FRAME

[guru1000]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is the main point of the thread.

"Value" is not a fixed variable.

Nor is "frame strength."

Does your perceived value to another change often? Mine does not.

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.)

Outsmarted <> Outframed

And here is your new argument that frame is subjective:

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.

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.

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.

This is correct to the extent that the meaning of your reality is higher value relative to the subject's.

Further, "holding one's own frame" does not mean "owning a frame between two people." You seem to confuse these disparate instruments.

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.

Swap "credit" with "value," and I agree with this quote.

 

[guru1000]

For you Manson lovers:

http://lynncinnamon.com/2016/02/charles-manson-convince-young-women-kill/

Manson asked his followers to give up their ego, and only people who were able to sufficiently demonstrate their self-sacrifice were allowed to stay in the group. Although he spun tales about the future of The Family someday hunkering underground in a type of paradise and growing to an enormous size, Charlie would rather have a few, devoted followers who were willing to do anything for him than amass a large group that may grow unwieldy. He also tried to keep a perfect 5:1 women to men ratio so there would always be enough women to attend to the men’s every desire.

All of Manson’s followers were young people in their teens and early twenties who were dealing with conflicts with and feeling misunderstood by their families. When he got out of prison in 1967 and headed over to San Francisco in time for the “Summer of Love,” Charlie drank in the power of all these young, yearning people, many of them looking for someone like him: an alternative to their parents, an authority figure with a philosophy that jived with their desires. They wanted someone to tell them they were ok. Charlie, a fervent racist who saw women as lesser beings, didn’t subscribe to many of the leftist views on Haight-Asbury, but he was happy to reframe some of the mantras he heard other street gurus preach in order to capitalise on the idea of free love and communal living.

He told the young women he met that they were perfect and beautiful, and that their parents were the problem. He claimed to have a solution. “I never ever developed a sense of who I was and where I was going and what I wanted to do,” Patricia Krenwinkel, who killed for Manson, said recently from prison. “I wanted to please. I wanted to feel safe. To feel like someone was going to care for me. I hadn’t felt that from anyone else in my life.”

Manson provided value to followers who were in need of that value. In exchange, he received deference. His followers' deference has nothing to do with his being obstinate in his reality, and everything to do with his reality serving their needs.

The hobo screaming of the apocalypse is 100% obstinate in his belief of the impending doom, but has no followers because he provides no value, and thus is of less value to all.

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

For you Manson lovers:

http://lynncinnamon.com/2016/02/charles-manson-convince-young-women-kill/


Manson provided value to followers who were in need of that value. In exchange, he received deference. His followers' deference has nothing to do with his being obstinate in his reality, and everything to do with his reality serving their needs.

The hobo screaming of the apocalypse is 100% obstinate in his belief of the impending doom, but has no followers because he provides no value, and thus is of less value to all.

Boom! Game over.

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

Guru, you showed how Manson was giving value to control the frame. Your original post mentions "demonstrating greater value." How do you reconcile "giving value" with "demonstrating greater value"?

 

[guru1000]

Guru, you showed how Manson was giving value to control the frame. Your original post mentions "demonstrating greater value." How do you reconcile "giving value" with "demonstrating greater value"?

Within automotive repair, could an individual with no knowledge of auto repair give auto repair value to a certified auto mechanic? No.

Inversely: Within automotive repair, could a certified mechanic give auto repair value to an individual with no knowledge of auto repair? Yes.

Within a specific context, I must be of higher value to give value to a individual of lower value.

A professor can give value to a student.

A doctor can give value to a patient.

A hedge fund manager can give value to a neophyte.

Demonstrating higher value is the precedent to her deferring to your frame (to get value).

A frame is compromised when it is understood that you are no longer in a position to provide value to your followers.

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

Within automotive repair, could an individual with no knowledge of auto repair give auto repair value to a certified auto mechanic? No.

Inversely: Within automotive repair, could a certified mechanic give auto repair value to an individual with no knowledge of auto repair? Yes.

Within a specific context, I must be of higher value to give value to a individual of lower value.

A professor can give value to a student.

A doctor can give value to a patient.

A hedge fund manager can give value to a neophyte.

Demonstrating higher value is the precedent to her deferring to your frame (to get value).

A frame is compromised when it is understood that you are no longer in a position to provide value to your followers.

This aligns congruently with the theory of hypergamy, but better suited, as some of woman's more important needs are not grounded in status, looks, nor wealth but in emotional lacking. So first identify those needs, service those needs, and create a "love slave" for life.

Runs contrary to some of the chest-pounding advice here: "Do what YOU want to do. Forget about her needs." Such advice is counterproductive and rather childish.

 

[guru1000]

This aligns congruently with the theory of hypergamy, but better suited, as some of woman's more important needs are not grounded in status, looks, nor wealth but in emotional lacking. So first identify those needs, service those needs, and create a "love slave" for life.

Runs contrary to some of the chest-pounding advice here: "Do what YOU want to do. Forget about her needs." Such advice is counterproductive and rather childish.

Those who play the game 100% for themselves, stepping on others, don't get very far.

Those who play the game 100% for others, stepping on themselves, don't get very far.

Avoiding one matrix could easily transition to an equally damaging counter-matrix.

Fluidity, my friend. Meet yours needs and her needs, concurrently. Herein is the advanced level game.

 

[ChristopherColumbus]

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.

All examples of self-delusional psychopaths.

So it seems a distinction needs to be made between healthy and unhealthy frames, or realistic and solipsistic frames.

The best frame has to be one rooted in reality, which is no doubt why you see some hammering away for the underlying way men really are, and the way woman really are. There is a perceived need to be rooted in reality lest we become delusional.

Yet a mass ideology is just another frame -- we have bought into somebody else's frame. The delusional aspect is not so keenly felt as surely not all of us can be delusional?

Each person's frame ought to be their own. They must provide or create their own conduit to reality at the existential level. It is this authentic mode of existence that woman find attractive.

Heightened subjectivity [flow, state, game] will attract, momentarily, people of a more objective and ungrounded state of mind [like an object they are subject to contingent forces]. I think this is just the tip of the ice-berg though. People can develop that experience into deep subjectivity, where your subjectivity is grounded 24/ 7. And there you develop the ability to keep a quality woman... should you desire to do so.

 

[playa99]

I believe frame is deeper than simply demonstrating higher overt value than another person

It comes down to more than what you own, the women you date and where you are.

The materialistic objects you own can end up owning you. Your ego can be SO invested in being a 'god' of the world it weakens your frame.

Whether you are broke or overweight you can still be in control of your frame. Infact, owning your frame is a pillar of success.

You must believe that you own the frame and only then can you demonstrate this to the world.

Granted, someone who owns their frame completely is unlikely to end up flat broke or morbidly obese.

Being true to yourself regardless of your situation is the epitomy of holding your frame. That is not to be mistaken with not letting the world change you.

Your frame is how strong you are as a person.

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

Playa, Guru wasn't driving at SMV value (he used those specific examples to demonstrate a point of value). His point of demonstrating higher value was in having higher value to give value a.k.a. meeting the needs of the follower (while also meeting yours). See the Manson analysis in Post 42.

Being true to yourself is great, but if being true to yourself runs contrary to all the needs of the other, then you will find zero success in the market. Best to adapt "being true to yourself" to include meeting the needs of the other (and thus creating value) and yourself to maximize YOUR success.

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

Guru, your thoughts:

Is the act of giving value a covert demonstration of having higher value?

 

[guru1000]

Guru, your thoughts:

Is the act of giving value a covert demonstration of having higher value?

Inherent in the act of “giving value” is having value to give and the receiver lacking that value for value to be received, so within this act of giving and receiving, the receiver is implicitly acknowledging you possess the ability to give something that the receiver needs; thus creating the teacher-student dynamic. Within that specific context and at that specific time, you are demonstrating higher value.

It follows, if you continue to give value, you are conditioning the working dynamic to be that you are of higher value. Granted, you are receiving reciprocal value from her as well, just as a teacher might receive value for successfully teaching a concept to a student, but the frame is still governed by the giver (of direct as opposed to reciprocal) value, not the receiver.

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

Inherent in the act of “giving value” is having value to give and the receiver lacking that value for value to be received, so within this act of giving and receiving, the receiver is implicitly acknowledging you possess the ability to give something that the receiver needs; thus creating the teacher-student dynamic. Within that specific context and at that specific time, you are demonstrating higher value.

It follows, if you continue to give value, you are conditioning the working dynamic to be that you are of higher value. Granted, you are receiving reciprocal value from her as well, just as a teacher might receive value for successfully teaching a concept to a student, but the frame is still governed by the giver (of direct as opposed to reciprocal) value, not the receiver.

Seems like the Mason frame plays right into this teacher-student dynamic, to such an extent that the student would sacrifice her own livelihood in support of the teacher:

Mason told the young women he met that they were perfect and beautiful, and that their parents were the problem. He claimed to have a solution. “I never ever developed a sense of who I was and where I was going and what I wanted to do,” Patricia Krenwinkel, who killed for Manson, said recently from prison. “I wanted to please. I wanted to feel safe. To feel like someone was going to care for me. I hadn’t felt that from anyone else in my life.”

No mate, that is basics.

Deesade, perhaps you missed the 1000 threads of, "Play only by your rules/desires."

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

Guru, counterpoint: Would not a panderer, then, be under the impression that he is giving value, and thus demonstrating or having higher value?

 

[guru1000]

Guru, counterpoint: Would not a panderer, then, be under the impression that he is giving value, and thus demonstrating or having higher value?

Hence, why much of the forum is confused in how to effectively give value without compromising themselves in the process.

Having the “need” to pander, a panderer operates from a position of lower value. The frame in such a context has already been compromised. Thus, any value that such panderer attempts to give in a compromised frame is a nullity, as the individual of lower value has already implicitly demonstrated that his value is not worth having.

If unsure where you in the high/low value paradigm with a girl, look at your motivations: Are you operating from abundance or scarcity? Are you operating from confidence or fear? Are you looking higher or lower? Are you governing or being governed? If you are operating from the former, give value. If you operate from the latter, she already governs the frame, so all further value attempts to give are nullities.

 

[Tenacity]

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.

No, I'm not talking about achieving a 100% batting average. I'm saying if controlling frame is based on how someone else perceives you (like you said), but their perception of you is mainly out of your control to an extent, then why should guys focus on controlling a "frame" they have no control over?

It's almost as if "frame" comes as a byproduct of something, rather than a stand-alone product. To me it's all about rapport and if you have said rapport........then "frame" to an extent would automatically come as a byproduct of said situation.

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.

That's the thing, I don't think there's a step by step manual to gain rapport. I think rapport is a sum of a variety of variables coming together at one time, variables such as culture, customs, conditions, attraction, and perception of value.

ALL I can do is fix my looks, personality, and finances to where I can generally be seen as attractive....but that does NOT mean I will be seen as attractive to everybody.

For example, Guru I'm the same Tenacity to you and everybody else, but I've had guys on here who are willing to hang out/meet up with me offline.....but remember it was you who said you would never want to do such a thing, and you prefer to meet up with broke, 30 year old guys like SoFloBro who sleeps on women's couches lol.

So ask yourself a question Guru, how did Tenacity build rapport with these other guys, but didn't do so with you, if Tenacity was the same Tenacity? How is it that I'm cool with some guys on here, but others like BeTheChange have seemingly always been an arch nemesis of mine? How is it that a lot of the stuff I say resonates with folks on here, but Taiyuu_Otoko and Deesade can't stand what I say so much that they have put me on Ignore forever?

It comes down to people's own individual personal perceptions, and I honestly have no control over if an individual personally LIKES or HATES me.

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?

So are you referring to someone's control/leadership? Because again, what is frame? If you are referring to someone's leadership, I will assume this question refers to if I'm a stock broker on Wallstreet and a bum on the street comes up to me with "stock strategies"....would I listen to his recommendations?

 

[Reykhel]

No, I'm not talking about achieving a 100% batting average. I'm saying if controlling frame is based on how someone else perceives you (like you said), but their perception of you is mainly out of your control to an extent, then why should guys focus on controlling a "frame" they have no control over?

It's almost as if "frame" comes as a byproduct of something, rather than a stand-alone product. To me it's all about rapport and if you have said rapport........then "frame" to an extent would automatically come as a byproduct of said situation.



That's the thing, I don't think there's a step by step manual to gain rapport. I think rapport is a sum of a variety of variables coming together at one time, variables such as culture, customs, conditions, attraction, and perception of value.

ALL I can do is fix my looks, personality, and finances to where I can generally be seen as attractive....but that does NOT mean I will be seen as attractive to everybody.

For example, Guru I'm the same Tenacity to you and everybody else, but I've had guys on here who are willing to hang out/meet up with me offline.....but remember it was you who said you would never want to do such a thing, and you prefer to meet up with broke, 30 year old guys like SoFloBro who sleeps on women's couches lol.

So ask yourself a question Guru, how did Tenacity build rapport with these other guys, but didn't do so with you, if Tenacity was the same Tenacity? How is it that I'm cool with some guys on here, but others like BeTheChange have seemingly always been an arch nemesis of mine? How is it that a lot of the stuff I say resonates with folks on here, but Taiyuu_Otoko and Deesade can't stand what I say so much that they have put me on Ignore forever?

It comes down to people's own individual personal perceptions, and I honestly have no control over if an individual personally LIKES or HATES me.



So are you referring to someone's control/leadership? Because again, what is frame? If you are referring to someone's leadership, I will assume this question refers to if I'm a stock broker on Wallstreet and a bum on the street comes up to me with "stock strategies"....would I listen to his recommendations?

 

[Tenacity]

"The uploader has not made this video available in your country."

How about learn how to post a video that works next time lol? And I thought I was responding to Guru's question, this discussion has nothing to do with you.

 

[Vivacity]

To me, frame, in general and as it applies to women, is:

(1) Self-respect, i.e., you will not tolerate any disrespect from women and other people.
(2) Establishing ground rules of the relationship at the beginning of the relationship itself and unconditional adherence to the ground rules from both parties.
(3) You know beforehand how you are going to behave in different situations you may encounter and your behavior is not dependent on other person's or people's actions and their tactics/attempts to sway you from your path.

These three will prevent people from walking all over you.

 

[Reykhel]

"The uploader has not made this video available in your country."

How about learn how to post a video that works next time lol? And I thought I was responding to Guru's question, this discussion has nothing to do with you.

I got a giggle out of it, that's all that matters. Self amusement frame.

Maybe if you weren't so uptight and unhappy......

And it's an open forum, don't be such a hypocritical crybaby. You want private discussions there's a way to do