clarkscottroger | the Wakefield Doctrine clarkscottroger | the Wakefield Doctrine

Thursday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

November 27, 2025 By 1 Comment

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

So, guess this gives proof to the notion that we, all of us, have within, all elements of the three predominant worldviews that make up, (as opposed to ‘make up for’), the personality theory continued/exhibited/manifested and otherwise made available in these pages.

New Reader? Tempting as it might be to try to take the position that given how irrefutable it may seem that at one time, (or another), you clearly exhibit the primary characteristics of one (and then the other (and finally, well, would you look at that! the other)) personality types.

It doesn’t work that way. One predominant worldview to a customer. For life.

Why? Well, look at it this way: the fundamental tenant (or is that, tenent?) is that personality type is a reflection, indication and evidence of the relationship a person maintains with the world around them (and the people who make it up). It is our experience of reality (Hint: that of an Outsider, a Predator or a Herd Member) that shapes the self those around us witness.)

It only makes sense. The primary job of the infant human is to develop successful strategies for survival and thrival* Find yourself in the reality of the Outsider and you’ll learn to learn (on the down-low) and to keep a low profile; look around at the (metaphorical) savannah of Life that seems to be nothing less than an Open-Air McDonalds, (mostly burger ‘n fries-seeking-lifeforms but…cruising the vast Parking Lot (of Life) not a few bigger (and hungrier) Predator types… you get the pitcha. Anyway… the Doctrine only works with this three-way symmetry. So why would one want to argue against the premise? oh yeah, there are always Herd Members in the crowd.

Enough of this!

RePrint! RePrint!!! Reprint!!?

Full Disclosure: had to read a bunch of Doctrine posts to find the Original T-Giving Post. Ever one liked it so much, the electrons had barely faded-out when I was all RePrinty. In any event, here ya go from (don’t do the math!) 201o

J’accuse!* that turkey did not commit suicide!…the Wakefield Doctrine Holiday-style

November 23, 2011

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) on this eve of Saint rogers’s Day!

Thanksgiving Day1 is the holiday that, if we did not already know that there exists a personality type referred to as a roger, someone would have pointed it out to us. Perhaps the task would have fallen to an Art Professor in a land grant college somewhere in the Midwest. We can imagine the epiphany …in the middle of the night (during his sabbatical devoted to the study of the works of Norman Rockwell),
” My god!  Norman’s work is not just a robust and healthy celebration of paedophilia! He has been trying to tell us to transform our culture!  …for all good Americans to come forth and show their appreciation of patriotism, consumerism and child-abuse!!”

We have, from time to time, been accused of indiscriminate use of hyperbole in these pages, however, just consider the astounding level of pervasiveness of the  ‘Holiday of Thanksgiving’.  It is not enough to close the Post Office system and all other government agencies2, no it is not. This Holiday actually attempts to compel normal, rational, adult people to sit in front of the television and watch a Parade involving giant balloon representations of out-of-print newspaper cartoon characters! Who the hell watches the Macy’s Day Parade on purpose?!?  Throughout the entire morning of Thanksgiving, you simply cannot escape the pageantry and spectacle,  broadcast live and has, as the ’emcees’,  News Anchors from the major networks morning news shows!  ( “Thats right, Matt! That’s  Kenny Chesney and Taylor Swift on the Snoop Dog float… it says here that her eye makeup took 12 hours and 6 pounds of aluminum foil chips to create!!” ). Like a  Hieronymus Bosch painting done in ‘live-action’, the whole country is exposed to hours and hours of Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade… more than 3 hours of parade music and floats  (” … hey, Anne isn’t the next float from your hometown”?   “That’s right Al! it’s my old Alma mater, the East Clydesdale High School Marching Band playing a medley, ‘Straight outta Compton’, ‘Fuck tha Police’ and ‘Gangsta Gangsta’ )

Why do we say Thanksgiving is the most rogerian of all holidays?  Simply because Thanksgiving is about the how, not the why. As a cultural event, this particular holiday tells it’s participants exactly what to do; what to eat and how to cook it!  Taught from childhood, every member of our culture knows precisely how (and) where they are expected to spend the Holiday! Thanksgiving is about family! And if there is anything that rogers fake better than anyone, it is the joyful appreciation and celebration of the family.

But don’t just take our word for it! Following is an excerpt from a Post of the Wakefield Doctrine that was written over a year ago! (and nothing says credibility better than…age)

We all know that “the holidays” are experienced differently by each of the three (clarks, scotts and rogers) and therefore the demands of the celebrations are a very effective illustration of the nature of each. But if there was no Thanksgiving, a roger would have invented it! (Actually, they probably did). Think about it! A holiday celebration that is:

  • based on a factual historical event (sort of)
  • the protagonists (of the story) are religious refugees, persecuted and driven away, together, on boats
  • food, specific food and a not-to-be-deviated-from Menu
  • ritual menu and a full schedule of events
  • shopping in herds, as the climax of the celebration (Black Friday)
  • a moral taught to the young: we came here, those strangers who helped us were different, (…we had a feast and wiped out their culture)

I will be so bold as to suggest that there is no more rogerian a holiday than Thanksgiving!  And since we are on the subject of rogers and holidays, (sort of),  is there any human activity that is more one sided, over-hyped, ‘expectations-sure-to-fall short’, (not counting sex on the eve of a relationship breaking up), than Parades? I don’t care if you’re a trombone player in the middle of the herd or someone sitting in their living room watching it on TV, nothing says roger better than Parades!

 

 

* As a result of the popularity of (Zola’s) letter, even in the English-speaking world, J’accuse! has become a common generic expression of outrage and accusation against someone powerful

1)  the Day that the indigenous people of the North American continent made a gift of their lands and cultures and cuisine to their new European friends.

2)  you do know about the Post Office and rogers, don’t you?

 

 

* not a ‘real’ word

Share
Filed Under: Lead Stories, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , , ,

Tu Threesady -the Wakefield Doctrine-

November 25, 2025 By 3 Comments

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

Secundus the Silent

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:

  1. clarks :: rogers
  2. scotts :: clarks
  3. rogers :: scotts

Ya know?

 

 

 

 

Share
Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , , ,

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

November 24, 2025 By 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)Hunter-Trader-Trapper 1937-06

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.

 

*

 

Share
Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , ,

Welding Day -the Wakefield Doctrine-

November 19, 2025 By 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?

 

Share
Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , , ,

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

November 17, 2025 By 4 Comments

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

AP-level post today.

New Readers? Here go and read this post, then this one and finally this one. Be prepared for a Quiz tomorrow.

Damn! Throw out the Lesson Planner. Found a Post that sets up our discussion too damn good.

Today’s post: Workplace Conflict. (What is it good for…absolutely nothin’   say it again. hunh, good god.)

 

Warning. Very involved, quite rich content, this ‘Workplace Conflict’ scenario. May very well run to two, even three posts.

We do not insist that all workplace(s) are a battlefield. That in this environment, (not battlefield), there is a social dynamic quite separate and distinct from the activity, function or rational for a place where any number of people are engaged, (and paid to so engage), in a common purpose. Making widgets, shaping public policy, educating the young, administering to the old, judging behavior and satisfying the most crude impulses of Man. They can all be viewed as constituting a workplace. We are, of course, exempting the self-employed; independent contractors, entertainers, autocrats and most organized religious enterprises. (No, wait. We’re not exempting religious enterprises). ;p

We’re simply talking about where it is you are compelled/seduced into/converted and otherwise coerced to spending time with other people in a common, (if not shared), purpose.

(Damn! Just remembered; clarks don’t take suggestions all that well. The admonition at the top of this post, about going elsewhere to read a different post? Total catnip. ok, we can accept the inevitable. New Readers!! There is something call ‘the Everything Rule’ which states that, in the study, use and application of the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine, ‘Everyone does everything, at one time or another‘. Also, no, you can’t change your predominant worldview at will and this exercise in understanding the world around us and the people who make it up requires an innate drive (and enjoyment of) the use and misuse of one’s imagination. The Doctrine is a perspective. It is not the Answer. But it is a fun Question.)

OK here’s a RePrint post that sets us up perfectly(ish)

Read, take notes and come back tomorrow with questions. We’ll endeavor to comment on the old post with any helpful updates/definitions and modern applications to the Doctrine lexicon evident in that (older) post.

“Did you have to treat me oh so bad, all I do is hang my head and moan…tell me why” the Wakefield Doctrine and the workplace

February 9, 2012

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

So I was talking to a clark the other day, and the topic of rogers in the workplace came up. ( Regular Readers can jump down to the music video, as you know what is coming next. But when you are are through listening to the Beatles? be sure to come back here and leave a Comment ).  In any event, the situation we discussed was a fairly common one, i.e. the problems encountered when there is a rogerian manager in an office with clarks doing the support/administrative/clerical work. Nothing unusual there, rogers are people persons and clarks love to administrate1 The trouble was, (in the situation we were discussing) was that the rogerian manager was being replaced by another rogerian manager. ( Did I mention that there were a lot of rogers in the workplace in question, other than these managers?  there were…) The clark I was talking to was excited and optimistic about the new manager coming into the office, mostly because (the clark) was being constantly harassed by the rogers that worked in the office.

Doctrine Note: In the workplace, rogers are most likely to be found as mid-level managers, they are the people who are there everyday to ensure the smooth-functioning of the organization whatever it might be. They, (the rogers), take their orders from someone else, usually a person not located in the immediate environment. rogers are found in these types of positions because they are the most socially adept of the three ( clarks, scotts and rogers ) and (they) have an innate gift of communication. rogers are naturals to an organized workplace, the more bureaucratic the better…they thrive in a setting in which there are rules and procedures and processes. And, if you did your research, you would find that the person who invented ‘the Memo’ was totally a roger!  I will even go so far as to say that an organized workplace, of virtually any size greater than three people, simply has to have a roger to run the system. We said run the system, we did not say to make the system or workplace run efficiently or productively.

While the rogers are at the heart of most organized workplaces, the scotts are usually ‘in the field’ or ‘on the road’ or somewhere that they don’t feel penned in…scotts as a rule are often great leaders and (are always) terrible managers, so you might find the CEO or President or Founder to be a scott, but never the Vice President-in-Charge-of-Ensuring-that-a-lot-pointless-rules-are-implemented-and-ignored. That is where rogers shine.  …and the clarks?  they are there, doing the actual work. clarks are the enablers and the facilitators and the people who will remind the rogers about the next visit from their scottian boss. Which brings us to the topic of this Post…the problems that clarks invariably encounter when working for and otherwise answering to a roger..so lets get back to the Post.

The problem (that we were discussing) was that our clark was being constantly told that she was making mistakes, and despite all efforts to correct the matter or even when there were no errors, the roger would find fault. As students of the Doctrine will be thinking at this point is, of course, ‘the only mistake that the clark made was to believe that the fault lay with her’.  Further compounding the problem was that  being a clark, our friend would spend most of the time after criticism trying to understand what she did wrong. This, of course made the likelihood of a genuine mistake almost inevitable.
From the Doctrine perspective, the primary advice was that, as a roger, the manager was simply lashing out2…being a bully. And that the ‘strategy’ that most rogers like to employ is to get everyone that they are supposed to be managing to be constantly ‘off balance’. As a result of being off balance and trying to understand why they seem unable to meet the expectation of their boss, most people, especially clarks will make more errors, which allows additional criticism etc. The more the people the roger is managing make mistakes, the better the roger  is made to look good in contrast.3 Or so is the worldview of the rogerian manager.

So my advice was: take some time to find the strength in knowing that she did, in fact know how to do her job. Then keep in mind that any interaction with a roger has the possibility of an attack (on her competency) and finally, when an interaction was unavoidable to remember the old adage, ‘the person who asks the questions, controls the conversation’.

Readers!!  You back yet?  Lets open the floor for Comments and Discussion.

 

1) because it lets us tell people what to do and it lets us organize things the way we want, without having to be directly and personally involved.

2)  lashing out – a term to denote the tendency of a roger, while seemingly engaged in a pleasant interaction (with a clark) to suddenly get nasty. almost always caught off-guard, clarks will tend to be thrown off-balance…which is, of course, the intention of the roger

3)  the rogerian principle is that if everyone under a rogerian manager is fucking up, then it does not matter what the roger is expected to do in his own job, he is constantly busy pointing out how much everyone is screwing up…most of rogerian managers’ time is spent pointing out the shortcomings of the people he/she is supposed to be managing

 

 

*

Share
Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , , ,
« Older Posts