Chatting on Facebook? With the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) you can determine which of the three personality types you are “talking” with

With the advent of so many social media sites available on the internet perhaps you may not have noticed that most of us live in a “virtual reality.” Facebook is probably the most heavily used social media. We get in touch with long-lost friends. We meet new ones. One of the more particular aspects of this is that we talk to/with people in a way that most likely would not occur in a non-virtual manner. That is to say we can “chat” with no consequences.

Equipped with the knowledge of the personality types of the Wakefield Doctrine you will be able to determine “who” you are communicating with. That is to say you can determine one’s personality type through “non-verbal” communication. And by doing so be aware of whether you are chatting and sharing things with a  clark or a scott or a roger.

Keeping in mind that we all have some aspects of each of the three personality types (clarks, scotts and rogers) what’s interesting about this is that it allows the other 2 types to come to the table in a way that would not normally be seen.

Clarks: they characteristically live in their heads (yeah, I know. Weird shit)
You are chatting with a clark if

  • you feel like you’re chatting with yourself
  • they seem to anticipate what you are about to say
  • the other person isn’t making sense to you, yet there is something… familiar about the strange
  • the person you are chatting with seems a bit tentative but starts to become more at ease. Once they seem to relax they relax faster than you were expecting

Scotts: characteristically the seemingly social ones, the “life of the party” but not specifically sole purpose of being social – go read this for an explanation.
You are chatting with a scott if

  • you feel the energy coming out of your screen is alive and bouncing all over, but long pauses (when they are trying to do the same thing with 3 other people)
  • the other person is very witty and gregarious, faster to assume familiarity
  • you feel like you’re the sole focus of the other person, but it seems like they totally drop the thread when they go to other conversations
  • this person is “pushing the envelope” so to speak. *Sexual innuendo is always just below the surface and with the slightest encouragement it totally springs out.

Rogers: characteristically associate with others like themselves. Herd mentality. You are chatting with a roger if

  • you are having a pleasant conversation.
  • they remember your interests from previous encounters
  • you feel like you are being tolerated, yet there is a sense of joining a group of people who have similar interests

Now that you know who’s at the end of the other keyboard you can a) run away, b) stay and play or c) relax comfortably where you are.

Hell you can even play mind games if you want to knowing which personality type the other person is. If so, you are most likely evoking your mischievous scottian aspect…

Damn if we scotts don’t love to have a good time. Consequences? No such thing for us. It’s great being a scott!! No work. All play.

Shit. I gotta go. I’m feeling way too clark-like.

*scottian video? Hell yes.

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

10 Responses to Chatting on Facebook? With the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) you can determine which of the three personality types you are “talking” with

  1. What? the bar’s closed already? Damn. OK. Fine. I’ll talk to the cleanup crew…
    The stuff about who is more prone to “stretch” the truth? You got it AKH! It be the rogers hands down.
    Enjoyed the post and comments. Keep up the good work!!

  2. clark says:

    …I’m sorry, don’t mean to interrupt, but the link from the Wakefield Doctrine brought me directly here! damn

  3. Molly M. says:

    So what is the one who lies to you, about something obvious, within the first 10 minutes of conversation? Is a particular personality more prone to that, or what?

    • My reply is actually a question. In the virtual world of facebook how do you actually know that someone is lying unless, of course, it is someone you know well enough to know that they are lying to begin with?
      I would have to say that it depends on the context. Anyone can lie about everything. So I can’t specifically answer your question as to who is more prone to lie. There are, however, generalizations. But that is another whole ball of wax.

      • Molly M. says:

        Yesterday a guy from Indonesia started chatting with me. He asked my age, which I told him, because it is listed on my profile, and in turn asked his, even though it was listed on his profile… He promptly told me he was 20, but the birth date listed indicates that he is 16. I don’t really care, but the fact that he would give conflicting information that is so obvious made me wonder, especially since I had read this a few hours before and was trying to apply it.

        • Of the three types (clarks, scotts and rogers) I don’t think that a clark would lie about his/her age. As we all know, clarks live inside of their heads. So I don’t really see any motivation for a clark to lie. It just wouldn’t occur to them. I don’t really see scotts lying either. Yes, they can be mischievous, but have no need to lie. They are who they are and they are not concerned with what someone else thinks. Remember, for the scotts it is the here and now. Which leaves us with the rogers, whom I think might make up a white lie here and there.

          Keep in mind, this reply is only to the specificity as it relates to this person lying about his age to you on facebook. He’s obviously just a kid. Are there no kids who have never lied before? I think we’ve all told a white lie in our lifetime. Haven’t you?

  4. clark says:

    Good Post! @e totally agree* You have pulled the curtain back on an aspect/value of the Doctrine that is currently under-examined..
    I agree that for rogers, ‘the Facebook’ is like the biggest pasture in the world and (also like real world pasture land) there is a clear risk of predators…friendly, sexy, ‘oh-how-could-you-say-such-a-thing’ scotts… that these two co-exist in appetite-sating harmony makes total sense.
    Hungry scotts and willing rogers living, playing, working and pretending their lives are something that it hardly ever is… like the condiments aisle intersecting with the ‘meat department’ in your local super market. Kinda easy to identify.

    It is the clarks that pose the real challenge, with your thesis, as they are the ones (of the three personality types) that tot’get’ (and at times) make use of the potential of the internet/cyberspace in general and the Facebook specifically.

    Keep up the good work… now have you heard the one about the travelling salesman who went into a bar with the daughter of a local famer and said to the nun behind the counter, ” Hey… wanna hear about a really good habit…”

    *which of the three is not really important

    • Excellent comment. It really follows up on and enhances the purpose of my post in terms of the “behavior” if you will, of the 3 types not only on facebook but in the real world. To all of you readers, there is much to gather from the comment so read it twice.

      Oh and speaking of nuns, what’s black and white and read (or red) all over?

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