I’m particularly frustrated by the thing where, inevitably, the concept of frame control is going to get weaponized (both by people who are explicitly using it to frame control, and people who are just vaguely ineptly wielding it as a synonym for ‘bad’).
I think a not-sufficient-but-definitely-useful piece of an immune system that ameliorates this is:
”New concepts and labels are hypotheses, not convictions.”
i.e. this essay should make it more possible for people to say “is this an instance of frame control?” or “I’m worried this might be, or be tantamount to, frame control” or “I myself am receiving this as frame control.”
And it should less (though nonzero) be license to say “AHA! Frame control, right here; I win the argument because I said the magic word.”
(Duncan culture has this norm installed; I don’t think LW or rationalists or gray tribe in general does, though.)
“I can’t personally trust that this is not frame control, so to honor myself, I need to [get out of the situation / let you know that’s my experience / etc]”.
As with anything, this can also get weaponized depending on the tone & implicature with which it’s said, but the precise meaning here points at encouraging a given person to really honor their own frame and their own experience and distrust, while not making any claims that anyone else can agree or disagree with.
Like, if I can’t trust that something isn’t functioning as frame control, then I can’t trust that. You might be able to trust that it’s fine, but that doesn’t contradict my not being able to trust that, since we’re coming from different backgrounds (this itself is pointing at respecting others frames). Then maybe you can share some evidence that will allow me to relax as well, but if you share your evidence and I’m still tense, then I’m still tense and that’s okay.
i.e. this essay should make it more possible for people to say “is this an instance of frame control?” or “I’m worried this might be, or be tantamount to, frame control” or “I myself am receiving this as frame control.”
Yeah, this sounds productive.
I guess one issue with the description given in the OP is that “frame control” seems to refer to a behavioral strategy that can sometimes be benign(!) on the one hand, and a whole package of “This means the person expresses a thoroughly bad phenotype (labelled by its most salient effects on victims)” on the other hand.
Probably it would prevent misunderstandings if there was a word for the sometimes-mostly-benign behavioral strategy (e.g., “frame control”) and a word for the claim about throughly bad phenotype (e.g., “This person is interpersonally incorrigible”).
(Or maybe one could mirror the distinction between “to manipulate” and “being a manipulator.” Most people employ manipulative strategies on rare occasions, but fewer people are deserving of the label “manipulator.”)
I think a not-sufficient-but-definitely-useful piece of an immune system that ameliorates this is:
”New concepts and labels are hypotheses, not convictions.”
i.e. this essay should make it more possible for people to say “is this an instance of frame control?” or “I’m worried this might be, or be tantamount to, frame control” or “I myself am receiving this as frame control.”
And it should less (though nonzero) be license to say “AHA! Frame control, right here; I win the argument because I said the magic word.”
(Duncan culture has this norm installed; I don’t think LW or rationalists or gray tribe in general does, though.)
Yes. (Likewise in Malcolm culture!)
My main approach to this is to focus on honoring distrust:
As with anything, this can also get weaponized depending on the tone & implicature with which it’s said, but the precise meaning here points at encouraging a given person to really honor their own frame and their own experience and distrust, while not making any claims that anyone else can agree or disagree with.
Like, if I can’t trust that something isn’t functioning as frame control, then I can’t trust that. You might be able to trust that it’s fine, but that doesn’t contradict my not being able to trust that, since we’re coming from different backgrounds (this itself is pointing at respecting others frames). Then maybe you can share some evidence that will allow me to relax as well, but if you share your evidence and I’m still tense, then I’m still tense and that’s okay.
Yeah, this sounds productive.
I guess one issue with the description given in the OP is that “frame control” seems to refer to a behavioral strategy that can sometimes be benign(!) on the one hand, and a whole package of “This means the person expresses a thoroughly bad phenotype (labelled by its most salient effects on victims)” on the other hand.
Probably it would prevent misunderstandings if there was a word for the sometimes-mostly-benign behavioral strategy (e.g., “frame control”) and a word for the claim about throughly bad phenotype (e.g., “This person is interpersonally incorrigible”).
(Or maybe one could mirror the distinction between “to manipulate” and “being a manipulator.” Most people employ manipulative strategies on rare occasions, but fewer people are deserving of the label “manipulator.”)