guru1000
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2007
- Messages
- 5,362
- Reaction score
- 4,401
In that case, she is the holder of "her" frame, not the holder of "the" frame between them. In reality, she would defer to him, unless her value system was different than society's.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.
Holding on to a belief to the degree of willing to die for that belief can be seen as a demonstration of "huge value" to some people.SteR said: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.
But, again, Manson is a celebrity. This is high value. Manson is a leader. Leading is a demonstration of higher value. It's all value derived. Being more obstinate in one's reality does not make one an effective leader unless such reality creates perceived value in the subjects' lives.
This is the main point of the thread.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.
Does your perceived value to another change often? Mine does not."Value" is not a fixed variable.
Nor is "frame strength."
Outsmarted <> OutframedIf 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.)
And here is your new argument that frame is subjective:
Here is why your definition of equating "setting frame" with "obstinate in one's reality" fails, as if both parties remain obstinate in their realities, both are perceived to be holding frame. There is only one objective truth in who "owns" the frame between/among you: you, they, or neither. Who defers to whom? Who "owns" the frame is clear and unequivocal to the experienced eye.taiyuu_otoko said: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.
This is correct to the extent that the meaning of your reality is higher value relative to the subject's.taiyuu_otoko said: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.
Further, "holding one's own frame" does not mean "owning a frame between two people." You seem to confuse these disparate instruments.
Swap "credit" with "value," and I agree with this quote.Trump said: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.
Last edited: