Featured | the Wakefield Doctrine

Túsáde -the Wakefield Doctrine-

June 2, 2026 By clarkscottroger 7 Comments

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

Lots of Commentationing (on yesterday’s and other Posts)

Who indeed!

Above is a photo of Friend of the Doctrine, Cynthia. If you have done your reading you should be able to correctly guess her predominant worldview. AP Readers? Goal? Learn the Doctrine sufficiently to allow you to identify (on the basis of this single photo) her secondary aspect as well.

ok, in no discernible order* lets throw some comments on the blackboard and see what comes of it

Mr. Hubeny! Please stand and repeat your statement for the benefit of anyone who did not see the Post

I think I’m going to change my life and become a clark. If I’m already a clark, this should be easy. If not, well, there are always miracles.

Mimi, if you’d help the class grasp the concept

Not for nothing you wear gloves and be careful when working outdoors, the critters do pop up sudden like.

Misky, would you care to share the contents of that note with the rest of us?

My mother-in-law was scottian (she probably still is — up there in heaven somewhere) and I remember as clearly as a sunny day thinking “I’m going to wear red because it makes me happy, and everyone will think, “Oh, look at her; she’s happy.” And I knew she’d comment, which she did. She was most certainly scottian but there was a good dose of rogerian in her gene pool also.

It’s not that we didn’t get along — we did, exceptionally well at a distance.

Ms. Pie

always enjoyable… always laughter… learn some new insightful aspect of the threes that I can take to the grocery store with me while I’m shopping… processing processing processing

Well that certainly provides us with discussionable** topics for today!

Tell you what read and discuss (kinda open book) and we will return after lunch.

you guys know this stuff

and thanks to our four correspondants for helping form an instructive Wakefield Doctrine post

* at least not for two of the three predominant worldviews

** well, while not a ‘real’ word, this might provided us with a quick refresher on grammar and pronunciation and such***

*** what?? a bullet point list?

clark: one of the three predominant worldviews aka ‘the Outsider’ adj: clarklike (ex. “…is anyone gonna inform our clarklike narrator that correction is not criticism…at least not in the sense understood by Outsiders and Predators?”)
scott: the Predator and one of the first of the two ‘say what now?’ pronounciation of the adj and adv form: scott: ss cot; scottian: scoe-shun
rogers: the Herd Members and cultural wardens; rogerian is an adjective (scenario: long class wrapping up, even the professor is clearly ready to call it a day, yet says, “If there are no other questions, read chapters….” and, of course, someone raises their hand. visualize thought-balloon: “Oh man, that is so rogerian” (pronounced: roe-jeer-ree-an)

somebody just say, “More ‘Top!!”

more Top indeed.

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

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

June 1, 2026 By clarkscottroger 7 Comments

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

Hey being the First Day of Summer School here at the Doctrine, what say we start with a Q&A?

Here, from the early, no, really, early days of this blog* our FAQ page

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 seem 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.

oh…kay! This is probably where we should do a Person of Interest** timeline slider thing from 2009 to 2026. But let’s just get us… well, first off, what’ with the ‘tude? ;p

As both Reelika Pedak and Frank Hubeny alluded to in this week’s TToT conversations, the first/earliest posts one writes can be the most difficult. Given that the tone of the FAQ was a bit aggressive if not a touch strident, let’s chalk it up to Opening Night(ish) jitters and let it go at that.

No, not necessary to Update/Refresh or otherwise edit this Page. The Wakefield Doctrine is, as are many things of the mind, kinda alive. We can say without fear of contradiction that the early years were conflict free for us. In point of fact, despite being a clark, the mantra of ‘if that last post sucked, then write another and bury it’. See? No problem.’ One of the undeniable examples of the efficacy of this here personality system here lies with its effect on us. Hard to convey, but compared to the clark we were before committing to this medium, theys surely something going on.

Rambling now.

There is much to the early days of this blog that still strikes us as remarkable. Not so much the content, rather the attitude we had towards going public and, through each post (now in the mid-3k in numbers) reaching out to the virtual world to say:

“Hey! Wanna hear about a really cool and useful perspective on the world around us and the people who make it up?”

* hokey smoke! this was written July 21, 20….09!! as in, ‘Well, it’s been a month, where’s the Nobel Committee?!?”

** most excellent of ‘TV series’

hey, chance to head off a mind worm of a song from that Little ‘Ol Band From Texas

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

TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine-

May 30, 2026 By clarkscottroger 12 Comments

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

This is the Wakefield Doctrine’s contribution to the Ten Things of Thankful (TToT) bloghop. Created by Lizzi R in 1894, the St. Bride Library being established in London just three years prior being most advantageous for our founderess as they waited on the internet to be created.

The theme is gratitude, the narrative is lists, freeform poetry, haiku* or discursive finger-painting. We have only a single requirement for participation and that is to have good intent. Pretty simple, isn’t it? Citing the people, places, things and events that inspire the state of gratitude is the point. It’s been found that reading a TToT post has nearly the same effect of writing one. So come on down!

Following is our TToT:

1) Phyllis

2) Una

3) the Wakefield Doctrine

4) the Six Sentence Story bloghop

5) Front Meadow update

6) Wanna hear/read a really weird Grat? We all know that clarks are rather facile when it comes to imagination and spontaneous imagery. Sometimes this gift comes at a cost, albeit temporarily.

Here’s the set-up: we were working on the current landscaping project, i.e. clearing a very old brush pile. Check out the photos in Grat # 8 & 9. Our tools are a landscape rake, a snow shovel and a wheel barrow. Rake out the decaying wood, use the shovel to put it in the wheel barrow and dispose of it elsewhere on the property.

We pulled away an old log that apparently was being used as a burrow. A small animal immediately ran from the hole. It was grey with a pointy nose, whiskers …fine. As it ran away we couldn’t help but see what appeared to be a fan tail of feathers trailing from its hindquarters (think: peacock with tail down on the ground). Being a clark our imagination pulled up an image from the movie, ‘Annihilation’ Something like:

Can we get an aiiyee. Immediately, one of the mouse-ettes that were clinging to the mother most fell off and the world reorganized itself along more conventional lines. The mousette caught up, re-connected and the mouse family disappeared into the underbrush.

We decided to call it a day. The hair on the back of our neck and forearms needed a rest, don’cha know.

7) something, something

8) Current Landscape project. Before

9) Current Landscape project. Today

10) Secret Rule 1.3 from the Book of Secret Rules (aka the Secret Book of Rules

*haiku the original “You think you can write poetry? Of course you do.”

music vids

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

Frydae -the Wakefield Doctrine-

May 29, 2026 By clarkscottroger 8 Comments

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

Well, that was fun! …the Doctrine posts about the Herd Member, aka rogers.

So, here’s the thing:

Of the three predominant worldviews none are bad or better, good or grating, superior or substandard.

Regular Readers will take the next, painfully obvious statement with a grain fault.*

The three comprise an ideal.

proof?

What the hell are you talking about?!? Proof?? fuck you. All yer doin’ is demonstrating a lack of secondary clarklike aspect, which as everyone knows, is the ‘what not?’ gene found in clarks (and suppressed in scotts and rogers)… leave now. Not because you’re scoring points or holding up an alternative persopective in an unflattering light. …you’re wasting the time of everyone who is here because:

this is a harmless but oddly challenging view of the world
the notion of an alternative perspective is nothing if not a good thing
it’s fun to play with ideas, the more unlikely, the better
this theory of clarks, scotts and rogers has an element of insight among all the incidental congruencies and taking them in the spirit they’re offered can provide a better sense of how the other person is experiencing the world. which is, for some of us, fricken’ always a good thing

where were we?

oh yeah the clark (Outsider), scott (Predator) roger (Herd Member) which totally rules!!? lol

what we wrote in the early days (here’s the link to that page)

that plus! if we didn’t have rogers you would not want to have to fly from Newark to Biloxi in a plane designed and built by a scott!

jet airliners designed by scotts: very fast with at least 5 or 6 engines (not necessarily required to get off the ground, but make them louder than frickin anything)

a part of the cabin has a basketball net/hockey/or batters box

the stewards would have to wear bathing suits… male or female and they would carry those little air horn things (can of compressed air) to warn the unruly passengers or just in case they get bored

the flight deck would have windows that open, so the pilot could yell at passing jets

0r a clark:

instead of normal seats, there would be couches with pillows and quilts (that would have a disturbing tendency to slide around when the plane has to bank for final approach)
the stewardesses would be scotts and stewards would be rogers
there would be a bathroom-to-passenger ratio of nothing less than 1:2

*damn! we just caught a rogerian expression in the wild! For a more comprehensive list of these totally delightful aspects of the rogerian personal reality, go here and scroll down to the next-to-last block-quote for a fun list.

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: clarkscottroger, humor, Personal, personality types, the Wakefield Doctrine

Wednesay -the Wakefield Doctrine-

May 27, 2026 By clarkscottroger 5 Comments

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

Given the level of Reader participation/feedback to yesterday’s post on the rogerian worldview, (thanks out to Mimi and Misky and our newest transfer student, Frank), lets go with one more anecdote from our early understanding of Herd Members.

The discovery of ‘referential authority’

Note: Warning! Anecdotal Scientific Principles Established by Observation. Chi-Square This. Everything Rule Compliant.

‘referential authority’ is the rogerian characteristic to cite a third party as the source of both moral imperative and Necessity of Compliance. Classic example: you’re at HR for orientation for new employment. In the course of the interview the HR person holds up something with a lot of pages and states, “As to procedures, protocol or SOP, it’s all in here. Everyone calls this ‘the bible’.

Point in fact: nobody calls it ‘the bible’. Not even the HR person, except when indoctrinating new employees.

The act of referring to it by a formal and distinctive name with the implicit threat that said ‘bible’ contains remedies, corrections and/or punishment for those who ignore the rules? That is referential authority. It is peculiarly rogerian as an element of the Herd Member’s personal (collective) reality. It is part of the inner landscape.

Much of the Wakefield Doctrine describes each of the three predominant worldviews in such detail that one cannot help but realize that it, (the Doctrine), is true, accurate and totally unassailable in it’s veracity, vis á vis the inner life of the three personality types.

clarks (the Outsider): poor posture, given to mumbling and self-effacement that goes from ‘charming’ to ”jeez-cut-yourself-some-slack” in the blink of an eye
scotts (the Predator) quick to act, slow to ponder and totally confident, which makes them good leaders (scotts are often wrong but rarely unsure)
rogers (the Herd Member) they know the world, (of people in groups), are confident, (provided no one challenges them), and charming (unless they become uncomfortable or otherwise feel ignored)

So! To our story of the the discovery of ‘referential authority’

At a certain point in the early years we got it into our heads to write little pretend-real life scenaria and include a multiple choice section. Basically ‘If you were in this situation, what would you do?’ Of course we wrote three answers that reflected the view of the three predominant worldviews.

The story has a protagonist (Emily) applying for a job in a diner. She goes for her interview which, somehow, is scheduled at 12:30 pm, just at the end of the mid-day rush. Fine. The owner/cook is a clark. The sole waitress is a roger. Emily…well, try and guess.

Our Protagonette is sitting at the one empty table watching the controlled chaos. One of the three answers to the question ‘What should Emily do?’ was: get up and start clearing tables to take the pressure off the waitress.

Welll, the response from the rogerian Readers (and rogers in the ‘real’ world) was unanimous in it’s outrage. ‘You can’t do that’, ‘That’s a terrible thing, she doesn’t work there’ etc etc.

Being the curator of this here Doctrine involves luck as much as skill, but there was no way to ignore the emotional ferocity of only rogers.

,,, and then we saw it: there is an implicit prohibition in the personal reality of rogers that says ‘Members Only’ and, referring back to ‘the bible’ cited above, everyone is expected to follow the rules of behavior whether they know them or not. And therein is the power of referential authority.

We are grateful for the chance insight into the unanimity of the response from rogers.

Note: in discussion with rogers after this episode, they have confirmed the existence of referential authority. With extensive qualifications, elaborations and modifications, of course.