Agreed but it seems to me that agreeableness/conflict-avoidance makes you far more susceptible to frame-control. Not that it’s the only factor which matters or that a disagreeable person is immune.
Here is why I think that agreeableness/conflict-avoidance is a useful but not complete defense against “frame control.”
I think there are two types of frame controllers:
Assertive controllers
Receptive controllers
For assertive controllers, think of the egotistical expert, eager to smack down ideas he thinks are bad, even when he’s thought about them for 3 seconds and is getting his facts mixed up. The assertive controller will insult, neg, and raise his voice. He demands not just respect, but deference. Other people find him intimidating. They lack the expertise, confidence, or power to take him on. He’s a good candidate for real leadership in his area of expertise, but he’ll also claim territory beyond his true area of competence, and he’s as invested in keeping his position in the hierarchy as in driving beneficial results for others. People make fun of him behind his back, but that may just reinforce the fact that nobody makes fun of him to his face.
I think Aella is talking about “receptive controllers.” These people don’t do the active, obvious turf-defending that you see with the assertive controller. They don’t necessarily have an area of real, recognized competence. What they attract is incompetence. They surround themselves with people who know very little, sell vague personal growth nostrums, and keep their cohort engaged not by bolstering the perception of their own expertise, but by reinforcing their followers’ self-perceptions of worthlessness. Offering them just a shred of worth or fake-status is only collateral, and will be used as a threat in the future.
Assertive controllers are frustrating, but often they seem to genuinely be necessary and net-beneficial. Being disagreeable or conflict-oriented won’t necessarily let you “win” against these people, or poke holes in their hierarchy. It will create an open, ugly power struggle that will just leave you both feeling resentful most of the time.
Receptive controllers are just revolting people. Fortunately, 98% of people actively find them revolting and see right through them. 2%, unfortunately, do not. They see a large cohort, a person who stands out through their manner of dress or their language or interior decorating style. They want to know what all those other people see in this person. And they stick around, and stick around, and stick around, trying to find out.
Disagreeableness or being open to conflict—or even just being able to ignore and turn the cold shoulder—will defend you against receptive frame controllers. The entire skill is in stripping them of their paper-thin mystique and excluding them from your life. They offer nothing of genuine value—or at least nothing you couldn’t find from many other fine sources. Meditation? It’s all over the place. Insight? There are thousands of books, podcasts, talks, and workshops, and many therapists you can engage with? Social access? There are other parties to go to.
For most of us, even a modicum of self-respect will serve to keep the receptive controllers out of our lives.
I think both of those are underselling competent frame control. Good frame controllers are actually competent, can switch between styles of communication depending on the person, and offer genuine value along with the frame theyre offering.
Agreed but it seems to me that agreeableness/conflict-avoidance makes you far more susceptible to frame-control. Not that it’s the only factor which matters or that a disagreeable person is immune.
Here is why I think that agreeableness/conflict-avoidance is a useful but not complete defense against “frame control.”
I think there are two types of frame controllers:
Assertive controllers
Receptive controllers
For assertive controllers, think of the egotistical expert, eager to smack down ideas he thinks are bad, even when he’s thought about them for 3 seconds and is getting his facts mixed up. The assertive controller will insult, neg, and raise his voice. He demands not just respect, but deference. Other people find him intimidating. They lack the expertise, confidence, or power to take him on. He’s a good candidate for real leadership in his area of expertise, but he’ll also claim territory beyond his true area of competence, and he’s as invested in keeping his position in the hierarchy as in driving beneficial results for others. People make fun of him behind his back, but that may just reinforce the fact that nobody makes fun of him to his face.
I think Aella is talking about “receptive controllers.” These people don’t do the active, obvious turf-defending that you see with the assertive controller. They don’t necessarily have an area of real, recognized competence. What they attract is incompetence. They surround themselves with people who know very little, sell vague personal growth nostrums, and keep their cohort engaged not by bolstering the perception of their own expertise, but by reinforcing their followers’ self-perceptions of worthlessness. Offering them just a shred of worth or fake-status is only collateral, and will be used as a threat in the future.
Assertive controllers are frustrating, but often they seem to genuinely be necessary and net-beneficial. Being disagreeable or conflict-oriented won’t necessarily let you “win” against these people, or poke holes in their hierarchy. It will create an open, ugly power struggle that will just leave you both feeling resentful most of the time.
Receptive controllers are just revolting people. Fortunately, 98% of people actively find them revolting and see right through them. 2%, unfortunately, do not. They see a large cohort, a person who stands out through their manner of dress or their language or interior decorating style. They want to know what all those other people see in this person. And they stick around, and stick around, and stick around, trying to find out.
Disagreeableness or being open to conflict—or even just being able to ignore and turn the cold shoulder—will defend you against receptive frame controllers. The entire skill is in stripping them of their paper-thin mystique and excluding them from your life. They offer nothing of genuine value—or at least nothing you couldn’t find from many other fine sources. Meditation? It’s all over the place. Insight? There are thousands of books, podcasts, talks, and workshops, and many therapists you can engage with? Social access? There are other parties to go to.
For most of us, even a modicum of self-respect will serve to keep the receptive controllers out of our lives.
I think both of those are underselling competent frame control. Good frame controllers are actually competent, can switch between styles of communication depending on the person, and offer genuine value along with the frame theyre offering.