Let’s talk about it, edge-wise that is….

Let’s talk about the Wakefield Doctrine, the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers from the Edge  perspective that is.  “What is it you ask? What is the Wakefield Doctrine?”   Well, I gave you the link 1 sentence ago.  Go there, start looking around – you know, the about page, the pages devoted to the 3 “personality types” that surround each of us every day.  Then come back here.  The basic premise is so simple even a scott can comprehend it! 

Was talking recently with the Creator of the Wakefield Doctrine, the Progenitor clarkWhat?  What is the basic premise? Geez, do I have to do all the work? (yeah, ‘cuz I’m a clark) Alright, one last time….the Wakefield Doctrine is predicated (this last word, found in a clark’s vocabulary, is an everday kind of word for a clark, sort of like “fuck” is to a scott’s everyday vocabulary, rogers like this word too, just not as much) on the premise that by knowing how a person views the world you can know how to act/interact with that person because you will know how they will act/interact with those around them and to the world in general.  Yes? No? Alright. Wait for me here. I’ll be right back with something that may help….  No! You know what? Not today. I’m getting kind of tired of trying to explain this stuff Lucy. In a nutshell:  everyone you come in contact with is either a clark, a scott or a roger.  Respectively, we think, do, and feel. Respectively, clarks, scotts and rogers are alone but never alone because we have  infinite information at our fingertips; always hungry but luckily have a  perpetual pampa upon which to feed and finally, members of a collective community no matter where we are and that bag we always carry? It’s the past. Can’t leave home without it.

It’s Thursday and I haven’t written anything good in a darned long time…
You know, something light and airy, witty, winesome, (“that’s what I wrote, winsome”).  Hell, I’d take cute even but honestly, I don’t know if I am capable of writing anything “cute”.  No one can write “cutely” can they?

I’m thinking I better stick to Doctrine talk (mostly) over at the Wakefield Doctrine.  I know that one day I will stumble upon something comfortable and co-zee to write about consistently here at the Edge.  For now, I guess I will have to experiment.  clarks are rather famous for “looking for the answer(s)”.  Everywhere and anywhere.  Just not here.  Today.   

I’d better get going now but listen, Spring Line 2012 has been previewed.  I was there and I’ve got my scottian suit. Truth be told I’ve already worn it a few times.  Feels good, it feels real good….yo! Lunchbox!  Let’s do lunch!!



  1. Molly M. · September 22, 2011

    “I adapt to the unknown
    Under wandering stars I’ve grown
    By myself but not alone
    . . .
    Anywhere I roam
    Where I lay my head is home”

    So, in your opinion, is Mr. Writer/Singer a scott or clark? I mean, I know what he looks like on stage… but the words, and the interviews are different… and the fact that he didn’t want to be the singer… It makes me wonder.


    • Girlieontheedge · September 22, 2011

      What specifically makes you wonder?


      • Molly M. · September 22, 2011

        Some of the stereo typing on the Wakefield blog. i.e. You can pick out a scott by the eyes and posture. Lead singers are scotts.

        My first impression was that he was a clark, but then trying to apply things as they are written. You know… trying to figure out when the ‘rules’ apply and when they should be thrown by the wayside. …and he is an easy example that I knew you would know. 🙂


        • Girlieontheedge · September 22, 2011

          Tsk, tsk. Where do I begin…nothing is “thrown by the wayside”. Stereo typing? Not really. The Doctrine speaks of characteristics or more precisely, one characteristic way each of us relates to the world. Mostly. The Doctrine states the other 2 types (in James’s case scott and roger) are always there with us. In today’s post I referred to wearing my “scottian suit”. By that I meant that I found the emotional content whereby I was acting more scottian than clarklike these last 2 days. (key here is the enjoyment. tiring but enjoyable). But I digress….
          You need to trust your first impression. It is usually correct and as a clark more correct than not and as a clark you doubt yourself. You mentioned the interviews with James. There is your key. Your confirmation. Look at James, at his body language, how he speaks.


  2. clark · September 22, 2011

    (thats ok, ‘S#1 I got it)… he a clark

    (one of the more interesting indications of the clarklike personality types is…posture! more pronounced in men than women, it is still characterized as bad posture, primarily in a ‘hunch in the shoulders’..)

    (there is a ‘reason’ for this characteristic, but that is for a different venue)


  3. clark · September 22, 2011

    so…no one is curious about the ‘reason’ for the clarklike characteristic posture?

    You are on the right track, Molly…different tools to use in order to identify the 3 types. Might help to think of it as, you know on those Hubble Telescopes photos…where they show visible light (photo) and you get one thing, then they apply a UV filter, infrared filter and so on…each rendering a different ‘photo’.
    (All of which is meant for you to be able to identify a person’s dominant personality type (clark…scott…roger) and all of *that* is meant to get you to the place that you can experience the world as the other person does.)

    (The choice of filters is the ‘art’ of the Wakefield Doctrine.)


    • Molly M. · September 22, 2011

      Actually, I was contemplating the whole posture thing. And wondering, isn’t posture a learned thing, or a matter of strength and training? I know that attitude makes a difference too, and for the most part I think that is what is seen in it, but class is often seen there too.
      So what are you looking at? What are you seeing when you notice someone’s posture?


  4. clarkscottroger · September 23, 2011

    …their somatic relationship to the world.


    • Seven Ravens · September 23, 2011

      Do you mind putting that in English?


  5. clarkscottroger · September 23, 2011

    consider how a person ‘holds themselves’…we all know that there is non-verbal information being exchanged in all interactions, the crossed arms, the crossed legs, the wandering eye contact that is all ‘active’ communication. Just as I might say, ‘Look there’, ‘come over here’ or ‘Watch out!’ Those are all parts of intercourse (albeit non-verbally) but what of the Speaker?
    When someone speaks we hear the words but we also take into account their tone and their diction and vocabulary…all of which we assess to get a sense of the person…are they upset…are they well educated…are they from this part of the country.
    This can be done when you see the posture ( ‘carriage’ to use a fairly old-fashioned term) of a person. (Within the context of the Doctrine) you will see that clarks, by and large have ‘poor’ posture…scotts will have good posture and rogers can go either way. But it is the nature of a clark’s poor posture that makes things interesting…they are hunched shoulders, slumping in their seats is not uncommon…people who look like they are hoping to not be too noticeable…people on the defensive…tentative (as if un-sure of the reception they will receive)…you know….clarklike lol

    (and no, not all the time and not every clark…but a hint a suggestion thats all)


    • Girlieontheedge · September 24, 2011

      Well said, thank you for the clarification.
      Part of this “observation” of human interaction seems to be getting more and more difficult. In this age of bowed head and opposable thumbs, people often look but do not see the individual and their “posture” in the world (locally that is).
      If nothing more, the Wakefield Doctrine offers intellectual challenge and a real method by which to change oneself and subsequently change their world. It is what it is. And damned if it isn’t fun! Yes, it can be Seven Ravens! Again I will liken it (the Doctrine) to learning a musical instrument. I have wanted to learn to play bass forever. Until this last year I put virtually no effort into learning how to play. Part of the process is to learn patience – doing the “little” things considered the “basics”. I know now that persistance in learning only some of the basics has given me great enjoyment! Learning is cumulative. As RCoyne wrote in a lovely post sometime back, learning the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers is “an article of faith” and one day it’s just going to click.


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 )

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