Frame Control
knowingless.com
knowingless.com
The author says everyone exercises frame control all the time, including themselves, and doesn't know what to do about it. In another sentence says their reaction when encountering it is to 'burn it with fire'. It ends with telling people to rely on their feelings.
Convoluted, conflicted, generalized, and entitled. Everything I don't like.
This post was my attempt to name the thing that causes that style of damage. It's hard for me to do, perhaps someone else has more skill than me and can be more precise - but I am trying to name a real thing, one I suspect a lot of people haven't ever run into before.
I'm fully aware that there's lots of "bad advice" in the post, but I don't have the skill to convey the thing I'm attempting to without using some of that. Ultimately I think the tradeoff is worth it, though; I feel strongly about trying to name this very elusive thing.
> Convoluted, conflicted, generalized, and entitled.
I wrote a blog post called the subjective adjective[0], where I talked about how sometimes we take our own personal feelings/experiences and then stamp an objective reality onto them. E.g., if I feel conflicted, I may say that the article itself is conflicted, implying that everyone would feel conflicted when seeing the article—not necessarily true.
--
Here I'll go presenting the way I see it, my (current) frame...
I wonder if it's more of a conflict between competing frames and one person (whom you name the frame controller) has a stronger and more stubborn grip on their frame and the other (the frame surrenderer?) has a weaker and looser grip on theirs. I say this imagining that in many situations, I would fall more in the camp of strongly and stubbornly believing things; whereas in some, I would surrender my frame to the frame of another rather quickly—e.g., cooking, painting, accounting, just to name a few.
I find that I surrender to what the other believes when I feel particularly insecure, doubtful, and uncertain of what I believe. Someone insults my intelligence? Most of the time, I stand strong. Someone insults my physical appearance? Most of the time, I acquiesce.
While you may prefer to label the people as frame controllers, I prefer to label the behavior as frame controlling, or maybe even frame conflict, with frame conquering and frame surrendering. Lol, I don't know actually.
Regardless, I feel really grateful you wrote this and helped me reflect on this more. I also imagine, if you had been in such situations with your dad where he were defining The Frame, it might feel difficult to define and defend the frame you're presenting here. So, thank you for putting it forth.
I'm glad that I read through to the end, if only for the last few sentences - and a part of me wishes they came sooner in the post. It was a reassuring for me to read and I hope it is for you as well, something for you hold on to if you do decide to revisit the post:
> Don’t let this post tell you how you should feel. Take this article lightly, take it as a pointer, take it as art. Ultimately, checking in with how you actually feel is the answer. I don’t mean to imply this is easy; it’s often really hard to know how you feel, and maybe it changes often and frame controllers put in a lot of effort to obfuscate this. But in the end, careful attention to your own sensations are your saving grace.
This is what I got from her writing:
1. She hates this because it's scarred her and loved ones. 2. This is invisible though. I think radiation is an apt analogy. It's everywhere all the time, but rarely enough to do damage. 3. But it can hurt you and she has seen the scars. 4. It's very possible that you've never seen it's effects and never will.
And I struggle to see how to disagree with these points. A significant portion of her post is admitting that her description will not be a perfect one.
I feel she openly acknowledges that she could be wrong. And I also feel it would only be courteous for us, the readers, to acknowledge she could just be right.
Any giga-successful founder is going to have frame like a five hundred year old oak. Perhaps the archetypal example is Steve Jobs’s (in)famous Reality Distortion Field.
In virtually any pitch meeting the investor’s Bayesian prior is that you’re not worth investing in. If you can’t hold frame that you are you’re not going to make it to yes.
Another example is romantic success. The most successful persons in that field maintain a powerful frame that they are desirable to be with.
If you think so much about an issue without the right data you will get wrong conclusions. In other words, garbage in, garbage out, no matter how smart(how good your processing unit is) you are. This woman looks intellectually smart, emotionally dumb and immature.
This woman had a pathological relationship and generalizes over it. She is projecting that relationship over everyone, and that is a serious mistake.
In spite of being an adult woman she has a "victim mentality" and a tendency to create a "self fulfilling prophecy" because healthy people will avoid her like the plague.
People that had a healthy relationship with their parents or people in general does not want or need to deal with people that consider every one else an abuser, just because they were abused by someone.
If your father rapes you your mind will associate all men as rapists because he is the most important man in your life. But that is wrong.
If your parents are enemies inside marriage with a terrible relationship you will generalize all marriages as bad because it it the marriage that you know better. But that is wrong.
The way to deal with long lasting traumas is working on it emotionally, not rationally and usually over a long time too until you can make progress.
From the article:
The vast majority of good people with good intent aren’t doing any significant kind of frame control;
> healthy people will avoid her like the plague
If you read her other writing you might learn that people are willing to pay significant amounts of money for her company. Maybe they aren't healthy, I dunno.
I think you improperly slotted this insightful article as "woman with victim mentality projects her trauma on everyone" instead of "highly observant person describes behavioral patterns from experience". Maybe read it again?
Can you reframe your argument to be more constructive?
and that you're comfortably within a fact-based frame (perhaps "meta-frame" is more appropiate). Which is a very effective frame which enables cooperation with millions of others but nonetheless is a frame.
Is B trying to use components of frame control to take over A's reality?
IMO the article feels very convoluted
Not according to the article:
[Debate, Recommendation, Pressure, Rescue, Aggression] are all attempts to control your frame, but none of these is what I mean by frame control.