the Wakefield Doctrine

the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers

scotts

with 11 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.

We become clarks, scotts or rogers.

 

clarks think, scotts act and rogers feel…

 

scott.  (adj. scottian  to have the qualities of a scott; pronunciation: scoe-shun).

The ‘premise of identity’ for a scott is that of predator/hunter, the world consists of those who appear either as clearly weaker and inferior or equal and therefore require challenging. There is a (self-awareness) of being physically capable, perhaps even superior.

The ‘perceptual bias’ exhibited is that the world is a dangerous place, but it contains all that he needs. It is just a matter of learning the ways of those around him. Filled with strangers who appear to enjoy the company of others like themselves. To a scott the world is simple but interesting, challenging  but ultimately satisfying.

(This is an insert of information dated 11/02/09) Scotts love to travel. They are, finances permitting, the tourist. But they are more than tourists, they are on the ‘hunt’. So when you see a scottian tourist, it will be in the context of the ‘local color’. With their naturally extroverted ways, they will get the indigenous folks to welcome him into their culture. Yum, yum! Because it is all about being a predator. Predators do not settle down into one particular location. Territories (for a scott) may be defined, but it is defined relative to the neighboring predators, the other scotts.

In keeping with this wide-ranging worldview, scotts do not have an overly strong nest building drive. They live comfortably, but the physical ‘home’ is of relatively little importance. Be it a mansion or a boat in dry dock, the home of scott is simply shelter. Unless it is part of the scotts, expression, of course. For example a scottian business man who must show the outward signs of success will have the appropriately elaborate domicile. But that is for a secondary purpose. On the most basic level, scotts live to hunt. Where they sleep is not the most important thing.

That ‘reality is perception’ is as non-scottian a concept as there is;  scotts are the ultimate realists.

Scotts live to act and act to live.

While there is certainly a subjective side to scotts, they inhabit a world of stimulus-response. In the sense that by nature they will go into the world, satisfy their need (whatever that may be) through direct action. Scotts do not need companions to tell her what to do.

It has been said of scotts:  “I scream, therefore I am”

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

  • scotts are leaders (because they are certain, not necessarily right, but certain).
  • scotts are self-confident/self-assured/certain (which is why, of course, they are the leaders)
  • scotts are emotional in a way different from rogers, it is for the moment emotion, not much grudge holding
  • in a band it is always a scott who is the ‘front man’, (see leader above)
  • at a party scotts will not hesitate to introduce themselves (to everyone)
  • for the most part, when confronted with a threat or other fear-generating situation, a scott will choose to attack rather than flee
  • scottian females can be ridiculously sexy or quick witted, hardly ever both.
  • (female) scotts can be spotted because they have prominent throat tendons (ask us why)

One of the most useful metaphors in the Wakefield Doctrine is: grouping (when you have more than one of each type, what do the characteristics tell us about the individual?) 

a group of scotts is a pack

(For our purposes) The nature of a pack is a common purpose for shared benefit and (an internal) hierarchy of members. This hierarchy is relatively simple,  a ranking of members as dominant and submissive. There is always an alpha.

The purpose  for gathering in packs tells us volumes about the nature of scotts.

 The pack is formed because the world is hostile and there is prey and there are predators. (In fact, the pack is comprised of predators.)

The pack will function as a group only for relatively narrowly defined goals/purposes. Securing food and defending  territory.

(Back to the world that scotts perceive): In any social environment, be it a social gathering, or a workplace, anywhere there is a group of people, a scott will all make establishing their ranking their first order of business.)

The scottian individual will, (upon entering this social environment), push everyone on the shoulder (figuratively or literally). They do this to elicit a reaction/response and thereby allowing (the scott) to establish ranking.  Does the other person push back or not. (If they do not, they are prey), (if they do push back, then ranking in the pack order must be determined.)

Scotts will ‘work the room’, never staying in one group for too long. At the same time being quite aware of the other scotts in the room.

This behavior is perceived as being a very social person. Scotts are the life of the party; but their actual purpose is to find the other scotts and establish ranking and therefore territory and then find the food (read rogers ).

It has been reported by scotts, that this (working the room) is an absolutely necessary act.

The worst thing (for a scott) is to be in a circumstance/social setting and not know where they stand, relative to the rest of the environment. That is the first priority of the scott.

So, the life of the party, the scott, is not being entertaining because he likes you or your dress, he is establishing where the other scotts are, who is dominant and where the easiest eats are.

(Enough of the easy stuff.)

How do you know when you encounter a scott?

The eyes. Scotts can be spotted by the eyes as easily as you can spot a clark (from their posture.)

Can you tell who is what?

Can you tell who is what?

Written by clarkscottroger

June 29, 2009 at 4:21 pm

11 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Is this where I write stuff? Anyway, Scotts are somewhat canine in the way that they relate to others. Scotts are always, at least figurativley, smelling other peoples’ asses and finding out who should be dominant. Scotts live in a pack mentality. Other people exist for the purpose of providing nourishment to the Scott, or providing ranking information in the dominance”chart”. Scotts see Rogers as herd animals who can and should be preyed uopn. Obviously, Scotts do not literally eat Rogers, but do consume their essence and energy through aggressive and competetive behaviors. Rogers, the poor things, are left feeling victimized by Scotts–but are never really sure how this happened. The ultimate “meal” for a Scott is to humiliate a Roger in front of others–without the Roger being fully aware that they’ve been had—but everyone else knows it. A delectable feast for a Scott.
    Scotts get stuff done. They don’t care too much about getting stuff right–just about getting it done. Scotts seldom engage in self reflection or introspection. They see Clarks doing that all the time–and they think–“What a fuckin’ waste of time and energy.” Scotts are always trying to establish dominance, but quickly accept submissiveness when they encounter a more dominant Scott. Once the heirarchy is established, Scotts are comfortable regardless of their place in it. We do not always have to win, but we do always need to know.
    Scotts love to have the attention of others–and to use that attention to enhance their own standing. Scotts can get an entire roomful of people to pay attention to them no matter what the people have been riveted on prior. Scotts can be masterful salesmen, PR people, athletes, performers….anything that brings glory and attention. When Scotts sell–they are truly selling themselves not the product—and you WILL buy. People often resent Scotts–especially Rogers do. But most people secretly(or not so secretly) want to BE Scotts. I am a proud and loud Scott. Clarks are of some interest to me as people because their thoughts are amusing. Rogers piss me off, but what the hell, we need them. We’d starve without them. But they are such a collection of whiners and crybabies. Long live the Scotts.

    Glenn

    June 29, 2009 at 5:26 pm

  2. Yes this is where you write stuff.
    At this stage of the game there is no process to the process of gathering and making sense of the information. (I doubt if anyone would challenge your scottian nature).
    So watch this space, lets see what happens when we get additional contributors. I would encourage you to stay on the lookout for someone/anyone who would add to the knowledge.

    At the end of the day we will see that not only is there consistancy within the groups, but with a big enough pool (of observations) I expect we will see the rogerian under-belly that resides within scotts and clarks and the scottian aspect in rogers and so forth.

    clarkscottroger

    June 29, 2009 at 9:00 pm

  3. Ain’t nobody wrote nothin’. Fuckin’ simpering Rogers. Get off your Roger asses and write somethin’. Fucking head-up-your-ass Clarks. Pull your head out and write somethin’. Fuckin’ Scotts gotta do everything.

    Glenn

    July 8, 2009 at 8:13 pm

  4. can we?
    please?
    (if I might borrow some shit and mud to scrawl on the wall, I would be most honored to comply.)

    clark

    July 8, 2009 at 8:33 pm

  5. I posit there could be some meat eaters who turn vegan. Glenn?

    clarkscottroger

    July 22, 2009 at 12:19 am

  6. Suppose you have business to conduct with a known scott. How can you adapt your style to collaborate more effectively with a scott? First, set aside some time. Us scotts like to talk—a lot. If there is any glory to be gained from our business together, the glory will belong to the scott–or the business will not be concluded. You might as well give it to him, he’ll take it anyway. Do not engage a scott in an open competition for control. You will lose–one way or the other. If you win, the scott will disengage. If you lose…well…you lose. Do not attempt to upstage a scott. Stay out of his stage light. He will shine for you, if you let him. If you thwart him, he will eat you, or leave you by the side of the road. Ackowledge his dominance–its quicker that way. If you challenge him for dominance, he will scorn you if you be a roger. He will be amused by you if you be a clark. If you are also a scott, go ahead and compete with him. It will bring out the best in both of you, and it will be settled quickly and comfortably. How does one accomodate a roger????

    Glenn

    July 27, 2009 at 4:22 pm

  7. Depends.
    (Assuming no self-conscious intent, no efforts by the scott to alter his ‘natural’ impluses, it comes down to the question of dominance. As Glenn points out in his Comment)

    However, since we are speaking of humans, the establishing of dominance is not as simple as in the jungle. In fact in society it can be a totally open-ended affair.

    The issue of dominance/submission is not simply a matter of force, of one power being greater than the other.
    (In humans) it can also involve submitting, one person giving up (to the other).

    So the question of dominance/submission regarding scotts and rogers is not as simple as you might think.

    I would submit that in human society and it’s attendant social structures the roger can be dominant over the scott as often as not.
    (Just ask the incredibly ferocious scott in prison and the relatively weak rogerian prison guard.)

    Lets see if the rogers will weigh in on this.
    If interesting enough, we might create a page of it’s own.

    Clark

    July 28, 2009 at 4:36 pm

  8. Can you fool a scott? Can a scott spot the imposter (scott)? As a clark, I will go out on a limb to say that we like people from time to time affect different personas – mostly in a work setting. Sometimes this is intentional and done for sport. Then there are the times we look away for just a second and realize we just let loose some latent scottian energy. As way of example (I will try to keep this short): in my last life I worked in a law firm. I often had to deal with a lunatic scott attorney via telephone. One day, trying to get a somewhat complicated settlement done, I was talking with “Joe” and thought how rude of him – he’s yelling at one of his workers when he should be giving me his full attention. I held the phone away from my ear a few seconds and then with horror realized he was yelling at me. This was a first for me (the being yelled at) but what surprised me more was my reaction. I immediately (and still professionally) took hold of the situation. I told him (in what a clark might think harsh way) I would do such and such and call him later. Oh yeah, I slammed the phone down. When I spoke with “Joe” later that day it was as if I was his best buddy.

    Denise

    July 30, 2009 at 8:35 am

  9. I like the prison guard analogy. However, I would posit that the Scott in prison is still dominant in an interpersonal context. The guard holds only institutional power. That is not dominance. The guard is most likely scared shitless of the prisoner. The prisoner effectively, still “owns” the guard. I have seen that dynamic repeatedly in correctional facilities where I have worked. The prisoner, upon being “punished” by the guard, smiles—because he knows the truth–“I own you you coward.” And he knows that the guard knows it too. Situational power is not recognized by scotts as meaningful or legitimate. In a thousand subtle ways the guard communicates his submission to the power of the scott every day–even though he has superior bureacratic power. Both know that that is ultimately no power at all. By the way, Rogers in possession of institutional power are some of the most dangerous people in the world. The justification to torture one’s enemies so prevalent in the world today is a totally rogerian construct. “If someone is bad enough, or dangerous enough, it is OK to do anything you think neccesary to them–or they’ll hurt you.” This is a coward’s construct—strictly rogerian. A roger does not perceive the evil inherent in this kind of rationalizing. They truly feel entitled to torture on the basis of their own “victimhood” . See the movie “Taken” for a sickening example of this concept. The movie’s message seems to be that torture is Ok and even useful when used against “bad guys”. Later I will expound upon victimhood, a most cherished status for a roger. Rogers LOVE to be seen as “victims”. It gives them a pretext for all kinds of emotional excess–rage, torture, righteousness, vengeance,etc…Rogers love their feelings.

    Glenn

    August 5, 2009 at 1:10 pm

  10. Do not disagree. Do agree with one of the statements in particular: …’in possession of institutional power are some of the most dangerous people in the world…’ (This is probably appropriate to another venue within the Doctrine).

    As to your Comment,

    ‘Allow me to retort…’

    I agree about the personal/visceral nature of dominance. It is an energy thing as much, (more in all likelihood), as an intellectual agreement between people. The extent to which it can be expressed, is constrained/limited by the social context.

    I will, (with conditions), agree with the concept of victimhood and rogers. However I would add two perspectives that augment the core idea, a)for a roger the emotional content of ‘victim-hood’ is the whole point; b) the victim (in “victim-hood”) does not exist without a “victor”.
    This is not of the nature of a counter claim, I am just making a point about how scotts are dependent on rogers.
    (In a close, initimate, yet tasteful relationship).

    BTW Am thinking about creating a page for discussions such as this, it would be easier to see and respond to and eventually incorporate into the Wakefiled Doctrine.
    Let me know your ‘thoughts’

    clarkscottroger

    August 5, 2009 at 2:51 pm

  11. Hope ya have fun thinking about it, Clark. Let me know when you DO it.

    Glenn

    August 5, 2009 at 3:29 pm


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: