the Wakefield Doctrine

the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers

‘…the miracle of 5 loaves and 2 fishes’, the Wakefield Doctrine and improving the quality of your life

with 5 comments

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


Yes, we really did use a reference to one of the most famous of the miracles in the New Testament in the title of today’s Post.

Before our more literal minded Readers ( yeah, the rogers, who else? ) get themselves worked up, lets get right to ‘the statement that is being made’. Everyone has heard about the miracle of the loaves and fishes. We (just) learned from our friends at wikipedia that this is the only miracle that is repeated/re-told in all 4 Gospels.  Quick re-cap of the story for our non-judeo/christian/Western culture Friends:

This is also known as the “miracle of the five loaves and two fish” given that the Gospel of John reports that five small barley loaves and two small fish supplied by a boy were used by Jesus to feed a multitude.

According to the Gospels, when Jesus heard that John the Baptist had been killed, he withdrew by boat privately to a solitary place near Bethsaida.  The crowds followed Jesus on foot from the towns. When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick. As evening approached, the disciples came to him and said, “This is a remote place, and it’s already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy themselves some food.”Jesus replied, “They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat.”
“We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish,” they answered.
“Bring them here to me,” he said.

Jesus directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children. ( our friends at Wikipedia )

The story is told and re-told for various purposes and to make a variety of points…true generosity is limitless, the power of sharing and the nutritional importance of seafood as a source of  Omega-3 fatty acids. But what lesson can we take from this story  that would help us with (using the Wakefield Doctrine) to improve the quality of our own lives? Two things:

    1. the Wakefield Doctrine is for you and not for them
    2. there is no single, global strategy for improving the quality of your life
    3. (and) it does not have to make sense in order to work

When we say, ‘the Wakefield Doctrine is for you and not for them‘ we mean that it (Doctrine) cannot be used to change the behavior of other people in our lives. We sometimes look around and think, ‘My life would be better if only so and so was different’ or ‘I would be able to do this, if only they would not do that’. The Wakefield Doctrine lets you understand why people act the way that they do. That’s it.

The Doctrine maintains that you have the capability of acting as the other two personality types do. If you are a clark, there may be times when you would be best served acting like a scott. If you are a roger then there are times to be clarklike.

And, most of the time, knowing about clarks and scotts and rogers is just plain fun as you watch people act just the way you read about in this blog!

Get it?

No?  well pass me the fish sticks anyway!


Written by clarkscottroger

July 19, 2012 at 12:02 pm

5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I do get it, and all week I have been having the most fun putting people in their (places) categories. Quite amusing. I am still confused about how a Clark is produced from a family with a long history of Scots and Rogers.


    March 30, 2013 at 10:11 am

    • @Jen

      that is a question (among a host of questions) that has been trying to get my attention, but alas the lack of time… (also other questions: why? why goo with the clarklike worldview or the scottian or rogerian)… as more people come and find this interesting, the sooner we will have the intellectual resources to tackle many of these questions!


      March 30, 2013 at 1:39 pm

      • I think I need to look into that. I will do a family tree, as far as I am able, and see if I can’t find a “reason” for this clark to have been spawned from a roger + scott, relationship.


        March 30, 2013 at 4:45 pm

      • @Jen

        (danger…danger…danger Will Robinson!!!)… this thing will pull you in, lol! It is an interesting question (well, to me every question regarding the Doctrine is interesting.)
        I will caution exploring it (this issue) until you are comfortable with the current thinking on ‘secondary aspects’. These secondary aspects are coming to be understood more and more as, not only a certain coloring of the options perceieved by the person (in addition to) their predominant worldview but also may hold the key to understanding how we are to invoke and/or develop the strengths of the ‘other two’ worldviews. (This, of course, is a central premise of the Doctrine, i.e. we are born with the capability of experiencing all three personal realities and settle on one (now there’s yet another un-researched aspect to this Doctrine, why a clark? why a scott?* etc) but once we have a predominant worldview…that becomes our reality. There always remains the potential, the latent worldviews, if you will and there I think is the most exciting thing about the Doctrine.
        Back to the issue of secondary aspects, there is no requirement for balance… in the sense that a person with a secondary aspect has to also have a tertiery aspect. Some people are simply clarks (or scotts or rogers), some people have a small percentage of a secondary aspect…but there is no need for it to add up to 100 (lol)
        Using myself as an example. I am a clark with a (relatively) strong scottian secondary aspect and a fairly weak tertiary rogerian aspect. Push too far I will (if condition are right) go totally scottian. (You will recognise this: you do not shout, you simply stop (it, the problem etc). We had a conversation last Saturday with Cyndi and Denise and Jennifer (clark, clark, scott) and we all agreed, that one of the signposts of going into this state, is that ‘you don’t go along’. lol you know that you know what I mean… so I think I’ll just try and do some scottian teasing and not describe it in any more detail.

        *there is some suggestive evidence that a scott is born with a very high ‘energy level’ always getting into things… simply wired high energy and there is also some interesting observations about the strange childhood of clarks… more to follow


        March 30, 2013 at 5:57 pm

    • ..oh yeah! you did get the Memo warning Readers that, once you start to see the types, you might not be able to not see them? lol

      sounds like you acquistion in fluency is totally fasttrack…cool


      March 30, 2013 at 1:41 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: