clarkscottroger | the Wakefield Doctrine

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

June 1, 2026 By clarkscottroger

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

Frydae -the Wakefield Doctrine-

May 29, 2026 By clarkscottroger

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

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

2’s Day -the Wakefield Doctrine-

May 19, 2026 By clarkscottroger

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

To decide what the predominant worldview of another person, start by discarding the ‘no fricken’ way’ of the three.

Too many people, (not you, Faithful Reader!), allow themselves to get caught up in the laundry list of characteristics that they, (incorrectly), believe are the determinants (of ‘personality type).

To which we will remind all, the three personality types:

clark (the Outsider) clarks think
scott (the Predator) scotts act
roger (the Herd Member) rogers feel

Two out of three, how hard can it be to select the correct worldview?

To wit: knowing the character of each of these remaining predominant worldview, look around… through their eyes.

Two distinct world(views) but! (this is the part where your reading comes to the fore) each is different from the other… maybe the number of 1st person pronouns, or 3rd person or ‘Hey!’

Two, like the optometrist’s googles, (‘look at the chart, is this clearer, how about this? now, is this better or worse?’)

To experience the world, (in a fairly shallow degree), means the scene you are comparing is ‘clearer’ through the lens of one predominant worldviews than the other.

To our conclusion:

learn the three relationships, inside and out
if obvious indicators, (of a person’s predominant worldview), is not evident, i.e. the eyes of a scott, the slouch of a clark, the social ease of a rogers then go for a side-by-each approach
they will reveal themselves
and you will immediately know more about them than they know about themselves

2 Pretty simple, isn’t it?

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

Frydae -the Wakefield Doctrine-

May 15, 2026 By clarkscottroger

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

Despite today being Friday, while we will forego the weekly Quiz. scotts and rogers are given leave to go out and play. (aka chase ‘n eat, or gather unto oneself proof of Correctness)

(If you’re still bored, gather your little friends around you, scott (no snacking! friends are not energy bars!) and try this.)

For everyone still at your desks in this metaphor-logy, we Way-Back our ownselfs to the days of wood and metal classroom desks. Cool thing being, the desk had a built-in defensive, (well, actually, offensive), feature: a solid maple top on a hinge that, for an unsuspecting classmate distracted by their rummaging around inside them, can be surprised shut. ha ha.

…anyway

Compare and Contrast

‘The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;’

Which is the clark? Who is the scott? Where, (and there is one), is the roger?

Now isn’t that more fun than spending mandatory recess in the schoolyard dodging scotts and avoiding rogers?

Mimi, you had a Comment?

Why yes, there are times and situations, friendships and relationships-of-convenience that would make this period not entirely unpleasant. Example?

Correct! clarks have scottian friends/collaborators and, the same-but-different, rogerian best friends. ’twas ever thus.

Class? The danger in this set of relationships? (Remember: cite examples in terms of grade school level maturity and social context)

Misky! You’ve eaten the entirety of your recess-bound classmates already? (Well, of course you divvied them up with your fellow scotts. The pack does need to keep up their energy level)

Since you’re here, do you care to address the topic?

Very good! And controversial! Yates may very well be a roger. How would you support your assertion?

Denise… you’ve been uncharacteristically quiet. Would you care to contribute to our little discussion?

No, asking ‘Who let the dogs in?’ Is not quite what we had in mind.

oh, not in a bad way. lol Fine. continue

sorry time is up! pencils down.