the Wakefield Doctrine

the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers

Posts Tagged ‘Project: Enlightenment

the Wakefield Doctrine is “over there” so get on over, yo

leave a comment »

Stopped in here at the old homestead. Everything looks smaller but friendlier. Wish I knew how to link this directly or rather to have a feed of Posts come in from the Doctrine.

But for now just be sure to stop by: the Wakefield Doctrine and say hello


Program of Recovery as based on the Wakefield Doctrine

leave a comment »

Hey, come on people! The real Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) is over at I spend money to have that site over there so you should be there and not here!

But since you are here, lets talk about the Wakefield Doctrine, you go first!

Seriously, anyone who writes a Comment here and enables us to send it to you, will receive a Wakefield Doctrine hat (for your damn head)!
And if you are in a high enough demographic, you might be eligible for the first Wakefield Doctrine Varsity Jacket (“go old people!!!”)

So come on down…

I know there are some clarks reading this…so write something already.

Written by clarkscottroger

August 17, 2010 at 9:10 am

the Wakefield Doctrine (…”she said ‘Love’?, Lord above!”…)

leave a comment »

This is what we seem to have come to…interim Posts…(google wants new content!!!give google new content! NOW!!)

So wait ’til you see what we have in store for you all…the next Post (which is supposed to be this Post) will be the start of a series, a Case Study of the Wakefield Doctrine as it is applied to a work situation.
I suppose I could do the ‘set-up’ here now and then let DownSpring#1 have the whole Post for ‘exposition’. Nothing says that we can’t do two Posts back to back. Hey, this is the Wakefield Doctrine, we can do anything we want, goddamn it!

Oh, watch for a slight  change in the look of the Wakefield Doctrine by weeks end. Have gone the ‘self-hosting’ route (thanks a lot, Mel  lol) and while I am going to keep the changes to a minimum initially, you will see some look and feel differences. I have not even seen what it will look like. I did tell my consultant guy that I wanted the same: (the) Post center and the Map and other widgets in columns to the right and left.

Since we are just ‘vamping’, what the hell is going on with the time acceleration? Tell me I am the only one who  is seeing the rate of time passage/the degree of falling behind on day-to-day tasks increasing…noticeably. I really hope it is just me. I can deal with the problem of not keeping up, if this speeding up of time is a world-wide  phenomenon, then I might indulge in being worried.

Speaking of running out of time…March is Survey Questions Month! Sometime in the next week or so, look for a Post that is all about Survey Questions. The goal is to develop an online survey that will let Readers determine they type, yo.  It should consist of 10 or 20 questions, answer eac, hit Enter and find out the answer. Joanne is in charge and we are looking forward to ggreat things from her. (Joanne was recently elected Mistress of Testifying by a near unanimous vote of Progenitors and Downsprings) congratulations Joanne! (“…now you’re tryin to to trick me…” )

Okay…OKay stop this right here…! I may be a construct but OMFG at  least I am alive and young (of course  cute too) but that video!  no you stop…sure you are the ‘real’ people and yes you are writing this and I will even allow that it makes for a catchy subtitle…but the video!  omg I can’t believe you old people…look at the people in the video,  those are my grandparents!  NO, it does need to be pointed out…because not all your Readers are old, so very old…I can’t understand myself, but the fact is we have some Readers under the age of geriatric.  You must  control the nostalgia…facebook is full of people who are not trying to refer to cultures that are more than 1 generation dead…sorry, (not)… just my opinion…no, I realise the pressure of writing Posts…no really I am sure it is very difficult…as a matter of  fact I could!…no I am not joking..just say when…alright I will! but no ‘editorial review..’ no censorship (I heard what you did to poor Mr. Miller’s speech to the class a few weeks ago)…I think that all censorship is wrong…especially here…so what if what he said in his lecture was stupid, and only meant for shock value…don’t you think the Readers would know that he was a scott and is no more responsible for that kind of behaviour than the little puppy who poops on the rug because he has not yet been housebroken?..of course I am…so its a deal right?  full Post…any subject I want…and video and any friend i choose to invite…no I dont have any psychological twists to untangle in public…after all I am a Junior at Millard Fillmore High School  how wholesome is that?…why no,  I think the Janitor is simply a nice guy who made some bad choices…scottian women will do that to a guy…wouldn’t you like to know!  OK I better get to work…can’t wait to tell Britney…see ya.

Ok, Janie does have a point…about the old shit…so lets have some not so old shit to get us out…Don’t forget  Case Study  coming up. Will be fun and useful.

Hey Mel!  where do I stick the ad for the Rejuvo Pills that I can now sell cause I be sef-hosted?

Now for a little light  but enjoyable pop music to get out on…(13 seconds of commercial first but it should keep the MPAA at bay)

the Wakefield Doctrine (…alright, recess is over, time to get back to work)

with 2 comments


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 fucntion.  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 formost demand their attention.  You become a scott.

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.

Lets finish with a little (more) music.

Written by clarkscottroger

March 18, 2010 at 6:54 pm

the Wakefield Doctrine ( CSR 101)

with one comment

     All right, you people, let’s settle down now…It’s been a long break, and we’ve got a ton of new material to cover. I had to notice that no one turned in their ” The Office” home work as requested. ( The Answer I was hoping for? They’re all Rogers!)

     Okay. Today is very special. Today is freaking huge. We have a guest speaker. Or should I say, Guest Speaker. So get out the No.2’s and notebooks, take good notes, and submit your questions and comments in the appropriate place.  Please remember that this is an open forum, and decorum is much appreciated. Our guest’s text will appear as the entire uninterrupted body of the next post. What I’m doing here is generally referred to as ” setting up”. Deemed necessary, because this is a bit of an unusual situation. You’ll see why momentarily.

     We all know him in one regard or another. Downsprings have known him for eons. Acolytes are just getting started, and might be just a bit intimidated. He’s either poking, cajoling, prodding, editing, or selling you a damn hat for your damn head. Putting fires out. Or starting them. Whatever  ” the Doctrine” seems to require.  That’s all quite normal in this day and age.

     There’s one thing, though, that would be way,way out of the box. Way out of the comfort zone. He’s the only person I know with the personal courage to go directly into an excruciatingly uncomfortable spot in spite of himself. Be assured, you would not see either a Roger or a Scott do this.

     The Clark…Unplugged.  Actually, take out the ” The “, too. 

     So… we have Clark. In the “first person”. That is to say, without the affectation of being a blog editor, fake school principal, street interviewer, SL avatar, hat salesman….none of that.  Just the guy who started this thing. ( And for the historical record, this ” thing” dates back to about March of 1975; park bench, Wakefield RI. I know; I was on the other end of that bench.) The damn bench remains; so does the damn doctrine. So get your damn hat on your damn head and check this out….

the Wakefield Doctrine (…”Arlene took me by the hand, and said oooh eee daddy I understand”…)

leave a comment »


The thinking around the Doctrine of late,  has been, “hey do we help/let/inform the new Readers of the Wakefield Doctrine sufficiently so that this sometimes…eccentric?(nah)…eclectic?(warm but still not)…ecclesiastical? (no! god no)…blog  is clear to the first time Reader?
(or to put that in scottian terms, “Hey! you gettin this or what?”)
Today’s Post will be a review and outline, if you will, of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers).  A definition of the Doctrine, it’s goals and an outline of the ways and means (as roger might say) that we employ to present this thing of ours to you the Reader.  So read, learn, enjoy (and buy a hat).

You regular Readers,  think of this as a surprise Teachers Conference Day (you remember those days off that were never the same time year to year, but were also not regular holidays so you could be home and your parents and the rest of the world went on about it’s business, and you got to see the world like a bunk day without the threat of getting caught?)  You people can skip to the bottom (no, not literally clark) and see what Mr. B has ‘provided’.  We will catch up with you at the end, have some news and current events so don’t just leave after the videos. 

OK  back to our Presentation…

The Wakefield Doctrine is a fun and useful way to view and understand the behavior of those around us, at home and at work and at play.  Some might call it a system of personality types, and while we do have three ‘types’ (clarks, scotts and rogers), we are not setting out to assign certain behaviors to the types.  Instead we say, here is how this person perceives the world.  (Their) behavior always follows from that.  Not the other way around.  This blog has pages for each, clark, scott and roger, click on the link and you can get more detailed information about each.
So that is what the Wakefield Doctrine is, what we are trying to do is bring it to as many people as possible.  We have found that once a person gets the basic concept and identifies the types of people around them, there is no turning back.  And this is a good thing.  If you understand how a scottian person perceives the world, you will know how they will act in any situation.  The same for clarks and rogers.  Then combine this knowing how others will act with your knowledge of your own type, and you got it made in the shade.  If you know you are a clark and you are dealing with a roger, then (as the song says) ‘you won’t get fooled again’.  (Not that it is only about getting fooled, but it is totally about understanding how others see you and how your own view of the world is only one of three possible ways to perceive it.)

So that is the what is the DoctrineWho is the Doctrine is also pretty straightforward.  You will see reference to Progenitors and Downsprings. Progenitors are the three handsome/striking/slightly odd gentleman in the photo in the upper left of this page.  The Downsprings are the people who help write this thing of ours, people who learned of the Doctrine and are basically self-taught but show a gift for expressing the Doctrine.  You will see them in Posts and Comments and other places around here, be sure to say hi.  And finally there are Friends of the Doctrine.  These are people who we have met since the blog started and have been of help and support, Mel at the Spatula, Jason at Project: Enlightenment, Ronin at the Renaissance, Pixieblonde at Secondlifewith… as well as others like Kino and Jen and others.

How we do this thing, present the Doctrine is where it gets interesting.  We try to present some facts (about the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) with each Post, but often we create a format just to present the information in an entertaing or amusing way.  You will find Posts that have Interviews with Downsprings and Progenitors, you will find an ‘Advice Column’ in one Post (written by the very capable Ms. AKH) and finally you will find Posts that (appear to) take place in a High School.  Specifically a certain Millard Fillmore High, and even more specifically in the 11th grade AP class: CSR 101.  Not only that but you will find characters that return again and…

Characters?  You better smile when you say that, even if you are a Progenitor!  Never mind him…what he is trying to say  (can you say pedantic? lol) there is a storyline here that seems to be developing sort of in it’s own.  Starring!  yours truely…Janie….Janie Sullivan…like you haven’t gone and looked me up!…as if…anyway these ‘people’ seem to bore easily and then resort to making up situations that involve me and my bff  Britney and even our childhood friend Jimmy.  Well…being easily distracted  once we showed up, (the rogers first CSR 101 class) there was no keeping us quiet, but they’re ok  just a little stuffy sometimes…except that Glenn..‘would you like a tegretol in your coffee, Mr M?  Anyway we are the entertaining aspect to this Doctrine thingie…but I have to say  it is all true…just ask Teacher…he is such a roger…lol  see ya


So there you have it.  The Wakefield Doctrine.  What.  Who.  How. Why, when, where or some damn thing…

What?  Oh sorry and there is the estimable Mr. B who has come to us to help us stay amused and entertained.

(For our scottian Readers)

Now for the rogers

clarks, (yeah that was one of the single greatest guitar licks at the end of the song)

the Wakefield Doctrine (‘…God said to Abraham, kill me a son. Abe say, man you must be puttin me on’…)

with 6 comments

(Man, tough Post.)

I mean, I know what I want to talk about, but it’s how to talk about it that has me dialing: 1-800-kitchensink.
You do not want to know how many drafts it has taken to get even this far.  But write it I will. (remind me to tell you later about how helpful our Miss Sullivan has been).

Let’s start at the beginning (…”and go on till you come to the end”  L Carroll):

‘The Wakefield Doctrine is built upon the idea that everyone experiences the world/reality differently, from one of three overlapping but distinctive perspectives… maintains that this characteristic perception of reality can be grouped into three distinct types, called for reasons stated elsewhere, clarks, scotts and rogers.’
…we also possess the potential to see the world as a clark or a scott or a roger.  It is only the predominance of qualities from one (over the other two) that makes us what we are.  No one is only clarklike or scottian or rogerian. (source:  About: The Wakefield Doctrine (italics added).

Why quote that which we all know?

To assert balance.
In the last few Posts we have received a good amount of input from the scottian perspective.  We appreciate this.  The Doctrine is being read by more and more (repeat) Readers because of this input.
(and)…it is the nature of  scotts to present strong opinion on all matters, the topic  of rogers being no exception.
(All Opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the person, character or self-identified entity attaching their names to said Opinion.  These Opinions do not necessarily reflect the Opinions of other Progenitors or Downsprings.  All Comments are possibly incorrect, with the exception of those from the one with the marked penchant for parenthes(es))1 

 So, let us go right to the matter at hand.

are awful…
         they are awfully opinionated and parochial, they are awfully judgemental and closed minded and obsessed with the mundane and the measurable and the repeatable and the consistent and the reliable and…it is a good thing we have rogers or we would all be living on the open savannah, sleeping in trees and looking over our shoulders every time we tried to have a drink of water.

Our scottian brethren (in fact our individual scottian aspect) are not incorrect in their assessment of the foibles of the rogerian nature; they are simply limited.  Their Comments are direct and without nuance or subtely,  you know:  scottian.  But neither are they (the scotts) at fault, they are merely expressing their perception.
Having said that, I would not want to fly to Vegas in a plane designed by scotts (or for that matter, a plane built by clarks).
In the first case, the plane would have 5  over-sized jet engines stuck on various sections of the fuselage, mostly towards the back of the plane, painted bright colors and the pilot would be expected to be able to stick his head out the window to scream at other passing jets.  In the second case, the interior would consist primarily of couches (with pillows and quilts),  that while comfortable, would tend to slide around (a lot)  and there would be 6 or 7  bathrooms taking up the entire back half of the plane.

(You get my point).

It is a given here at the Doctrine that those who participate are assumed to be able to handle whatever forms of interactions occur.  And while we maintain the editorial right to shape expressions of opinions, it is with no small amount of pride that we can say that has not happened yet.  What you read is the direct and un-abashed thoughts and opinions of the contributors.

But that is only half of the challenge we faced sitting down at the keyboard here.

The other half (and possibly the half with the greater significance for this thing of ours) is how to speak to them (rogers and scotts and clarks),  as brother Malcom said:

“And during the few moments that we have left, we want to talk, right down to
earth, in a language that everybody here can easily understand.” (Malcolm X)

The simple fact of the matter is that if not written in the ‘language’ of the type, no message will get through.  Another way to say it:  if I do not manage to ‘speak scottian‘ to a scott, my message will be misinterpreted at best and totally unheard at worst.  If I cannot speak to a roger in the language of the herd then I will be treated as noise.

This is the dilemma we face with this Post.

But, fuck it.  We are writing (this) which is not the same as assuming that we are communicating (with the Reader).

Hey scott!  Hey!!  Don’t eat all of the local herd or you may find yourself having to go outside of your own hunting grounds…getting hungry…getting weak…finding new hunting grounds and finding…a whole new pack of scotts…(and we all know how social and co operative scotts are). (Can you say, ‘the weak and old simply get left behind to die’?  I knew you could!)

Hey roger…get over it.  The herd is all there is… until you look up.  Once you see the herd,  I hate to burst your bubble pal,  you ain’t in the herd anymore.  And try as you might, you can never, never bury yourself in historical novels and documentaries by Saint Ken, never go back to that bovine indifference to the werld.  And those scotts that you love supplying food for and the clarks that make you feel so better than…guess what?
They know that you know.  And know that you know that they know…

oh clark…don’t think you can type yourself out of this one…no, there will be no literary constructs to divert the Reader.  No mf…you of all of the three forms, you are the one to indulge in the ‘people? can’t we all just get along’  bullshit.  Which, when you really look at it, is a sin against all that the Doctrine stands for… goddamn dude, you really think that just sitting there and typing this shit week after week was going to change you into the real person you have always been afraid that you are not?  Well, you may be on track but you better be prepared to step outside of your perfectly defined-surely-this-includes-all-inferences-and-possibilties little world.  As the Lady would say, ‘You been told’.

Welll…that sort of went all toyota on us, didn’t it?  (Heh heh)  …oh Janie!

what? no…busy now…come back.. oh alright!  Now I am called in to lighten things up? Any of you real people/Readers think through the implications of using a ‘literary construct’ to lend a sense of reasonableness to the shenanigans that go on around here? Even a hint of how messed up that is?  No, I didn’t, think you had…
Hey, did you know that the old janitor/music video guy (Mr. B, I believe) was once a professional musician? yeah! he was just telling me…no,  not too old man tries to recapture… but I am an ‘A’ student in the Doctrine and I did not know that a roger could deliberately give up his rogerian expression…yeah me too.  Anyway  he had to run and left the following music  said that if you don’t try too hard you will get the connection…whatever
…can I go home now? this does get just a bit tedious…

1) In case of disagreement, the protocol will be followed:
               we are right and you are wrong…