Clarence and Immanuel and Sigmund walk into a bar… the Wakefield Doctrine ( “hey, this thing is for you, not for them!”) | the Wakefield Doctrine Clarence and Immanuel and Sigmund walk into a bar… the Wakefield Doctrine ( “hey, this thing is for you, not for them!”) | the Wakefield Doctrine

Clarence and Immanuel and Sigmund walk into a bar… the Wakefield Doctrine ( “hey, this thing is for you, not for them!”)

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine ( the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers )

Given the hour of the day this is being written, we will do our best to kept the font small and punctuation slight.

 

Of the late, it seems the subject of these Posts is being drawn to a very fundamental, yet not clearly stated question; the answer to which speaks directly to the foundation upon which the Doctrine is built. The question is,  “is the Wakefield Doctrine a psychology1 or is it a philosophy2?”

This is not as daunting a question as first it may seem. As we often encounter around here, the “correct” answer has a certain quality of ‘ambiguety‘ ( as a scott, sufficiently provoked might be heard to say). The difficulty answering this question is grounded in the fact that the Wakefield Doctrine is not an empirical, data-supported system of psychological premises nor is it a multi-sylabic, hyper-hypenated thought-cave of philosophical notions.

The Wakefield Doctrine is a unique, productive and fun approach to understanding the behavior of the people in our lives.
And it is pretty safe to say…the Harvard Deans3 with their psycho-analyzin’ and dramatize’ of rigorous systems would not be inclined to use the word “unique” in the Introduction of their books and you would be hard-pressed to find a Philosophy Professor, writing a Graduate Level Course description thinking,  “…in this Course the class will be exploring the intricate  skein of thought and intentions, it’s fun too!”

So why the question in the first place?

Well, the thing of it is, the Wakefield Doctrine is based on the notion that, while we are all born with the potential, the capacity, the capability to live as a clark or a scott or a roger… it is not what we are, but where we are! (Stay with me, not as bad as it sounds).

For reasons not yet understood, we all exist in one of three ‘personal realities’, the characteristics of (these realities) correspond to the world of the clark and the world of a scott and the world of a roger:

  • in the first, an individual will find themselves cast in the role of the outsider, they observe the world and assume how things are meant to be, they live with others and try to understand and they act like clarks
  • in the second, we find ourselves in a landscape that is both incredibly full of life and yet is based on the ‘kill and/or be killed’ existence of the predator and prey, days are spent hunting food, avoiding being eaten and living as much as possible…the scotts
  • last of the three realities is the most plain and yet intricate; if you wake up in the world of a roger, you know that there are Rules and Guides, there is a place for everything and everything has it’s place

So what?  The thing the Doctrine says is this:

If you watch how a person behaves, you can infer which of the three ‘personal realities’ that person is living in and acting in and from this, you will know if they are a clark or a scott or a roger. You will know how this person will respond to virtually any situation. It is this understanding of the ‘worldview’ that the other person is responding to, that is the key to understanding their personality, not a list of adjectives attempting to describe their behavior and traits. Lets restate, just once more…
We are not clarks acting like ‘outsiders’, we are people who exist in a world in which our relationship to the world is that of the outsider.  We are not scotts because we are sexy and obnoxious in front of a crowd, we are normal people in an abnormal world. As rogers go through their day counting and cataloging, they do not say to themselves, “I am so good at this organizing thing’, they are simply doing what is natural for a person living in a reality that is based on the worldview of a herd”.

I hope this helps you get more from the Wakefield Doctrine.   Mr. Gatemouth?  …if you please!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU1vJ94XPO0

 

 

1) Psychology is the study of the mind, partly via the study of behavior, grounded in science. Its immediate goal is to understand individuals and groups by both establishing general principles and researching specific cases. For many, the ultimate goal of psychology is to benefit society. In this field, a professional practitioner or researcher is called a psychologist, and can be classified as a social scientist, behavioral scientist, or cognitive scientist. Psychologists attempt to understand the role of mental functions in individual and social behavior, while also exploring the physiological and neurobiological processes that underlie certain functions and behaviors.         ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology )

2) Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. The word “philosophy” comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means “love of wisdom”  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy )

3) ‘the Lady’…better ask a Progenitor (or DS#1) but if you attend the First Wakefield Doctrine Global Pic-a-Nic you would be allowed to hear her very words!

Share

clarkscottroger About clarkscottroger
Well, 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 Posts 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