I like the rule, and if it’s possible to come up with engagement guidelines that have asymmetrical results for frame control I would really like that.
Some thoughts, based on one particular framing of the problem...
Claim/frame: in general, the most robust defense against abuse is to foster independence in the corresponding domain. The most robust defense against emotional abuse is to foster emotional independence, the most robust defense against financial abuse is to foster financial independence, etc. The reasoning is that, if I am in not independent in some domain, then I am necessarily dependent on someone else in that domain, and any kind of dependence always creates an opportunity for abuse.
Applying that idea to frame control: the most robust defense is to build my own frames, pay attention to them, notice when they don’t match the frame someone else is using, etc. It’s “frame independence”: I independently maintain my own frames, and notice when other people set up frames which clash with them.
But independence is not always a viable option in practice, and then we have to fall back on next-best solutions. The main class of next-best solutions I know of involve having a wide variety of people to depend on and freedom to move between them—i.e. avoiding dependence on a monopoly provider.
Applying that next-best answer to frame control: when we can’t rely on “frame independence”, we want to have a variety of people around providing different frames, so that it’s easy to move between them. Social norms to support people offering alternative frames (for instance, making “I disagree with the frame” a normal conversational move) therefore provide value not only by letting me express my own frame, but giving me other peoples’ frames to choose from when I’m not ready to provide my own. Actively trying to include people who tend to have different frames should also help with this.
When I started reading my first thought was, not independence but competitive alternatives. Then of course you pointed to the same. However, I’m wondering if that is really where it stops.
First I want to say I did not give the OP a full read and second that there are important parts of what I did read that I have fully digested. Given that, I have to wonder if the issue of frame control as raised by the author here is fully solved in the same way we think of economic problem solutions coming out of competitive supply and demand settings.
Am I really in a good place personally just because I can pick and choose among those controlling my frame? Or, put differently, is multiple support options (i.e., able to expose one’s self to multiple other frames) certain to eliminate the problem of frame control for that person? Something is nudging me in the direction of “not quite sure about that”. Then again, maybe what we have is that one never escapes frame control so we’re always talking about the best of a bunch of “bad” options.
Some thoughts, based on one particular framing of the problem...
Claim/frame: in general, the most robust defense against abuse is to foster independence in the corresponding domain. The most robust defense against emotional abuse is to foster emotional independence, the most robust defense against financial abuse is to foster financial independence, etc. The reasoning is that, if I am in not independent in some domain, then I am necessarily dependent on someone else in that domain, and any kind of dependence always creates an opportunity for abuse.
Applying that idea to frame control: the most robust defense is to build my own frames, pay attention to them, notice when they don’t match the frame someone else is using, etc. It’s “frame independence”: I independently maintain my own frames, and notice when other people set up frames which clash with them.
But independence is not always a viable option in practice, and then we have to fall back on next-best solutions. The main class of next-best solutions I know of involve having a wide variety of people to depend on and freedom to move between them—i.e. avoiding dependence on a monopoly provider.
Applying that next-best answer to frame control: when we can’t rely on “frame independence”, we want to have a variety of people around providing different frames, so that it’s easy to move between them. Social norms to support people offering alternative frames (for instance, making “I disagree with the frame” a normal conversational move) therefore provide value not only by letting me express my own frame, but giving me other peoples’ frames to choose from when I’m not ready to provide my own. Actively trying to include people who tend to have different frames should also help with this.
‘Monopoly provider of meaning’ also helps me understand why this is more widespread in spiritual scenes.
When I started reading my first thought was, not independence but competitive alternatives. Then of course you pointed to the same. However, I’m wondering if that is really where it stops.
First I want to say I did not give the OP a full read and second that there are important parts of what I did read that I have fully digested. Given that, I have to wonder if the issue of frame control as raised by the author here is fully solved in the same way we think of economic problem solutions coming out of competitive supply and demand settings.
Am I really in a good place personally just because I can pick and choose among those controlling my frame? Or, put differently, is multiple support options (i.e., able to expose one’s self to multiple other frames) certain to eliminate the problem of frame control for that person? Something is nudging me in the direction of “not quite sure about that”. Then again, maybe what we have is that one never escapes frame control so we’re always talking about the best of a bunch of “bad” options.