personality types | the Wakefield Doctrine

wheww -endnesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

April 23, 2025 By clarkscottroger 5 Comments

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

Mimi, in her Comment yesterday, reminds us

Sounds simple but not necessarily easy.

Sound (ha ha) advice.

…to which we might add, ‘Whew! We were afraid it would be easy’.

God knows how clarks wrestle with those things that scotts and rogers totally make look, not easy as much as…effortless. Almost as if, there was a day that we played hooky when all the scottian and rogerian children were in class (surely at a place with a name like Universitas Secretum Infantibus) learning ‘How to be a Real Person’ (lol)

New Readers: the Wakefield Doctrine is for you, not them; (and) understand the (three) relationships that are the basis for our little personality theory and you can’t get it wrong.

RePrint!

alright, recess is over, time to get back to work

March 18, 2010

Well…..That certainly was different…perhaps a way of ‘letting off steam’ or even just having fun, nothing says this blog has to be all serious. But our task remains, the goal of this blog remains ever the same: to present the Wakefield Doctrine (aka the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) in a way that is easy to understand and allows you, the Reader, to apply (it’s) principles to your daily life.

I believe it was in the (…you do not want to look down) Post…we said that we will be focusing on each of the three types, one Post for each. First up: clarks.

To begin, this Post will not be about clarks in the sense of what they are, or how to spot them or even (their) characteristics. This Post is concerned with clarks from the perspective of how they relate to this Wakefield Doctrine thing. A clark reading this blog will be curious and will read much of the material, but they will do this in order to compare what the Doctrine is to the system they already have in place. Information is the central feature in the world of the clarks.

(A little dry, but then we are talking about clarks…) but stay with us here. This Post and the two to follow will be of value to us in answering the question: ‘how do I get through to a clark (or a scott or a roger)?’
Put another way, spotting a roger or a scott or a clark is pretty simple. But, ‘speaking the language’ of these three types of people is not so simple.

Our challenge is to learn to communicate with the other(s) in their language, on their terms.
A clark talking to a scott will sound like a clark (to that scott). But it is possible for that clark to speak to the scott in the ‘scottian language’.
Of course, we are not talking about ‘languages’ in the everyday sense and it is more about being able to perceive reality as the other does.
If you can do that, you will automatically speak their language.

Lets try this: you’re a clark (come back scott, come back lol), you are standing in a room full of people at some social function. Being a clark, you are standing in a corner and you are looking around and listening to everyone, trying to learn what is expected of you. Into the room comes a scott, who immediately begins to ‘work the room’, going from person to person, establishing ranking and locating food. This scott does not need to learn (what is expected of them), they simply need to act. To survive.
If you, (a clark) goes up to this scott and offers information, you will be identified as a clark. To the scottian brain: you are not a competitor and you are not food. The scott will be cautious, until you are identified to the scotts satisfaction)

But, suppose for a minute, you could speak scottian, the language of a scott. What do you suppose the difference would be?
You would not be offering information, for a start. And you would not be trying co-operate with this (scott). You would simply communicate with the scott directly.
(Now, the clarks out there reading this are leaping ahead of this little example…the implications of switching perspective to that of the other….hold up clarkies…lets try to bring along the rogers and scotts…they are not running out ahead on this one…)

So you go up to the scott and first and foremost demand their attention. You become a scott.
Damn.

Let’s just put it this way: the Wakefield Doctrine can provide you with enough information/perspective/encouragement to enable you to perceive the world as the other two types do and, by doing this, you will be able to communicate with them more effectively. Totally.

Of course, if you do this you may find that the message that you are trying to convey to the other person is changed by the fact that you are seeing the world differently. But that is a Post length topic in and of itself. In the following Posts we will consider this changing of the message effect that comes when we see the world through the eyes of another. This will be most difficult to the scotts and the rogers, but hey if this were easy I would be on TV by now.

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

two…two…Tuesday-in-one! -the Wakefield Doctrine-

April 22, 2025 By clarkscottroger 3 Comments

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

Hey! Interesting thing. Remember that ‘How to Publish Independently …etc’ thing we attended a couple of weeks ago? Well, it biweekly (or is that, ‘half-monthly’ or…duodecimally?) lol whatever.

We may not have written about, no, wait, we did.

Hold on… we’ll check, (do your own visual: tottering off to a bookshelf over-loaded with dusty folders… wait. you people have read this blog for long enough to know where we’re going.)

New Readers? We’re nothing if not about imagining the imagination of the Readers and Visitors. Vicarious? Thy name is Curator (of the Wakefield Doctrine). Like ever adolescent daydream about the first real date (“I’ll do that and then, they’ll probably will say…and I can…”)

you’ve all been young, right? Don’t blame the messenger.

ok. just checked. Apparently we have not yet updated y’all on how the first installment of our attending the ‘How to Write Publish Good Seminar’ went.

Damn! Avoided a RePrint. And, just between you and us and the lampost* it was…interesting. Actually, more than interesting.**

Quick backstory: Four Part Series ‘Self-Publishing and Making a Career Writing Fiction’ hosted by the Ashaway Free Library. Taught by local author Gage Greenwood.

As a matter of fact, the first session prompted a serious discussion among some of the followers of everyone’s favorite personality theory. On Saturday Night’s call-in we had Denise and Roger¹ on and that resulted in a very interesting and informative discussion of the primary take-away from the moderator of the seminar: “The best strategy in independent publishing is to focus on developing a fan base. A personal fan base.”

First discussion was with Phyllis. (New Readers: she is a roger with a significant secondary clarklike aspect. That latter results in insights into the Doctrine as a whole that would be impossible to one who, though a roger, lacked a strong-enough secondary clark)

She say, “That makes complete sense. If you’re going to introduce something new to your Herd, it better have your stamp of approval. And no roger is going to like something that they don’t know that a lot of other rogers already know. …you know?”

yeah. you read that right. Personal as in, ‘get your Readers to like you first and then your stories.’ Get one and the rest will follow.

The discussion on Saturday Night’s call-in was along similar lines. It did, however, continue and explore the thesis: can a clark do the self-promotion that is inferred by this simple sounding strategy? There followed a spirited discussion of Herd, Stephen King, faking emotional content and, at the bottom of it all, the fundamental proposition of the Wakefield Doctrine:

We are, all of us, born with the potential to relate ourselfs to the world around us in three characteristic styles. At a very early age this relationship is so established as to become the personal reality in which we grow, mature and otherwise develop our social/interpersonal strategies for getting through life. While we lock into one, (and only one), relationship, i.e. as an Outsider (clark), a Predator (scott) or a Herd Member (roger) we never lose the potential for relating as do ‘the other two’. Some, we might add, have this potential in greater amounts than do others. As curator we might be described as having ‘a significant secondary scottian and a weak tertiary rogerian aspect’.

The Doctrine maintains, ‘Hey! You coulda been a clark or a scott… or, even a roger. Don’t worry about acquiring something, some knowledge from the world. Look within. The relationship that offers the way and style of living that is integral to your contemplated (self)-improvement is already within you. Practice, yo. Practice.

*No, since you ask, we have no idea what prompted the scottian accent.

** hey! thanks for the music vid prompt!!

who said that? yeah. you’re right! That roger. the lifeform, the Herd, the 2 plus 2 can only equal 4, the ‘There is a Right Way and a bunch of other ways, we’ll be happy to make that distinction for you”.

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: personality types, self-improvement, the Wakefield Doctrine, three personality types

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine- “…sing a song of sixpence”

April 21, 2025 By clarkscottroger 8 Comments

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

This, (referring to the subtitle of today’s post), is representative of how a vast majority of the approximately three thousand thirty-three got written. A catchy song/poem fragment, a bit of undigested melody hiding in the milky swamp of one’s favorite fruit and cereal breakfast.

Ain’t gonna fight it. As absent friends might say, ‘If it works, don’t fix it.’

It’s an open secret that, as a clark, we find the ‘chex* sources’ easily three-quarters of the fun of writing blogposts. Serially, when we flipped back to a Wikipedia reference to the phrase (click here), we were all smiles and wtf!

Hey, that’s our segue!

clarks ask why
scotts exclaim what
rogers insist on knowing who

damn that was a simple Monday post!

We all know that clarks are to curiosity as fleas to the Black Plague (lol no, doesn’t make any sense. even as a metaphor/simile but, hey, we only make this stuff up, we’re not required to be correct**)

*never even close to being in the Top Three cereals to add fruit to¹

** hokey smoke! a genuine topic for a Doctrine post! The ~~value of being right as manifested in th~~e

ProTip: New Readers? (Yes, if you’re reading this, the chances of your being a clark just went way the heck up! Keep up the good work!) The strikethrough is an example of a choice in how we express the Doctrine. We could, (and obviously almost did), focus on the value relative to the person, as opposed to simply comparing, (with an option on ‘contrasting’), the manifestation of the concept (‘value’) in each of the three perspectives.

…again, compliments on ignoring your secondary aspects and following the narrative trail

(those with secondary clarklike aspects? our sincere condolences and heartfelt approbation. gotta be tough to ignore a predominant scottian (“What the hell are you doing sniffing around the bottom of the text?!?! Ain’t no music or photos or nothin’ Lets get back on the run!”) or rogerian (“Excuse me. What are you doing. You can’t do that. It’s clearly a trick. Stop reading this instant.”) worldview.

lol

1) Puffed Rice… Rice Krispies… CornFlakes (Kelloggs, not Post. of course)

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

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

April 15, 2025 By clarkscottroger 3 Comments

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

So, what is the simplest, most immediately productive of takeaways from yesterday’s post?

There are three and only three languages.

Imagine you wake up in a foreign country. You are able to communicate, in your native tongue, so sure you won’t die or get put in jail (at least initially). There is no doubt you’ll get through the day by pointing and miming. You’ll even make a certain progress in understanding the natives. And, if you lack excessive self-consciousness, there’s a chance that in the course of your first day as a stranger in a strange land, you might begin to establish the rudiments of a vocabulary. ‘Car’… ‘Eat’… ‘Sad’… ‘No I don’t want to…’

The single most productive insight made available by accepting the core premise of the Wakefield Doctrine? They look like you, they dress as you do, (better than/worse than), have the same social landmarks: living rooms, class rooms, bathrooms, supermarkets and airports. You know they are, on a fundamental/biological level, the same as you.

But when you stand between a native and the work they must do, the lessons they need to learn, the girl/boy they desire? That is the moment that spoken language, (the first manifestation of Earth’s Apex Predator), becomes glaringly, painfully, embarrassingly obvious. The complex society observed anywhere there are more than two people, exhibits the preeminence of the percentage of their dictionary devoted to the elements of rule and behavior.

…the benefit to learning the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine, (and choosing to apply this alternate perspective on the world around us and the people who make it up), is simple:

You will be in a position to see the world as the other person is experiencing it.

With a lot of work, the grace of your preferred diety and a bit of luck, you can acquire a level of fluency in the three languages endemic among the Outsiders (clarks), the Predators (scotts) and the Herd Members (rogers).

good luck

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

Mmm?undae? -the Wakefield Doctrine-

April 14, 2025 By clarkscottroger 4 Comments

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

We enjoy comments on posts and stories, Sixes and Challengae. However, there are the not-infrequent occasion when a Comment gives rise to a theme suitable (or demanding) an entire Post. Mimi, (a total font (lol) of inspiration) is one such influencer. Denise and Cynthia have for a significant tenure, whispered (or shouted) ideas that lay half-developed in the discourse. Of late, Misky has contributed. Now, Cia has stepped up to the mic with the following:

Even if a person doesn’t own a secondary personality, they can randomly exhibit aspects of it, but not show signs that they vaguely acknowledge they have that trait.

After reading it we thought to ourselves, we thought, “Damn! this is a gift disguised as an opportunity to practice what we really hope to be effective in our writing.”

Cai’s comment clearly coincides conclusively with (our correspondent’s) coming to a near complete understanding of one of the Doctrine’s core concepts, i.e. despite there being only one predominant worldview in which one grows, matures and develops, the ‘other two’ (of the three) remain and have the potential to become significant factors in a person’s ...err personality.

They are referred to as secondary and tertiary aspects. They manifest to differing degrees in different people. They can be significant or they can be negligible. Example: we are a clark with a significant secondary scottian (and) weak/negligible tertiary rogerian aspect(s).

We have found, among Readers, that often one’s secondary manifests under duress. In instances of extreme stress one might behave in such a manner that, after the emergency has resolved itself, others say things like, “Where did that come from?” The answer: our secondary aspect kicked in.

In a less dramatic fashion, some (of us), exhibit our secondary aspect in less dramatic fashion.

Cynthia is a good example. She is a self-identified clark*. Very early on in our friendship, Cynthia decided to add live, unedited video to her blog. (Selfies at time before they became ubiquitous.) In any event, we were watching the first video and, like in the first thirty seconds we were all, ‘Yow! You’re a natural on camera. Total presence! But…but…. you’re a clark!!

And then, it thunderbolt’d us, “What we’re seeing is her secondary scottian aspect! ayiieee!” (one of us may or may not have actually said ‘ayiieee’…. well, yes. yes we did.)

There is no limit to this secondary/tertiary thing. Well, there is, in a three-factorial sense of the combinations of the predominant worldviews, but our tertiary rogerian aspect is quite weak. So find a roger to explain.

That said, Phyllis is an example of a roger with a significant clarklike secondary aspect. She not only ‘gets’ the Doctrine, she has contributed to the body of knowledge. (Example: rogers create a ‘box’ to define the perfect world and deliberately erase their knowledge of it (the box, not the world).

Thanks, Cai! We’re sure this makes everything much clearer on the matter of the existance, significance and effect of secondary and tertiary aspects!

* Note: no one can, with any actual authority, designate another’s predominant worldview. It is up to each of us to discover. We do, however, refer to others for the purpose of education, illustration and…well, fun, But there is no color of law to it.