the ‘About’ page.)

When I read this site, it seems like there is really only one person writing. Can that possibly be true? What happened to the collaborative thing.

Nothing.

I thought this was a FAQ pages, I don’t see all that many Questions.

…I’m waiting for a question… ‘what part of ‘Frequently asked questions’ are you brainiacs missing? There would be useful information if some of you scottian adhd cases or you middle-of-the-herd rogerian mouth-breathers would conquer your fear of anything that doesn’t already have a DYNAMO brand embossed label stuck to this blog letting you know that it was within your admittedly limited range of initiative and realise that you would not be struck down by Jethro were you to actually reach out and turn on your computer and asked a question.

Will there ever be new FAQ questions?

Yes, yes there will.

I heard that you have been doing this for nearly a year, what have you learned about the Wakefield Doctrine that you did not know when you started?

Which part of your statement are you calling a question? Rather than wait for you to move your lips as your try to re-phrase the question, I will answer this way. The Wakefield Doctrine appears to have an appeal beyond my immediate circle of friends, in fact, it appears to have sufficient appeal to out-weigh my meager writing skills. By presenting the Doctrine in a blog, the virtue and value of this thing is put to the test. And it seems to be passing that test.
What a well-thought out question.

What?

Never mind, you would not get it. Other aspects that you would not get is that the Doctrine is proving itself to actually be an effective tool in aid of an effort to change life habits. (Given the unlikelihood of your comprehending this answer I will continue), and say that anyone reading this with a true desire to ‘change their life’* should read this blog and do whatever they must do to get actively involved in it. This includes, but is not limited to: writing Comments.

*Is it true that if I have to ask the question, I will perforce be unable to understand the question?

Yes.

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: psychology of personality, relationships, the Wakefield Doctrine, Understanding Human Behavior

Tu Threesady -the Wakefield Doctrine-

November 25, 2025 By clarkscottroger 3 Comments

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

What fun!

As we often do (and are ever so grateful for) we’re using Reader’s Comments to provide a theme (for a) Doctrine post.

First up, the Comments/Inspiration/Challenge (arising from) Monday’s post.

Secundus (no, not the Silent Philosopher!), the Comments in reaction/reflection/response/recidivism (lol) from three of our favorite Reader-Commentationers: in chronological order:

Denise (our edits for selfish authoritarian reasons):

Funny, this post speaks of learning to love our rogers and back then, I did embark on an active quest to “learn to love the rogers” in my life. More difficult with some than others, it behooves a clark to attempt this thing. Which is to say, observing/learning how rogers relate themselves to the world challenges us (as clarks) to step outside of ourselves and imagine a thing we’ve never felt, have not, certainly not innately, experienced. More specifically, with the Wakefield Doctrine as guide, as a clark I can understand the whys of a roger’s behavior. No easy task, but not impossible. Learning how things, events and such manifest for a roger takes a huge load off a clark. That is not to say it doesn’t necessarily excuse a roger’s behavior yet having the understanding of it goes a long way in allowing a clark to interpret more properly why a roger said or did what they did. Which then informs us how more appropriately to react, or not, to a roger.

Misky:

Well, now, this is just not on, this ‘saying, “I want that office… when are you leaving?” I see two possible avenues here: 1) invite him to sit at her desk, where she’s placed an inflated, extremely loud whopper cushion so that the entire office bursts out laughing hysterically at him … or 2) say something along the lines of “…coffee; white and 1 sugar … chop chop.”

Mimi:

I really like Misky’s second suggestion, but as noted, it might be best to try a different approach.

Thank you to the three above Students of the Wakefield Doctrine. We would say:

“Ego sum. Tu es.” (or) “Je suis. Tu es.” (or, even) “Yo soy. Tú eres.” (to avoid any accusations of chauvinistic parochialism): “O a’u O oe.”

All three are correct (or, to keep it as annoyingly subjective as possible), accurate.

The Wakefield Doctrine is a system of alternative perspectives on the world around us (and the people who make it up). Three and only three, to be precise. Three realities (albeit personal realities) but, then again, when you get right down to it, when is reality not personal? (No fair citing forests and unstable flora).

We could, with sufficient time, present the above scenario (in it’s original form as zoe was so kind as to offer for our consideration) and ‘translate’ the scene three distinct ways.

(Who in the back of the room shouted “Don’t ya mean ‘describe’ rather than ‘translate’??”) cue Jules Winfield: “Correctamundo!”

Now to hint at a discussion way, way beyond the scope of this post, we might suggest: The three comments are more about the author’s personal reality than the ostensible object of their observations.

ed. we’d considered offering a sample of three responses to each of the three comments, from the perspective of a clark, scott and roger. But, hey these guys are, in fact, on target and provide a very insightful…err …insights.

but, time-being-Tuesday, lets get all koan(ish) on this subject

The most difficult/antithetical/’no-fricken-I-could-live-in-this-world’ for each of the three:

clarks :: rogers
scotts :: clarks
rogers :: scotts

Ya know?

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: clarkscottroger, relationships, the Wakefield Doctrine, three personality types, Understanding Human Behavior

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

November 24, 2025 By clarkscottroger 3 Comments

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

well, in our defense, with this being a holiday week, what say we lead-off with a RePrint!

’cause nothin’ says ‘Unearned Vacation Time’ better than a ‘National Holiday’

New Readers: In this here personality theory here, there are three holidays in celebration of some rogerian projection of moral and/or virtuous exceptionalism in, primarily-but-not-exclusively, the culture of Oceania, We advise you to keep up with your assigned reading. The posts for the rest of the current week will make far more sense. yo.

and….and!! we gots a video of the Patron Saint of (male*) Herd Members!! At the bottom of the RePrint!!

*Yes, this is a great opportunity to remind Readers, (new and otherwise), that last qualification on the star of the video in this RePrint? One of the true fundamentals of this system:

the Wakefield Doctrine is gender, age and culture neutral.

“Enough of the theory!” the Wakefield Doctrine “…the real world, tell how it does us any good in the real world, homes”

November 20, 2013

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

Alert Reader Denise writes:

“…Doctrine! It has provided me with much insight into rogers. In a nutshell: they will always be the ones to say no. They will do nothing to disturb the boundaries, the lines that frame their world. clarks need to take notice of this. The sooner the better. I leave it in your hands, Clark, to explain to new readership the why. Maybe you need to write the answer in the form of a post.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And since we are talking about rogers**

Our Friend Zoe says to us in a Comment, she says:

“… my new roger is settling in to his new environment a bit too well… coveting my office…I loan my office out readily without reservation, but he made it very clear by saying ” I want that office… when are you leaving?” and has left telltale signs of his usage… I may have a rogerian twist and be a clark at heart… but never piss off my scott.“

Sorry. The ‘damage’ is done.

Not to ‘baby-coat’¹ our assessment, but you are witnessing a roger challenging your membership in the herd. How is that possible, you ask? The frickin guy got there 20 minutes ago and he thinks that he can include himself in the group? ( you say with not a little emotion). What gives him the right to try that? If you are in possession of any of these thoughts, I hate to tell ya, but you have just painted yourself a lovely shade of blue². It is totally ‘too late’.

Not ‘too late’ to make things right, restore the proper balance, achieve an understanding among the players in this little drama…. just ‘too late’ to avoid a ‘conflict’ with the roger in your environment.

If he had perceived you as another roger or a scott he would have:

presented his credentials, not to meet your approval but to allow him to ‘tune himself to the herd’ (you know how the sound of cattle and herds of cows are often presented as a single ‘MOO’ ? well, I think our Progenitor roger will attest to the fact that what is heard as a single MOO is, in fact, comprised as a harmony among the members… your roger probably started with presenting some of his history to everyone he came into contact with…to hear the pitch of his new herd)

presented his ‘soft-underbelly’ if he thought you were a scott (at least, a predominant scottian female)… but this observation is moot, because in that particular tango, the woman leads… (at least initially and to the extent that the average person is able to see

So… now you have yourself a roger feeling like he can enhance his standing in the herd by making you appear more and more the Outsider. Remember, a dominance move by a roger, in contrast to that of a scott is never made ‘alone’. While he may appear to be addressing the matter of use of the office space to you directly, most of his efforts are actually directed to the others in your environment. rogers always work in the context of the group, the herd. It is this ‘contexting’ that rogers will base their strategy on, that and, be on the lookout for (him) invoking referential authority. ( Hey, I know you love your space..I respect that, but we were talking about how, with the practice growing we all need to work together more…”)

All kidding aside. you now have a problem that, interestingly enough, can be seen as a manifestation of the trap that would appear to an inherent aspect of the desire for self-improving oneself. You rightly know that you can ‘over-come’ this person’s attempt to reduce the quality of your personal work environment. But at what price? The Doctrine states that we all retain access to those two worldviews that are not our predominant worldview. In your case, (we hear you say), ‘ a clark with secondary rogerian and tertiary scottian aspects’. but…. but! here is where the conflict begins to manifest. (If) you are a clark, then your personal reality is that of the Outsider…which makes perfect sense given your situation. You can access your scottian aspect and inter-act with this roger as would a scott, and as we have already said, if this were a scott-on-roger thing, none of the the above would be happening. So, you can dominate the roger rather decidedly. But then what? Will you trade your predominant (clarklike) worldview for a victory in a single circumstance? Or… is there a way to reach an understanding with this person? unfortunately, the Wakefield Doctrine says ‘no’.

Well, sorta. We’re playing with the words now. clarks think, scotts act and rogers feel. So, if you want to reach an understanding, you are out of luck. That is not to say that there is nothing you can do, but it should not be thought of as an understanding.

Lets return to a strategy we have previously offered: ‘love your roger‘ This is still the preferred strategy, but it will require a bit more….finessing. Yes, you should ‘love your roger‘, but that does not mean (as is all too often the case with clarks), you must allow him to do as he wishes. But, to love your roger requires that you relate to him on an emotional basis… more than that! you must regard him on an emotional basis. We’re using italics here to convey the idea that, if you are able to know him completely on an emotional basis you will be relating to him as a member of the herd. That’s right! trade that lovely azure coat for a comforting wrap of brown and white spots!

(will continue later today…. )

Wait a minute!! If you haven’t seen it yet, watch the scott and roger…. everything is right there. (the roger looking to left and right for the herd that is his context, his invoking referential authority, his offering of emotional currency…his love).

1) a rogerian expression of sorts… a fascinating characteristic use of language found only in rogers…here, go to the page on rogers down towards the bottom

2) a reference to the description of a clark in the context of a group, or perhaps it would be more realistic to say, ‘a clark in contrast to a group’ in any event, the term ‘blue monkey’ is a remnant of grad school days when we learned of (or came to believe that we learned of) an experiment in which one young monkey was painted (more likely dyed) blue and returned to his troop, you can imagine the result. In the Wakefield Doctrine we use the blue monkey image several ways, as a symbol of the innate outsider-ness that clarks exhibit when in a social setting, and it is also used to refer to (a) clarks self-sabotaging by make an extra effort to ‘contrast their differences.

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: clarkscottroger, self-development, the Wakefield Doctrine

TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine-

November 21, 2025 By clarkscottroger 14 Comments

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

This is the Doctrine’s weekly contribution to the Ten Things of Thankful (TToT) bloghop. Conceived of and manifested in the blogosphere by our Founderini, Lizzi R, it is a fun exercise in the awareness of and the encourgagement of the ever elusive (for some of us) state of gratitude.

The photo at the top of this post? Early morning’s night-time frost.

Our list this week:

1) Phyllis

2) Una

3) the Wakefield Doctrine

4) Approaching one of the Big Three Holidays… the Feast of Saint Roger (see Grat 9)

5) the Six Sentence Story bloghop

6) Hypo-grat (at least the dog finds the temperature pleasing) And …and!! Zoom in there, behind the Husky…ice on the pond!!

7) something, something

8) only thirty more days until Summer!

9) Phyllis is a roger with a significant secondary clarklike aspect. She enjoyed our impulse gift of a pre-Christmas/T-Giving tee shirt

10) Secret Rule 1.3

music vids

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: predicting human behavior, the Wakefield Doctrine, three personality types, Understanding Human Behavior

Welding Day -the Wakefield Doctrine-

November 19, 2025 By clarkscottroger 7 Comments

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

Tomorrow being the start of the fictional posts part of the Doctrine week.* It would seem incumbent on us to tie together the loose ends in the previous posts (Monday, Tuesday).

The Wakefield Doctrine maintains that it is the character/nature of the individual’s relationship with reality (personal and common) that is one’s ‘personality type’. And, of course, the primary motivation for discovering and labelling types is to allow a deeper understanding. And claiming insight into whatever it is one is desginating as a type to the extent that the future behavior, development and actions are knowable by the one with the ~~author.~~.. manufacturer.

In any event, the three predominant worldviews:

clarks (the Outsider) “Labels?!! Then we’ll know about the person ahead of time and can safely approach the safe ones??! Where do we send our money!!!”
scotts (the Predator) “Seriously? Love it! Like a ‘USDA Prime’ stamp or ‘Facsimile Only Not for Consumption’…walking Menus! Stamp ’em all and open the corral chute!! Dinner on the run, yum, yum.”
rogers (the Herd Member) “Why how degrading. Labels and profiles. I thought you were more sophisticated and creative than that. No, what’s wrong with you? The P in Prime, that calls for a capital P. Really, is this anyway to run a personality system.”

So the workplace!

Short, sweet(ish) and useful (if you’ve kept up with your Reading):

Managers: rogers

Foremen/Supervisors: scotts

Laborers: clarks

How do you know this? Easy:

A rogerian manager will insist on having an office but will spend most of their time not it in. When a rogerian manager uses their office it is always with a degree of ceremony, i.e. the Closing of the Office Door. (With or without another person in the office. The rogerian manager will always make it obvious to the non-invited staff. This Is Special.)

A scottian foreman/woman? Who would’ve thought a person would chose to sit on your desk? Hey, when the scott wants to pay attention to you, everyone will notice. (Be grateful they only lean or sit on your work area, in nature, Marking Territory is not always so hygenic.)

The clark works alone, even (especially) as a team member. They, (the clarks), unfortunately, never quite understand the proper ratio between actual effort and being a part of the team. This is further exacerbated by their low threshold for boredom. Which leads to egregious misestimation of work completed and work remaining. They (the clarks) are always surprised when called on the carpet to explain their deficiencies.

Ask in the Comments below.

* lol, we know, right?