This phenomenological account of frame control doesn’t provide a causal model precise enough for me to understand what additional question someone would be trying to answer when asking “is this person doing frame control?” aside from noticing which of the features of “frame control” they satisfy.
But I think the claim the post makes goes further than that. It’s not just that people who do frame control thing #5 are more likely to do frame control thing #13, it’s also that both may be in service of common goals. The post doesn’t make it explicit what those goals are, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. (And they can exist even in cases where frame control is applied subconsciously.)
This reply would be more interesting if it engaged with the last two paragraphs of my comment, in which I tried to develop a relevant causal hypothesis.
For one, “frame control” may draw a boundary around an empirical cluster in thingspace, in which case the question they would get evidence for is “are they also doing the other things in this cluster”?
But I think the claim the post makes goes further than that. It’s not just that people who do frame control thing #5 are more likely to do frame control thing #13, it’s also that both may be in service of common goals. The post doesn’t make it explicit what those goals are, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. (And they can exist even in cases where frame control is applied subconsciously.)
This reply would be more interesting if it engaged with the last two paragraphs of my comment, in which I tried to develop a relevant causal hypothesis.