In my humble opinion, the only difference between “bad” Frame Control and “good” Frame Control is in how much the Frame corresponds with objective reality, and hopefully, social reality as well.
Hmm. I would guess that, if someone is using a wrong frame (let’s say it depends on assumptions that are demonstrably false), and you have a better frame in mind, there are still better ways and worse ways to go about communicating this and going from the one to the other. Like, explicitly saying “It looks like you’re assuming X, which is wrong because …” seems like the most educational and intellectually legible approach, probably best in a good-faith discussion with an intelligent counterpart; whereas e.g. just saying new stuff from a different set of assumptions that doesn’t directly engage with what they’ve said—but initially looks like it does, and takes long enough / goes through enough distracting stuff before it reaches a mismatch that they’ve forgotten that they’d said something different—is potentially bad.
Now, er, the original post says it uses “frame control” to mean the non-explicit, tricky approach. It mentions “Trying to demonstrate, through reason and facts, how their box is better”, and says “These are all attempts to control your frame, but none of these is what I mean by frame control”, and “No; frame control is the “man doesn’t announce his presence, he just stalks you silently” of the communication world.”
This is unfortunate, because the bare phrase “frame control” will inevitably be interpreted as “actions that control the frame” without further qualifiers (I’d forgotten that the post had the above definition). Something like “silent frame control”, “frame manipulation”, or “frame fuckery” would probably fit better.
I’ll risk sounding a bit crass, but is it not often an issue of the intelligence/knowledge of the recipient?
I mean it in two ways:
1. Sometimes Frame Control only feels tricky or non-explicit, because the recipient is unobservant, or lacking in social tools to recognize explicit but gentle Frame Control. Basically, mistaking politeness and verbosity for manipulation. To use that metaphor: the man was not stalking you silently, you were just wearing headphones and daydreaming instead of paying attention to your surroundings.
2. The recipient could not be convinced that objectively true facts are true, because they lack the knowledge or mental skills to understand them, and Frame Control is pretty much the only way they can be led to accept the facts. I, for one, do not know jack about Quantum Physics, and the holes in my understanding go back to HS science and math. It is literally impossible to teach me to accept say, String Theory on objective principles (“I know it makes sense!”), only to Frame Control me into agreeing with it on subjective principles (“This Hawking guy sure sounds smart!”).
Because of points 1 and 2, a “Frameless” discussion is very hard and unlikely, unless both people are intellectually adept and introspective rationalists, who only slightly differ in their knowledge of the facts on the subject. Any other human interaction by necessity runs on Appeal to Authority (which is basically Frame Control), otherwise nothing would ever get accomplished.
Hmm. I would guess that, if someone is using a wrong frame (let’s say it depends on assumptions that are demonstrably false), and you have a better frame in mind, there are still better ways and worse ways to go about communicating this and going from the one to the other. Like, explicitly saying “It looks like you’re assuming X, which is wrong because …” seems like the most educational and intellectually legible approach, probably best in a good-faith discussion with an intelligent counterpart; whereas e.g. just saying new stuff from a different set of assumptions that doesn’t directly engage with what they’ve said—but initially looks like it does, and takes long enough / goes through enough distracting stuff before it reaches a mismatch that they’ve forgotten that they’d said something different—is potentially bad.
Now, er, the original post says it uses “frame control” to mean the non-explicit, tricky approach. It mentions “Trying to demonstrate, through reason and facts, how their box is better”, and says “These are all attempts to control your frame, but none of these is what I mean by frame control”, and “No; frame control is the “man doesn’t announce his presence, he just stalks you silently” of the communication world.”
This is unfortunate, because the bare phrase “frame control” will inevitably be interpreted as “actions that control the frame” without further qualifiers (I’d forgotten that the post had the above definition). Something like “silent frame control”, “frame manipulation”, or “frame fuckery” would probably fit better.
I’ll risk sounding a bit crass, but is it not often an issue of the intelligence/knowledge of the recipient?
I mean it in two ways:
1. Sometimes Frame Control only feels tricky or non-explicit, because the recipient is unobservant, or lacking in social tools to recognize explicit but gentle Frame Control. Basically, mistaking politeness and verbosity for manipulation. To use that metaphor: the man was not stalking you silently, you were just wearing headphones and daydreaming instead of paying attention to your surroundings.
2. The recipient could not be convinced that objectively true facts are true, because they lack the knowledge or mental skills to understand them, and Frame Control is pretty much the only way they can be led to accept the facts. I, for one, do not know jack about Quantum Physics, and the holes in my understanding go back to HS science and math. It is literally impossible to teach me to accept say, String Theory on objective principles (“I know it makes sense!”), only to Frame Control me into agreeing with it on subjective principles (“This Hawking guy sure sounds smart!”).
Because of points 1 and 2, a “Frameless” discussion is very hard and unlikely, unless both people are intellectually adept and introspective rationalists, who only slightly differ in their knowledge of the facts on the subject. Any other human interaction by necessity runs on Appeal to Authority (which is basically Frame Control), otherwise nothing would ever get accomplished.