Clarks, Scotts, Rogers and relationships

In my previous post on couples I discussed the scottian/rogerian couple and mentioned a follow up post specifically on the scottian female/rogerian male couple.

However, after reading a post on GirlieOnTheEdge’s Blog this morning I have decided to change that. Go read this  and come back here. You’ll understand why I have chosen to discuss the relationship between clarks and scotts and rogers.

At the request of “Girlie” I have been asked to answer why rogers are best to be in a relationship for clarks and scotts.

For clarks it is beneficial to their psyche (even though they do have an affinity towards scotts). Clarks are cerebral. Scotts are doers. The long term “resident relationship” of a clark and scott would drive a clark to madness. To have to endure the antics of a scott would shift the universe for a clark and probably leave him in a straight jacket.

Likewise, a scott would be bored to tears in a relationship with a clark. No action-packed fun there.

So why are rogers the easiest to be in a relationship with?

To borrow the words from the Wakefield Doctrinerogers are the ones that go through their days with a stupid grin on their faces” and “rogers are the ultimate conformists.” Now think about that in terms of a relationship. It would seem to suggest that rogers are the most malleable of the three.

Rogers are usually very passive. Never wanting to rock the boat so to speak. However, sometimes this passivity can be misconstrued as laziness or even disinterest. They are eager to please, but not at the cost of allowing another to take advantage of them. They will and do venture from their herd-like mentality given it is worth it for the “right” person.

Moving along, rogers can laugh at themselves easily. It doesn’t bother them too much to be the butt of the joke (which is a subtle way that scotts tend to refer to their rogerian partners). Rogers do enjoy laughing at others, but usually not with mal-intent. They’re goal-oriented and when serious just might surprise you by their strong convictions. They are, for the most part, agreeable. But not to the point of being submissive. Rogers are non-confrontational for the most part which works well for the scottian counterpart who deems him/herself as being somewhat superior and works well for a clark because there is no explosive disruption. Clarks can be left to trying to figure out the universe and its’ impact on him/her. And scotts can, well, you know….

There is one characteristic of rogers that absolutely cannot be overlooked. That is their affinity for history and ramblings that go on and on and on and can be quite annoying. But that is best left for another conversation.


Don’t forget to give us a call at the Wakefield Doctrine Saturday night live call-in. Details are on the upper right-hand corner of the sidebar. Comments, questions, anything (related to the Doctrine of course) are welcome.

This entry was posted in Personality Types, Psychology, Relationships and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Clarks, Scotts, Rogers and relationships

  1. clark says:

    Screw god, lets try it this way!!

    personality theory

  2. clark says:

    Love the Post! Keep up the GO(o)D Work!!

    Wakefield Doctrine

  3. clark says:

    ok…solid basis for the dynamics of the pairing combination, but the challenge for all of us students of the Doctrine is to try to put ourselves in the position of the other person.*
    To contribute my persepctive from a clarklike point of view: (you are correct in ) the fact of the short lifespan of clark-scott interactions/relationships. In one of those fun ways the world has with this kind of stuff, the reason for this ‘non-longevity’ is both the good and the bad of clark-scott pairing.
    (From a clarklike perspective) scotts are fun, high-energy and challenging, interacting with scotts requires one to step up the energy, move quickly all with a certain, un-defined risk. But scotts are ‘always on’ in terms of how they relate to people in their environment, constantly challenging others to establish and maintain ranking, which is all-important to scotts.
    Clarks do not have this need to always be on the go, moving, hunting, challenging. Clarks have a rich, creative and engaging subjective life, the type of activity that is not often enjoyed while bungee jumping.
    clark-roger pairings are beyond the scope of (my) Comment, other than to say, when their (the roger’s) definition of the world is understood and taken into account by( the clark) a stable and non-limb loss life can follow.

    *This ‘perspective shift’ is the at the heart of the Wakefield Doctrine and is, in fact the reason for it’s superiority over all other personality theories. The Doctrine maintains that we all experience the world in one of three characteristic, and distinct ways, as a clark or as a scott or as a roger.

What do you think?

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