the Wakefield Doctrine

the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers


with 9 comments

The Wakefield Doctrine is based on the premise that behavior is a response to perception. Within individuals, these behaviors tend to repeat themselves over time, and with repetition become a defining and characteristic type of behavior, in other words, personality.

The Wakefield Doctrine proposes to describe personality on the basis of perception rather than the behavior that results (from perception).

The three characteristic ways to perceive the world are identified as: clarks, scotts and rogers. It is a given that we all start our lives with the potential to perceive the world as any of the three. However at some point in our early, early childhood  we become predominantly a clark, a scott or a roger. Our ‘preferred bias’ in how we percieve the world at large becomes established.

We become clarks, scotts or rogers.


clarks think, scotts act and rogers feel…



The ‘premise of identity’ for a clark is that of outcast, different from those around, separate and apart from everyone (and everything).  There is a (self-awareness) of being intellectually capable, perhaps even superior.

The ‘perceptual bias’  of clarks is that the world is an indifferent, probably hostile environment, filled with strangers who appear to enjoy the company of others. To a clark, the world is a minefield, but clarks can see no other way to navigate through life. They think that their only hope is to learn and think and try to anticipate the thoughts and actions of those she encounters.

To a clark, information/knowledge is the thing of highest value in the world. This belief is the flaw from which all in the behavior (of a clark) flows. “If I know everything I can understand why I feel different. If I understand why I feel different, I can change and then not feel different. Then I can be like other people”.

Being an ‘other’, clarks are driven by the need to understand.  With their ‘premise of identity’centered in the intellectual, this need to acquire knowledge is paramount. At a certain point this drive for value in the factual supplants, replaces and substitutes for the emotional side of the personality. The end result/purpose  of acquiring this knowledge is not to identify with the world but to recognise their place in it.

For a clark  knowledge (and it’s idiot-bastard son, information) is the thing of greatest value.

By definition, clarks are the ones that think up shit, like this clark, scott, roger thing. All because clarks think that there is an answer, there is information to be found/understood/discovered that will make sense of the world as they see it.

Clarks believe that if we think enough we will understand why we are not a part of the world and can then become a part of the world, no longer different.

If you are still reading this, two things are most likely true: you are a clark and you have already devised a system (like this or better) to do this thing.


(from downspring #1)

clarks are crazy, scotts are stupid and rogers are dumb.

clarks ask, rogers demand (and stomp their feet) and scotts….what was the question.

If you want to rent a tear in the space-time continuum the size of Australia, throw a party.  And invite only clarks.  You will  have the utmost in musical selections,  the tastiest of morsels (to eat) and beverages until you fall over.  Ok, so they know how to set a table.  But why do they always insist on using spoons….

 But you said whatever I might have will “translate perfectly”.  Makes sense to me….


If you are still reading this thing, there is a good chance you are a clark. To make that assumption certain, the only question I must ask is:

‘how close is this (clark scott roger) thing to the system you have already created for yourself?’

If you are a clark, you have by now come up with some (mental) construct to manipulate the knowledge that you have been acquiring since before you can remember; be it based on astrology or religion, philosophy or mythology, you have a system.

Try this one.

I would not presume to compare clarkscottroger to what you have already. But I will say, “here is what you would have wanted to have done yourself,  to put your system out in the world in the hope of getting someone to contribute the missing pieces.”

Since the (final format) has not put in an appearance yet, lets get all Readers Digest on this thing.

  • clarks live inside their own heads because it’s all much better in there
  • clarks are the only (one of the three) to sincerely entertain the idea that it would be better to be someone else
  • clarks read a lot and to say that clarks daydream a lot is to totally go redundant
  • clarks work very hard at whatever they do but since we are bored very easily, do not do well at repetitive tasks
  • clarks are the creative one(s) of the three
  • clarks share, to a fault
  • clarks believe that if they work hard and help others unselfishly at some point they will no longer be different
  • ‘knowledge is power’ is a keystone concept to clarks

It can be said that clarks can believe anything and therefore believe in nothing. (If you know what that means, you are a clark).



Written by clarkscottroger

June 29, 2009 at 4:22 pm

9 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Clarks are cool. They never do anything. But they sure think up some shit. Not much to eat, but when your belly is full of Roger meat, go hang out with a Clark. Then, thank GOD you’re a Scott.


    July 8, 2009 at 8:18 pm

  2. Yeah, but be careful who you thank.
    Jethro may decide he is a bit bored and do things to you.


    July 12, 2009 at 6:50 pm

  3. This damn shit!! Here’s your example of form. I wrote the perfect words and now someone else is going to get the credit. F@#$*)%!


    July 13, 2009 at 11:08 am

  4. yes I did. I stand corrected.


    July 18, 2009 at 3:22 pm

  5. (from downspring #1)
    Ah, so #4 in the Reader’s Digest list explains why clarks are the most prolific group (only group?) of diletantes on the planet?


    August 21, 2009 at 10:55 am

  6. I know myself to be a clark. I am attempting to shake up the island a bit and so have embarked upon some “social networking” activities (primarily a rogerian thang). If I do it in proper fashion and more importantly, in a deliberate sense, does this make me a little more rogerian? Or will my clarklike being shine through like a meteor traveling the Holland Tunnel.


    October 8, 2009 at 12:08 pm

  7. Hello allies!

    I conclde that I am a Clark if any.

    I certainly cherish knowledge and understanding of everything around me – although not as a means to being ‘normal’. I never aim to be a target for attention in social situations. Infact – I most often have such disgust for other people and the filthy culture which they create that I became a mathematician to escape them (you – all of you, i’m going to kill you – or am I?!). Mathematics offers its self as the only persuit available to humans which is free from the taint of humans – uncorruptable and unarguable.

    In my late teens I decided to essentially hibernate from life – around 3 years of practical solitude. I observed and pondered; a majority of the things I deduced or realised disturbed me, yet so too did i realise that nothing is truly of any significance. Therefore I am somewhat immune to any worry which might otherwise have led me to tears of anguish.

    I promised myself to never read a(nothers) Philosophy book for fear of becoming an amalgimation and product of other peoples ideas and insight, without ever truly understanding or appreciating the concepts and truths involved; without being able to claim for myself any original thought.

    Analyse me, doctor(ine).

    Oscar D Maxwell

    November 11, 2009 at 12:02 pm

    • First, thanks for the Reply. You (along with Jason and Mel and ‘ronin) are the first of the non-Progenitors to contribute to this thing. I appreciate it more than you know.

      I tend to agree with your (self) assessment; (theres a curious effect in the real world when two clarks speak. Invariably there is conversational ‘bumping into each other’, the mental path we people follow can be that similar.)
      I always like to re-state two assumptions of the Doctrine at this point, a) we all contain the elements/the potential of all three types and b)anyone I am speaking to about this thing have the realtively rare capacity to see beyond the accepted norm.

      (As a clarklike person, my replies tend to run on, but you know how that is, ‘there such a great deal to convey, yes/no hardly works)

      Anyway, Oscar thanks again.

      I would ask if you minded that I move your reply to the current post? Am being selfish, but I don’t know how many people make it past the Post that I would love to continue this discussion in a more prominant forum.


      November 11, 2009 at 1:02 pm

      • I have had intentions of posting for some time, all overcome by other stuff unfortunately.

        Where this appears I don’t mind.

        Perhaps the fact that I hadn’t even noticed that I was self-assesing (which I was in hindsight)- rather I thought was just giving some bio – says something about me.

        Oscar D Maxwell

        November 11, 2009 at 1:33 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: