FRAME

[SmooveMooves]

This is a good there and discussion shít I like to see, guy's talking shop. @Poon King & @guru1000 I think both of you guys' point have some merit. I understand what Poon is saying by, guru1000's analysis of frame is too complex. However, his behavior examples were spot on. That heroine addict can have all the self-respect in the world it doesn't change his perception by others.

I get that you're not supposed to care what people think. However, pretending you're always golden is delusion. Certain behaviors should be maintained to retain a rock solid frame. For instance, I would never let a woman see me cry. 48 laws of power. Never be seen in weakness. Moreover, I do understand Poon's explanation that a strong self-worth will lead to this behavior but that's not always the case. That's why it's nice to look at actual behaviors sometimes.

I also don't believe a strong frame somehow negates beta and low value behavior. No matter how boss I feel, calling a chick everyday and acting like a pûssy decreases. That's how value works.

My 2 cents.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

By this definition, would this not make the deranged man screaming of the apocalypse to come at month-end the "owner" of the frame between him and I?

OK, let's say Guru has decided to take a break from posting lessons on Sosuave and is strolling down the street. He runs into a man screaming about the impending apocalypse.

His frame is "the apocalypse is coming and we are all about to die." That is his meaning of reality.

Guru's frame is "I'm on my way to pick up my tux at the cleaners and this guy thinks the world is going to end, but I know it isn't, because my options contracts don't expire for another two months." That's Guru's meaning of reality at that point in time.

It's not a question of OWNERSHIP, as you implied.

Everybody "owns" their frame (until they meet somebody with a more COMPELLING frame and step into theirs).

It's a question of who has the stronger frame AND who has one that the other WILLINGLY enters it.

In the above example, you BOTH hold to your frame, but ZERO persuasion has taken place.

Persuasion (of any type, sales or seduction or drinking purple kool aid) happens when one WILLINGLY accepts the frame of another.

Person A can entice person B to action or thought or belief if person B believes that person A's frame is MORE COMPELLING than person B's.

Charlie Manson had such a strong frame that others WILLINGLY entered it and accepted it as their own.

If the guy talking to the girl at the bar HOLDS to his frame (we are sleeping together tonight) so that she willingly steps out of her frame (I'm getting some free drinks from this guy) and into his, his frame is stronger than hers AND it's more compelling ACCORDING TO HER.

PRO TIP

Every time a human interacts with another human, there is some kind of FRAME WAR going on.

WHOEVER CONTROLS THE MEANING OF REALITY CONTROLS REALITY.

 

[guru1000]

It's not a question of OWNERSHIP, as you implied.

Everybody "owns" their frame (until they meet somebody with a more COMPELLING frame and step into theirs).

It's a question of who has the stronger frame AND who has one that the other WILLINGLY enters it.

Persuasion (of any type, sales or seduction or drinking purple kool aid) happens when one WILLINGLY accepts the frame of another.

Person A can entice person B to action or thought or belief if person B believes that person A's frame is MORE COMPELLING than person B's.

Could one abandon their own frame and submit to the frame of another who is perceived to have lower value? If so, provide just one example. I'm waiting ...

... ...

I'm still waiting ...

In the context of auto repair, I will submit to the frame of the perceived mechanic, because he is of higher perceived value in automotive repair.

In the context of dating, the HB6 will submit to the frame of the perceived SMV 9 guy, because he is of higher perceived value in the sexual market place.

In the context of trading, the novice trader will submit to the frame of the perceived hedge fund manager because he is of higher perceived value in positional trading.

Charles Manson, your mentor, has zero value to me in any context. Thus, I could not enter his frame. But to a low value girl (or perhaps you , his fan club), he may seem appealing as a celebrity of higher perceived value, meriting her (your) acquiescence in social situations.

You will never submit to a frame in a specific context to one who has lower perceived value in that context.

Your attempt to control the meaning of another's reality is futile if your value is perceived lower, but effective if your value is perceived higher.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Charles Manson, your mentor, has zero value to me in any context.

Quite an interesting comment to make

Charlie Manson is an example of somebody with a strong frame who had ZERO money or status or looks.

Cult Leaders are FANTASTIC examples of having strong frames because they suck people into their realty, regardless of what guys "think" they need (money, looks, etc).

That you don't find them compelling or valuable is irrelevant.

It's also interesting that you use the word, "submit" to describe the process of ditching one's frame for a more compelling one, as many cult followers do when they ditch their own frame and enter that of the cult leader.

Submit is generally used when one is "forced" or "coerced" into doing something.

accept or yield to a superior force or to the authority or will of another person

When it comes to seducing women, thinking in terms of overpowering them with superior force of will isn't something I'd recommend.

Instead I'd recommend having such a compelling reality (frame) that she's dying to enter, "submitting" being the last thing on their mind.

But if you think you need to "make" women "submit," knock yourself out.

 

[guru1000]

Charlie Manson is an example of somebody with a strong frame who had ZERO money or status or looks.

No status? Manson is a universal celebrity. Remove his celebrity status, and he loses his low-value entourage.

Cult Leaders are FANTASTIC examples of having strong frames because they suck people into their realty, regardless of what guys "think" they need (money, looks, etc).

Being an effective leader and having lower value than one's followers is an oxymoron.

It's also interesting that you use the word, "submit" to describe the process of ditching one's frame for a more compelling one, as many cult followers do when they ditch their own frame and enter that of the cult leader.

Those with lower value submit to one with higher perceived value, the cult leader.

 

[Tenacity]

Could one abandon their own frame and submit to the frame of another who is perceived to have lower value? If so, provide just one example. I'm waiting ...

In the context of auto repair, I will submit to the frame of the perceived mechanic, because he is of higher perceived value in automotive repair.

In the context of dating, the HB6 will submit to the frame of the perceived SMV 9 guy, because he is of higher perceived value in the sexual market place.

In the context of trading, the novice trader will submit to the frame of the perceived hedge fund manager because he is of higher perceived value in positional trading.

Guru this is an excellent discussion man. But I have a question. You keep using the word "perceive" in relation to frame....do we as individuals really control how other individuals "perceive" us?

For example, on my OKCupid profile I have my shirtless pictures up.

- Some girls perceive me as a slvt showing his body off, who is just looking to fvck.

- Then some girls perceive me as a guy that's accomplished something in relation to fitness, and during our convo they compliment me on the pics and start asking questions about how I could help them with their fitness situation.

Same pics, same profile, same Tenacity.........but I'm "perceived" completely different by different sets of individuals.

Does a guy really have control over "frame", if it's totally based on how someone else perceives him? You see I preach fix your looks, personality, and finances so that you are "attractive", but could a guy be attractive, but be perceived wrong, and thus....still get no action? Would that explain my numbers game of you get 20 numbers, go on 12 dates, fvck 6 and spin plates with 3? The reason you only fvcked 6 of the 20 numbers was based on a perception that you truly had no control over?

For example, Donald Trump (for all his flaws) is really a more attractive Presidential candidate than Hillary Clinton. However, black people will not vote for him despite his attraction, based on how they perceive him (racist) even though their perception of him has nothing to do with anything he's done, stands for, actually said, etc.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

No status? Manson is a universal celebrity.

I'm referring to when he was a hippie living in a bus. He was a nobody back then. Before his celebrity status.

You seem to be confusing many things. Leadership requires a strong frame, but a strong frame doesn't mean one needs to be a leader.

A guy who works at McDonalds can seduce an heiress is his frame is strong enough.

Those with lower value submit to one with higher perceived value, the cult leader.

Exactly. The Cult leader has a strong and compelling frame (both ingredients are necessary for seduction). The cult followers may have strong frames (they strongly believe their life sucks, they have no purpose, etc) but their CONTENT of their frames is not compelling.

Both the cult leaders STRENGTH of his frame (how strongly he believes his version of reality) AND how COMPELLING his "version" of reality is are necessary.

The only reason I bring up cult leaders is because I'm assuming guys would like to know HOW to improve their FRAME CONTROL. It's not really beneficial to argue who has the best definition, unless it can be put into practice.

In order to woo a girl, all you need to do is have a COMPELLING enough reality for her to WANT to enter.

Luckily, there are a MILLION ways to get there.

If you LOVE being in your skin, she'll LOVE being between your sheets.

 

[guru1000]

Exactly. The Cult leader has a strong and compelling frame (both ingredients are necessary for seduction). The cult followers may have strong frames (they strongly believe their life sucks, they have no purpose, etc) but their CONTENT of their frames is not compelling.


Both the cult leaders STRENGTH of his frame (how strongly he believes his version of reality) AND how COMPELLING his "version" of reality is are necessary.

The only reason I bring up cult leaders is because I'm assuming guys would like to know HOW to improve their FRAME CONTROL. It's not really beneficial to argue who has the best definition, unless it can be put into practice.

In order to woo a girl, all you need to do is have a COMPELLING enough reality for her to WANT to enter.

The act of giving a compelling reality requires that the giver of such a reality possess higher value in that reality to give to those of lower value in need of that reality. Else, such reality cannot be given.

One cannot “own” the frame while concomitantly having lower value than the follower within the context on which the frame is based.

Guru this is an excellent discussion man. But I have a question. You keep using the word "perceive" in relation to frame....do we as individuals really control how other individuals "perceive" us?

For example, on my OKCupid profile I have my shirtless pictures up.

- Some girls perceive me as a slvt showing his body off, who is just looking to fvck.

- Then some girls perceive me as a guy that's accomplished something in relation to fitness, and during our convo they compliment me on the pics and start asking questions about how I could help them with their fitness situation.

Same pics, same profile, same Tenacity.........but I'm "perceived" completely different by different sets of individuals.

Does a guy really have control over "frame", if it's totally based on how someone else perceives him? You see I preach fix your looks, personality, and finances so that you are "attractive", but could a guy be attractive, but be perceived wrong, and thus....still get no action? Would that explain my numbers game of you get 20 numbers, go on 12 dates, fvck 6 and spin plates with 3? The reason you only fvcked 6 of the 20 numbers was based on a perception that you truly had no control over?

For example, Donald Trump (for all his flaws) is really a more attractive Presidential candidate than Hillary Clinton. However, black people will not vote for him despite his attraction, based on how they perceive him (racist) even though their perception of him has nothing to do with anything he's done, stands for, actually said, etc.

Tenacity, are you saying that another's perception of you cannot change based on the words that you elect to use and deliver?

 

[daddymonsterpoodle]

@Tenacity of course we can change how others perceive us... Every day we do it. Every time we open our mouths or the way we move, what we wear, how we smell etc.
If we couldn't every self-improvement site on the planet would be pointless.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

The act of giving a compelling reality requires that the giver of such a reality possess higher value in that reality to give to those of lower value in need of that reality. Else, such reality cannot be given.

Nobody is giving anybody any reality. One is convincing (usually through actions and other subconscious communications, and usually unconscious intent) that one's model of reality is preferable to another's.

Nobody IMPOSES their frame on others. One leaves one own frame and enters that of another IF it is more compelling and stronger.

One cannot “own” the frame while concomitantly having lower value than the follower within the context on which the frame is based.

Nobody "owns" a frame. It can be "controlled" for a while, but contexts can change as often as the conversations do.

"Value" is also equally slippery and can change as the topic of conversation does.

Nevertheless your point is self-evident, however transient these things exist.

 

[guru1000]

Nobody is giving anybody any reality. One is convincing (usually through actions and other subconscious communications, and usually unconscious intent) that one's model of reality is preferable to another's.

Nobody IMPOSES their frame on others. One leaves one own frame and enters that of another IF it is more compelling and stronger.

It is implicitly understood that the stronger, more compelling reality originates from the individual of perceived higher value, correct? Or, conversely, are there any examples that you can contrive where the individual of lower value possesses a stronger or more compelling reality that the individual of perceived higher value would willingly surrender to?

Nobody "owns" a frame. It can be "controlled" for a while, but contexts can change as often as the conversations do.

I own the frame in all interpersonal/ business relations, 100% of the time except in sales. I give the illusion of surrendering the frame only in business matters where potential liabilities surface or could arise, but in even in these matters, it's the guise of an ostensible retreat, but really a calculated play.

 

[Tenacity]

Tenacity, are you saying that another's perception of you cannot change based on the words that you elect to use and deliver?

To an "extent".......but my question is digging into what is frame exactly? If frame is founded on how someone else perceives me, which means the only way to "control frame" is if someone perceives me the "right way", how do I have complete control over how someone perceives me?

Let's use a sales/business example. I call on 2 prospects.

- One prospect has had a bad experience with another agent in my industry and has decided to swear off all agents in my industry from now on. So when I call them up for a new service, new opportunity, etc., I get "told off/cussed out" or some other variation of get the hell out of here and have to listen to a 5 minute diatribe of how he hates sales reps and will never work with our stinking a.sses again. I'm completely and utterly unable to control the frame with this prospect.

- Then another prospect hasn't had such bad experience, so when I call them up, they are receptive to the call because the products/services I'm describing they can actually use and they haven't sworn off all sales agents in our industry. I'm able to control the frame with this prospect.

My approach to both were the same, but with two totally different results, based on factors that I had absolutely no control over. Furthermore, could I have "tried a different approach" for prospect one? Like a different voice tone, tried bringing him cookies, etc., etc.? Maybe....but the guy has already sworn off all reps in our industry so it's literally a 10% or less chance that would have worked either.

Guru my bigger point is that I'm not sure "frame" exists to the extent that it's a separate "entity" all to itself. To me what the Manosphere calls "frame" seems to just in actuality be"rapport", which can be BROKEN/DESTROYED based on situations, conditions, and factors beyond your control...or never established in the first place based again on situations, conditions, and factors beyond your control.

 

[guru1000]

To an "extent".......but my question is digging into what is frame exactly? If frame is founded on how someone else perceives me, which means the only way to "control frame" is if someone perceives me the "right way", how do I have complete control over how someone perceives me?

Let's use a sales/business example. I call on 2 prospects.

- One prospect has had a bad experience with another agent in my industry and has decided to swear off all agents in my industry from now on. So when I call them up for a new service, new opportunity, etc., I get "told off/cussed out" or some other variation of get the hell out of here and have to listen to a 5 minute diatribe of how he hates sales reps and will never work with our stinking a.sses again. I'm completely and utterly unable to control the frame with this prospect.

- Then another prospect hasn't had such bad experience, so when I call them up, they are receptive to the call because the products/services I'm describing they can actually use and they haven't sworn off all sales agents in our industry. I'm able to control the frame with this prospect.

My approach to both were the same, but with two totally different results, based on factors that I had absolutely no control over. Furthermore, could I have "tried a different approach" for prospect one? Like a different voice tone, tried bringing him cookies, etc., etc.? Maybe....but the guy has already sworn off all reps in our industry so it's literally a 10% or less chance that would have worked either.

Are you asking how to attain a 100% batting average with all people? You can't. Some people will not value you no matter who you are. This doesn't mean you can't improve your batting average with people who may value you.

Guru my bigger point is that I'm not sure "frame" exists to the extent that it's a separate "entity" all to itself. To me what the Manosphere calls "frame" seems to just in actuality be"rapport",

I wouldn't call frame an "entity," as much as an observable dynamic. It can be understood as a rapport that you govern. The deeper question is how to govern such a rapport.

My question to you: Can you defer to the frame of another if you believe that individual to possess lower value than yourself in the context upon which that frame is based?

 

[SteR]

Could one abandon their own frame and submit to the frame of another who is perceived to have lower value? If so, provide just one example. I'm waiting ...

... ...

I'm still waiting ...

The problem is that this is all subjective. There is no objective 'value' here. One person's definition of value may vary drastically from another.

Let's say we have a wealthy businessman going after a pretty yoga instructor. The guy may look at the woman and perceive himself as holding more value because he has more material assets. The girl may look at the guy and perceive herself as having more value as she's young and pretty and "money doesn't matter".

Now the problem here is there's a stalemate, and one of them is going to have to submit to the other. And yet there's no way of telling who's going to submit to who.. it literally comes down to how strongly you are willing to fight for your reality... which I suppose is why I agree with @fastlife and @taiyuu_otoko.

Whoever believes in their reality the most will be the one who holds the power.

 

[guru1000]

The problem is that this is all subjective. There is no objective 'value' here. One person's definition of value may vary drastically from another.

Let's say we have a wealthy businessman going after a pretty yoga instructor. The guy may look at the woman and perceive himself as holding more value because he has more material assets. The girl may look at the guy and perceive herself as having more value as she's young and pretty and "money doesn't matter".

Now the problem here is there's a stalemate, and one of them is going to have to submit to the other. And yet there's no way of telling who's going to submit to who.. it literally comes down to how strongly you are willing to fight for your reality... which I suppose is why I agree with @fastlife and @taiyuu_otoko.

Whoever believes in their reality the most will be the one who holds the power.

Hence, the frequent use of "perceived" higher value.

So the businessman perceives his value is higher than the girl's because of his wealth and success. The yoga instructor perceives her value to be higher than the businessman's because of her youth and looks. The businessman can hold onto his reality as obstinately as he likes, but this won't change his perceived value to her. The girl can hold onto her reality as obstinately as she likes, but this won't change her perceived value to him. It's appears as a stalemate, at least initially.

15 minutes into the date, a Victoria Secrets model walks into and kisses the businessman hello and goodbye. The yoga instructors asks, "OMG, who is that?!"

"Oh, my ex. Great girl, just didn't work out. The breakup was hard for her," he passively states.

The waitress walks up to the businessman "Hey Sam. Donald Trump was here the other way looking for you, it's a shame you weren't around."

When the pretty and young yoga instructor unequivocally learns that this "lower value" businessman has much prettier and younger girls than her who are vying for his attention and commitment; when the girl learns that this "lower value" businessman has in fact much higher value than she could have ever envisioned, only then will she be open to his frame.

I use extreme examples to demonstrate a point. Nothing wrong with what TO stated about her deferring to your compelling reality, but such a statement, alone, overlooks that for this to occur requires the precedent of your "perceived" value being greater than hers. With higher perceived value, your reality--all-of-a-sudden--becomes compelling.

 

[SteR]

I completely agree with using extreme examples; it's what puts the theory to the test.

But again, what you're saying only works if the girl submits her frame. She could equally not bat an eyelid and hold her frame if she valued herself on other characteristics (I realise this would almost certainly never happen in the real world). What I said above would still apply ie. If she believed in her reality strongly enough, she would still hold the frame.

Maybe this is what made people like Manson special.. they had no value as perceived by the normal standard, however the held so fiercely onto their own frame that other frames buckled beneath them.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

can contrive where the individual of lower value possesses a stronger or more compelling reality that the individual of perceived higher value would willingly surrender to?

"contrive."

Hmm.

You seem to have a need to force all discussions of frame, frame control, holding the frame, etc. into the "high value -low value" paradigm.

I believe that to be an unhelpful oversimplification. "Value" is not a fixed variable.

Nor is "frame strength."

I own the frame in all interpersonal/ business relations, 100% of the time except in sales.

I very much doubt that to be true. I would imagine that those you interact with could potentially feel the same way.

Humans are very good at self-deception. Two people can walk away from the SAME interaction, both holding the illusion that they controlled the frame.

The power of rewriting history (not the events themselves but the meaning of those events) is one of human's strongest skills.

Ego protection is paramount.

If you've ever walked into a supermarket and bought anything OTHER than you intended, you've been OUTFRAMED by the supermarket itself (vicariously by the marketers who were in charge of product placement.)

Sure, you tell yourself something like, "well it was on sale and it looked good so I decided to buy it," but in reality your frame was changed by your environment.

Humans are pack animals, not lone wolves. We are hard wired to take on the dominant frames of those around us.

Alpha males get outframed by alpha males all the time.

Every human interaction is a never ending flow of new information entering the system and therefore a continuously evolving context.

Any person's frame is ALWAYS precarious at best.

Even if a guy approaches a girl, and ends up banging her, the frame is ALWAYS in question, even during sex.

The male is thinking "I'm in charge" while the female is thinking the same thing "I'm letting him bang me."

After the event, she'd describe the situation as if SHE were in control of the frame the entire time.

You might even say the BEST RELATIONSHIPS are where BOTH PARTIES believe they are in control of the frame.

In fact I'd go so far as to say that every human, at all times is pre-wired genetically to BELIEVE they are controlling the frame.

Guy wants to walk across the bar to talk to a cutie but he's terrified. He DOES NOT say , "'I'm too scared to talk to her," because that would mean to admit being outframed by the situation. Instead, he comes up with an ego-protection delusional belief of "she's not my type." and keeps up his illusion that he is in "control" of the frame.

Nevertheless, these discussions can go on ad infinitum.

Suffice it to say that practicing HOLDING A FRAME, meaning to stick to the meaning of your reality in face of attempts to change it is a worthy skill to develop, however you'd like to describe it.

And practicing with cute girls is a lot of fun.

 

[PantyWhisperer]

This is the absolute BEST definition of frame in this entire thread.

Frame is simply the meaning you put on an "event."

Whoever has the strongest FRAME will determine the MEANING of that "event."

(E.g.: You think you're chatting her up to get her number. SHE thinks she's getting a free drink. Who will have the strongest frame?)

Social proof is not needed, but it helps.

Authority is not needed, but it helps.

Demonstration of High Value is not needed, but it helps.

The strength of your frame is simply how strongly you hold to the "meaning" of any interaction, especially if the face of attempted contradiction.

With a strong enough frame, all you need is jeans and a ratty t-shirt and you can talk ANYBODY into bed.

All the other junk mentioned in this thread are just props, like carrying around Tarot cards and using them as an opener.

CHARLIE MANSON is an example of somebody with an incredibly strong frame.

Short smelly hippie that lived in a bus but he got girls to KILL FOR HIM.

Anybody that was around him was SUCKED right into his reality, due to the strength of his frame.

Jim Jones is another one. People LITERALLY followed him across the EARTH.

If you want to SEE a PERFECT EXAMPLE of somebody with a HUGELY strong frame, check out the movie, "Holy Hell" on Netflix.

Dude is still alive. Even AFTER he was proven to be a fraud, people still follow and worship him.

LOL I was just thinking last week that old Chuck Manson was one of history's undeniable alphas!! Talk about spinning plates lol

 

[resilient]

Humans are pack animals, not lone wolves. We are hard wired to take on the dominant frames of those around us.

Alpha males get outframed by alpha males all the time.

Every human interaction is a never ending flow of new information entering the system and therefore a continuously evolving context.

That's interesting. Let's talk about that.

When you look at leaders and war generals, they're often elected to position based on their accomplishments. They were given authority to position troops or strategized a formation that ending up paying off. Maybe they won they battle, the war, a strategic town in a war campaign, least amount of causalities, etc.

Could frame, then, be elevated by repeatedly forced to make decisions?

Also, if those decisions were beneficial for the most part while minimizing mistakes and casualties does the man internally strengthen his frame or does his frame elevate based on the perceived value that others place/perceive of him?

In the modern day work environment, I believe you could say this is often how employees move up the company chain by recognition of adding value with creativity and discipline in the mix. If we are truly pack animals as you say, taiyuu, then others place their value in us, and perhaps they elevate our frame (meaning that they buy into our reality based off the reality we placed in ourselves first).

 

[Trump]

What does owning a frame mean?

One day you come to me to teach you how to effectively seduce women. In the first few moments of our interaction, I show you last year's filed federal tax return, which shows an adjusted gross income of 10 million. I tell you that I earned this 10 million by seducing women. "Wow, you think. This guy is incredible."

From that moment, I own the frame between you and me. Everything I say in matters of seduction, you will listen to. Everything I ask you to do in matters of seduction, you will do without hesitation. My value to you is at its ceiling.

Now let’s say at a later time, you discover that my tax return was fraudulent, and that I am a complete fraud. At that moment, I have lost the frame between you and me. Whatever I do or say after that moment would be irrelevant, as you would no longer give me or my advice any value. My value to you is now zero.

Owning the frame is simply evidencing your unequivocal higher value in the subject’s mind.

Bro that's complex. I know you have way more experience than me but I think you are talking more about "credit" rather than "frame." You lost all credit in your example, don't think there is a 'frame' between us.

Personally I think frame is about 3 things;

1) Don't wait or depend on the other persons response to move ahead with your life.
2) Don't say emotional things
3) Don't put down others to make yourself feel better