ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Education and Science»
  • Psychology & Psychiatry

Understanding Three Different Types of Human Behavior and Three Personality Types

Updated on May 20, 2012

Ever wonder why your husband, wife, kids, friends, bosses... are acting the way they are? Well then you have come to the right place. The Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) is a unique, useful, helpful, beneficial and totally fun way to look at the way the people in our lives behave. Not just a clever categorization of personality types, but a perspective that, when adopted, will let you understand why people behave the way they do and predict how they will act in any situation.

With a basic understanding of the characteristics of each group (clarks, scotts and rogers), anyone can understand everyone else! You will know how those around you will act in virtually any situation. Finally you can understand what has never made sense to you about the people you work with, live with and/or are friends with. You will have the answer to the question, 'Why on earth would you do that/say that/feel that way?'

So stay with us and learn and enjoy. After you've read the personality types of each below, it will all begin to make perfect sense.

If you feel you identify with all three types, you are on the right track. It is the predominance of qualities that make us one or the other...the overall 'style' that makes one a clark or a scott or a roger. This is the premise of the Wakefield Doctrine.

So, what exactly do you want to know? Whether I am a clark or a scott or roger? If you have to ask, then you need to keep reading the Wakefield Doctrine for two reasons: a)to get a clear enough understanding to be able to make the determination of which type I am and 2) to realize that by definition I am all three. (which is true for you as well, all three...but mostly one).

The beauty part is that we are talking about characteristic behavior, not inner motivation or drives or neuroses or anything subjective like that. Instead, we are saying, 'look at their characteristic behavior'.

We say, 'if you know how a person perceives the world you can understand (and even predict) their future behavior.'

Enough theory, bring out the performers!

Let's start with clarks:
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.

Next we have scotts:
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"

(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.

And finally rogers:
Rogers live to be with who they perceive to be, and that is one of others like themselves. They accept the existence of others(non-herd members) but only in the most transitory sense. Individual herd members will be picked off (by scotts) but so long as the herd survives (and they are not the ones being picked off), the roger is content.

This is not to say that rogers are not highly intelligent.

To the contrary, much will follow in these pages that show that without rogers there would be no civilization. In all civilizations there must be organisers, the people who keep track of the details.

(Accountants and bankers, engineers and carpenters, doctors and cooks, computers programmers and musicians, followers and priests, lawyers and journalist.)

They are all rogers.

The 'premise of identity' for a roger is that of group member, similar to those in his group(herd), definitely different from nearly all other not members of the herd she might see, in the world at large. There is a (self-awareness) of being emotionally capable, perhaps even superior.

The 'perceptual bias' exhibited is that the world is an ordered place, filled with similar people all who appear to enjoy the company of others like themselves. To a roger the world is, basically good provided the rules and guides and laws are expressed and conformed to all, except the rogers themselves. This drive to impose order, through rules and laws is particularly noticeable when the roger is in the company of others/outsiders who by definition are considered to be (potentially) hostile. From the perspective of a roger, especially when in the context of the herd, the roger is never, ever the outsider.

Of the three, rogers are the emotional ones, this emotion forms the 'currency' of their interactions with others, but inside and outside of the herd.
While clarks gather by themselves and and scotts organise as packs, the characteristic grouping of rogers is the herd.

To summarize:
-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

-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)

-rogers are the friendly ones
-rogers are the glue to whatever social fabric you might care to consider, civic, religious, scientific
-rogers require rules and traditions, they are in fact the only 'reason' that history of human civilization has any continuity whatsoever
-rogers are behind the creation or and perpetuation of virtually all human institutions, religious, civic, political whatever
-rogers do not create, they maintain, they assemble, they are the machine operators
-rogers are the engineers, accountants and physicians
-rogers are the judges, the firefighters and high school teachers (except for gym teachers)
-rogers believe in a quantifiable universe to such a depth that it is not seperable
-when you are new to a neighborhood, rogers are the ones who come over to introduce themselves, and they will appear in a group ( herd),
-the scotts are the neighbors who always offer to help you with projects, scotts will feel comfortable asking to borrow and offering to lend things, but they will show up (at your house) alone.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      richard 5 years ago

      Reading this is great,coz I really learnt from it to know my self and to be able to know others too.....I will like to get more of ur articles because it is really helping me in d project am working on

    • profile image

      richard 5 years ago

      Reading this is great,coz I really learnt from it to know my self and to be able to know others too.....I will like to get more of ur articles because it is really helping me in d project am working on

    • profile image

      keith owino 5 years ago

      good.we all need sociol survival skills for us to live comfortably

    • clark farley profile image

      clark farley 7 years ago's an interesting 'self-test' for clarks...

      find the movie Slacker (Richard Linklater writer/director and everything else) get some some friends together and watch it.

      If you stay and/or think it is one of the best movies made...congratulations! you a clark

      the rogers? they will be out of their seats withing 3 minutes of the thing starting...they all hate this movie

      scotts? they'll stay and appear to watch, but it is your response to the movie that they are actually staying for...

      thought you might want to know...

      Oh btw Readers? Ms AKH has a little column her own damnself over at the Wakefield Doctrine...go ahead give it a read ( )

      (nah...thank me later)

    • AKH profile image

      AKH 7 years ago from Rhode Island

      hey jezhug! thanks for stopping by. i'm a scott myself but thankfully i don't drink anymore lol alcohol does seem to bring out the scottian side in a lot of people (good, bad or ugly!!)

      if i may, i'd like to re-direct you to the new place to read all of the hubs on the Wakefield Doctrine and personality types. they are written by the founder of the Doctrine and in addition to being very useful, he (clark farley) makes them fun and entertaining at the same time. you can find them all in one place under "clark farley" in hubbers

      thanks again. look forward to seeing you over there!

    • Jezhug profile image

      Jezhug 7 years ago from Australia

      Awesome hub ... I am a bit of a Clark, but when I get a few drinks in me I become a Scott. Looking forward to reading more of your hubs ;)

    • kashmir56 profile image

      Thomas Silvia 7 years ago from Massachusetts

      Very well written and interesting hub,you explained it well which made it a easy and enjoyable read.

      Great hub!!!

    • glassvisage profile image

      glassvisage 7 years ago from Northern California

      Very nice! I have heard of the Wakefield Doctrine but have not heard of the concepts of clarks, scotts, and rogers... I would consider myself a scott :) I think it's important to have a broad view and consider the viewpoints of all of these. Very nice Hub!

    • AKH profile image

      AKH 7 years ago from Rhode Island

      Yours was interesting as well. What initially caught me was that your theory and that of the Wakefield Doctrine are similar in that one's personality is an overlapping of types.

      I invite you to search the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers). There a 2 informative and funny hubs written by the founder of the Wakefield Doctrine.

      Thank you for sharing as well. Look forward to reading more...

    • Neil Sperling profile image

      Neil Sperling 7 years ago from Port Dover Ontario Canada

      Never saw this method of reading people. Interesting.

      You only have three groups - the system I use/follow has four types of people. Thanks for sharing this.

    • Apostle Jack profile image

      Apostle Jack 7 years ago from Atlanta Ga

      You said it very well.

    • AKH profile image

      AKH 7 years ago from Rhode Island

      hi toknowinfo! thanks. i too enjoy learning and observing personality traits. in fact i just left a comment on your hub Peoplality:Personality Traits of People in Social Situations. As you can probably guess, i observed and determined the 3 personality traits as they relate to the Wakefield Doctrine. Fun!

    • toknowinfo profile image

      toknowinfo 7 years ago

      Great hub! You explained it so well. I like any theory that helps us learn about people. And this one makes as good a sense as any. Thanks for sharing and I look forward to reading more articles from you.

    • AKH profile image

      AKH 7 years ago from Rhode Island

      It’s kind of strange but bear with me. There are these three guys from Wakefield, RI (thus the name) who grew up together. Apparently they used to (and continue to) drive around Wakefield at night talking about anything you can imagine. Yeah, I know… pretty weird. Anyway, they grew up together and have a long history together. They weren’t/aren’t exactly your typical guys. Driving around like a group of frickin’ philosophers. If you saw them together, you’d be thinking “…what’s up with those guys?” In fact, if you go the home page of the Wakefield Doctrine you’ll see a picture of them and know what I mean. Kind of a three stooges thing going on. But they weren’t as ridiculous as I first thought. Very much evolved than the stooges. Lol. Each very intelligent in his own right. Their personalities were so different, but they had this kind of symbiotic relationship thing going on.I know two of them. I remember how years, no make that decades ago I met Clark and I thought what the heck is up with him. Couldn’t even hold a “regular” conversation with him. He seemed so far away and had this grin like he knew something that no one else did. Very strange.

      Anyway, I friend of mine (turns out she’s a clark) told me about this thing called the Wakefield Doctrine and I thought what the hell is that? A theory based on the discussions of these three odd guys? I mean come on. They didn’t seem exactly grounded to me. But I gave it a shot. At first I thought how did they come up with this? Too much time on their hands? Lol But I have to admit, it drew me in and to my surprise, upon further reading, it actually began to make sense and I’ve been following the Doctrine ever since.

      This theory of 3 personality types is not some rocket science. None of that Nine, Top 5, Sixteen Personality Types, Myer Briggs concepts, ABC personality, enneagram or Jungian personality typology. It’s actually a simpler, more easily digested application of human behavior based on three specific personality types that actually makes sense and, when taken seriously and applied to everyday life sheds light on why people act the way they do. Who would’ve thought?

      I invite you to google the Wakefield Doctrine and go to the “about” page. It will explain everything you are probably shaking your head at. Check it out and let me know if it doesn’t make complete sense. I promise that you will start observing people in a whole new light.

    • justmesuzanne profile image

      justmesuzanne 7 years ago from Texas

      Interesting guidelines. Where did this theory come from?

    • Bordz60 profile image

      Bordz60 7 years ago from New Jersey

      I really like the way this is summarized at the end of this Hub