the Wakefield Doctrine

Frydae -the Wakefield Doctrine-

May 29, 2026 By clarkscottroger 3 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: Lead Stories, 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.

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

Tewesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

May 26, 2026 By clarkscottroger 6 Comments

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

Misky, in her Comment to yesterday’s post, provides us with a topic and jumping off point:

“…tidy herd again, or at least a bigger herd than their little basic one at home.”

Well… where to begin!

rogers feel.

to M.’s characterization of (a) roger’s Herd as ‘little’ basic. We smile self-consciously and say, ‘Ya know, it’s true about size not mattering.’

The Herd, the membership to which, serving as the primary psycho-social behavioral metaphor of our 3rd personality is, as is, seemingly everything in the Wakefield Doctrine, about (a) relationship.

clarks think (and rely on the notion they understand), scotts act (and in doing so express their nature and, subsequently, the value they offer the world) and rogers feel (and surely there is no more pervasive force in the universe than emotion)

damn! we getting rather intense, yo

think about this: rogers live in a world that is held together and otherwise organized by Rules in a universe that is quantifiable (and therefore, knowable) and what it is is what is.

Herds are those people, places and things that are recognized/regarded/and otherwise acknoledged by a roger as conforming (or desiring to conform) to this description.

Hey! New Readers! Seeing how you’ve probably jumped down to the music vid, seeing how we’re getting all AP Doctrine this morning, are wondering if Jimi Hendrix was a clark? Yes. Yes he was. How do we know this? Start with the creativity. Then go online and find an interview video/tape. There’s a good one with Dick Cavett and …well, watch.

Supplementary Reading: rather than fill the page with facinating insight, what say we provide a simple link to a post that elaborates on the topic of rogers?

A closing observation: when considering the world of a roger, the notion of personal reality becomes essential. What rogers do, be it read the instructions with the intent of learning the proper operation of an appliance or how to assemble a model airplane to look exactly like the one on the box, they are not facing a chore. (As a clark might glance at the first panel and then the final diagram or a scott would make a paper airplane of it). They are celebrating the concise, complete world they live in. When you hear a roger say, ‘Are you ready for the big storm?’ They are not doomsaying. They are celebrating the Herd.

And that’s where one must start. To a roger, the entire world is their Herd. However, the level of personal congruence determines the immediacy and limits of their (personal) Herd.

And, while scotts being Predators, always establish ranking in any and all social settings and situations, rogers assume their place at the center of the Herd. Which is what brings us back to the previous statement that the entire world is the Herd. On a personal basis, the Herd are all extending outwards from their perspective (like there’s any other one?). So a ‘struggle for dominance between rogers plays out more indirectly, i.e. who is paying attention to you. Who else is vying for the attention of those in the room/at work/in class?

It is a soft war. But it is war. All rogers know there is a Right Way and while they spend most of their lifes nurturing view, the rest of the time is spent helping other rogers learn it.

Maybe you should follow the link above. This is a complex subject.

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

M’day -the Wakefield Doctrine-

May 25, 2026 By clarkscottroger 6 Comments

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

Mondays are the rogerian day of the workweek. We will leave it to out Readers to understand why or ask the question.

New Readers: rogerian is the adjectival form of the noun roger, one of the three predominant worldviews of the Wakefield Doctrine. The correct prounciation is ‘roe jeer reánn‘. While we’re on the topic of adjectives, when describing the characteristics/qualities of a scott (the second of the three predominant worldviews) the word is scottian and it’s pronounced ‘scoe shun‘. clarks? clarklike. sound it out. lol

Why are rogers fond of Mondays? Wrong question. The Everything Rule¹ notwithstanding, rogers cannot be said to be fond of, or otherwise relish, Monday. As with any of the three personality types, some activities, professions, advocations, teenage crushes, dark obsessions align more with one personality type than the other two. (Example: scotts police officer, clarks hermits)

In any event. The answer to this question is found in the nature/character of the rogerian relationship with the world around them and the people who make it up.

Pop Quiz! In the Comments below describe which element(s) in the rogerian relationship with the world, aka their personality type, are enhanced by the experience of the culturally-typical Monday. Compare and Contrast. Fity words or less, if you please.

Speaking of Compare and Contrast. The second-most challenging task encountered when under-taking to use the perspective afforded by this personality theory is the task of translation. The three ‘personality types’ are not a Sunday Supplement of ‘How Well Do You Know...’ list of traits and quirks, tropisms and emotional atrocities. They, individually and severally, are distinct personal realities. As such they convey with a distinct language. Not such a radical concept. Offensive perhaps, but not radical. We say ‘offensive’ as a point of distinction for this conversation with the understanding that if you’re still reading, then it, (the word offensive), is not so provocative. Rather as a reminder of how far you’ve strayed from the reasonable and, to many, (pronounced scott / roger lol) it, more often than not, is².

The key to using the Wakefield Doctrine as a means to better appreciate how the other person is experiencing the world lies in learning the three types thoroughly enough to become fluent in the language native (to their) personal realities.

The first most difficult task? Remembering to…

Hey! Do not forget! The Wakefield Doctrine is both gender, age and culture neutral.

1) the Everything Rule: everybody does everything, at one time or another

2) Reminder to all, not simply New Readers: to have gotten this far you must have a significant secondary clarklike aspect. This means a predilection towards one of the other two predominant worldviews. For the benefit of Doctrine correspondent in the UK (vis á vis our recent discussion in the Comment section of Friday’s post), this is not to say ‘Being a new, unique combination a 4th predominant worldview’. Instead, let’s employ the analogy of ‘having an ear’ in music/music appreciation. Some of us can hear notes on a level that allows the distinction between adjacent notes. Others do not. And others still, have what is often called perfect pitch. Having a significant secondary aspect, like, say, Friend of the Doctrine, Cynthia is like being able to imitate any singer. She does not become that singer but clearly has an ear.

Speaking of ‘having an ear’ we would be remiss if we did not provided the distinction, (and, to some us, encouragement that the Doctrine is learnable by all), between a natural ear and a trained ear. Friend of the Doctrine Mimi is an example of the former while Phyllis is a good example of the latter.

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

TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine-

May 23, 2026 By clarkscottroger 13 Comments

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

This is the Wakefield Doctrine’s weakly contribution to the Ten Things of Thankful (TToT) bloghop.

Each week a number of exceptionally skilled and talented bloggers gather here and link in a list (or interpretive rhetoric or any format their individual creative impulses may demand) on the topic of gratitude. Not as simple and/or simplistic as it may sound. After all, ‘gratitude’ is one of the more elusive frames-of-mind available to any of us. And, not for nothin’, way beneficial.

The following is a list of the things that have elicited a state/awareness-of this state of gratitude for us

1) Phyllis

2) Una

3) the Wakefield Doctrine

4) the Hostinae (and Andrew): Mimi, cai, Misky, Denise, Kristi, Dyanne, Lisa, Knitcat and Andrew they provide that one quality that all successful bloghops must possess, community.

5) the Six Sentence Story bloghop

6) our late-March, early-April weather was interrupted by a couple of days of ‘oh, so this is what a late-May nice day felt like...to our parents‘. lol

7) front meadow update (yes, new addition with the sunflowers see Grat #9 below)

8) something, something

9) oh, yeah… new sunflowers (a lotta pressure on them Helianthus annuus least round in these parts) err the round, yellow things to the left of the sidewalk

10) Secret Rule 1.3 from the Book of Secret Rules aka Secret Book of Rules. specifically, the approaching completion of one’s list of Grats is, in point of fact, a legitimate item for said list.

music vids