Summary:
Using anecdotal examples, we examine frame and reframing and why the concept is so central to social interaction, in particular inter-gender relationships.
Body:
There are countless versions of what Frame means and how you Frame or Reframe. We can have an endless argument about this in the comments but that's not really the point here. In order to discuss the topic in any semblance of depth however, we have to agree on one definition. Let's use mine because it's not official and anyone who disagrees with how I view Frame can write it off as my personal misconception.
Perception of Frame
First, I acknowledge everyone has frame. Some are good and solid; unshakable points of view that can weather any storm. Others are fragile, easily broken by words or actions. Some frames are consistent and omnipresent. Others shift focus and strength. Some frames are immutable. Others constantly change their form.
Frame, to me, is a simplified way of saying: „Does this person have their mental shit together?“
If a person does not, they have bad frame. If they do, they have good frame. However, the question isn't one you can pose only once and get a straight answer. Remember, not all frame is equal, and it can shift over time, for example via a reframe. We'll talk about that later, but it's an important distinction to make.
Let's examine an anecdote that shows how frame can shift:
I drop by my Bob's office, my immediate superior. He grumbles about a badly performing employee for several minutes before I make it known that I require a costly piece of software to finish my assignment. I acknowledge Bob's authority and implicitly admit my inferior status within the organizational hierarchy before I make my request. Throughout Bob's rant, I keep my goal in mind but do not assert it as that would disrespect his seniority. My original intentions remain hidden, and I reveal them only when I take control of the conversation.
This is an example of two frames and one reframe. In this situation, as is the case in inter-gender dynamics and in every other conversation you will ever have, the frames are not equal. Bob and I cannot go head to head on equal footing because we are not equal for a number of reasons. I cannot simply walk up to Bob and assert my frame. It's social suicide, impractical, and disrespectful.
The reason I use this example (we'll get to women later) is because it's between to vasty different male frames. It's also a good example of how frame isn't a simple concept.
Following the anecdote related, Bob tried to regain frame by arguing I didn't absolutely need the software, and it was a valid argument. I countered with a slightly illogical but relevant argument that the tools I had at my disposal were insufficient (they were actually just impractical and Bob probably knew that). Shortly after he agreed, grumbling about the other employee again, to purchase the software.
So was his frame weak? Was mine better? Was this just the situation? Did he realize my request made sense? Or did my Frame hold while his broke?
It's hard to tell. And it really doesn't matter. The point is Bob had frame and I had frame. I needed something so I reframed the situation and took control of an (admittedly pointless) conversation. Had Bob been inclined to, he could have pushed back a lot harder due to his senior position in the hierarchy. But, given the situation, there was simply no point in pushing his frame only to then have to admit that, yes, we probably do need that piece of software.
Such a complex dynamic. And we distill it down to one word: Frame. Let's look at a few more examples of this concept in action.
Frame & Intersexual Relationships
I think we all acknowledge that frame is important to both sexual strategy and interpersonal relation in general. We can also all agree that having solid frame is a net positive. Where the discussion gets interesting is in how specific individuals use their frame and how that frame is expressed.
Let's look at another anecdote:
Sally is generally submissive to her long time boyfriend, Mark, whom she respects. Occasionally she wants a favor and makes this known with a cute smile and shy words. Because Mark doesn't want to be an asshole and likes Sally, he listens to her, and often lets her have her way .
Again, we have two frames, and a subtle reframe. Let's completely ignore that Mark is undoubtedly BP for a moment. You'll notice that he has fairly solid frame, enough to earn respect and maintain a steady relationship. But, just as in the earlier anecdote, it slips in the case of a reframe and the request Sally makes is now made from within her frame.
It would be naive to say Mark has bad frame. It's not very dynamic, but because I've known Mark for years, I can say without a doubt that he's pretty damn solid. He can handle most situations with confidence and doesn't grovel or pull stupid BP shit. He is, essentially, a natural alpha. His only flaw is he's bad at re-framing around Sally.
The reason for this, I assume, is because he doesn't see why it's necessary. He has always had solid frame (as far as I know) and hasn't had trouble with girls. As a result, he doesn't see his girlfriend making an innocent request as a problem. And, really, it isn't. His frame is firm enough otherwise that the odd request Sally makes is quite reasonable. On the off chance she does behave poorly, he will naturally react the way he should, and Sally has learned to not misbehave around him or he'll play instinctive soft dread.
When I meet Sally without Mark around, her frame is slightly different. She will not be submissive by default and can, in fact, be quite headstrong. Her frame also is fairly solid when compared to other women I know. She has her shit together and isn't prone to flaky behavior, though she will pull Mark into her frame when she wants something. That methodology makes logical sense. She can't directly assert her interests around him so she has to get Mark to see things 'her' way first.
By now it should be evident why frame is such a iffy concept. Sure, we can dismiss Mark for being BP, having bad frame, and letting Sally walk over him. But that's just not how it plays out in real life and I've never seen it happen - ever. Such a blanket statement would be an over-simplification of a complex human interaction.
And what about reframing? Is that just as complex?
Reframing in Detail
We tend to think of frame as something that is to be 'held' and 'maintained'. We as men are the rocks, constants amidst a sea of emotions and ever-changing variables. Unfortunately, everyone – even the most rock solid natural alpha – will eventually have trouble with frame. Maybe it's a really bad day. Or a moment of carelessness. Whatever the reason, we all slip up. The solution to this conundrum is what we've come to know as the reframe.
Now, before we get to the specifics, I want to throw something in: I'm inherently unstable, emotionally and mentally. I have a horrible time with solid frame. It just doesn't work reliably. Now, I made a post a while back about applying RP principles to the specifics of one's life, and this is what I did with Frame too. Once it became clear I was not going to be a rock-solid constant at all times, I settled for the next best option: become a rock when necessary.
This saves energy and, frankly, keeps me sane. What I do is, rather than maintain the frame itself, I internalized the core ideas my frame is built around. Essentially, I keep a 'mental reference' to the behaviors, actions, speech patterns, and mannerisms required to establish frame. When I need to be solid, I project that onto my actions. The result is quite similar to how you (re)frame a situation: you draw on the actions, words, and behaviors that establish your Frame. Or rather, you do the best you can in a given situation.
Another anecdote to illustrate the concept and its limiations:
My girlfriend, Lucy, interrupted me during work because she wanted to cuddle. I responded by giving her attention and indulging in her emotional banter. When it became clear Lucy wanted more of my time, I adopted behavior that would lead to sex. After we'd had our fun, I continued working without interruption.
In this case, my frame was terrible. I got caught off guard and sucked into Lucy's frame. There was an acute danger of getting stuck there, so I reframed in the simplest way I could think of: initiate sex and push for dominance (two fairly standard pillars of masculine Frame). That way I was getting something in return for my time, and could regain control of the interaction.
I use this example because it's a case of a fuck-up. Ideally, it should not have happened and I would have realized earlier she was re-framing the situation, but practically these kind of things happen all the time. Especially in LTRs, where it's hard to gain physical distance and maintaining constant frame is a drain. So I got myself in an unfavorable position and had to make the best of what I knew: Lucy likes having sex with me, responds well to physical cues, and this situation wasn't going to be resolved with 'conversation'.
It was a simple matter to adopt a set of mannerisms; flip the situation around so it was me initiating sex with her, and thereby extract myself from her frame. That is almost always how a reframe works. One flips the situation around.
It's almost always a flip and, once you've got back in control, you can dictate where things go again. Trying to do that before the reframe (in this case sex) would have been stupid and would have led to conflict as I was stuck in her frame. It was tactically more efficient to take the hit of bad frame and install better frame than to try and directly resolve the issue from within hers. As a result, there was no argument, no fight, no disagreement, and no struggle for control of the dynamics.
Now, that was a fairly soft reframe, and I'd like to remind everyone that there is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to reframing. It's hightly dependant on the situation, what frame you're in, what tools you have at your disposal, and how 'hard' you're willing to push for control.
Let's look at another example of that in action:
During an argument with my ex, Rebecca, I'm accused of not showing her enough attention and not caring. My response is to tell her she can just come to me. Another argument ensues over that I am never emotionally available when she needs me, to which I respond with the same: if she needs me, I am here. She knows that. After continued frustration, drama, and arguing, she admits maybe it was her fault for not coming to me.
This anecdote references a messier and much trickier reframe - one that also illustrates how complex frame can be, being both a situational and long-term thing. What the snippet above doesn't explain is why the argument started and doesn't illustrate that nothing we were talking about was in fact any way relevant. It was all about me not submitting to her frame, which I had been doing for some time, until I suddenly stopped by playing dread and ignoring her.
Our interests were completely opposed. The only way to reach a resolution was to force my frame or submit to hers. Obviously, I wasn't willing to submit, so I took a stand and waited it out.
The incident occurred before I knew about TRP so I didn't even have a handy technical manual to refer to. The best I could manage was: flip the blame onto her, play devil's advocate, and hold my ground until the argument had run its course. Not exactly the pride of RP behavior there, but it does showcase a hard and messy reframe that in fact took many weeks to accomplish. Once I'd extracted myself from her mental point of origin and divorced myself from her interests, she could do or say anything; unless my frame broke again, she was not going to get her way.
But I had to get out of her frame first (hence the dread that led to the argument in the first place). Otherwise, I would have been too emotionally invested in her (onesitis, unicorn syndrome, etc) to actually hold my own. And not just in the moment. I had to reframe:
- the situation (refusing to give in)
- past actions (blaming her - this is technically gaslighting)
- the entire relationship (pre-emptive dread)
That's three levels of frame, none of which are directly related to one another, but all of which affect the situation. And each one had to be handled with a different solution. This is just one insignificant example; an argument that lasted maybe half an hour. But it was tied into events that spanned almost two years. When you break it apart like that, it's easy to see why these sorts of things are so hard to wrap ones head around. They are exceedingly complex and inter-connected. We want a simple answer and we called it Frame.
And that's why understanding the mechanics behind the word is so important. Frame quite literally changes the way you perceive the world on a day to day basis. You can love someone in one frame and hate them in another - how many of us have been in that situation? Adoring a woman but still being hopelessly frustrated by her? Especially during the BP days? If you've been in that situation, then you know what frame (or being stuck in another's) can do to your mind.
It's really quite alarming when you realize just how much of a difference one's mental point of origin makes.
On Female Frame
Okay, this is getting long, I'd still like to take a moment here to speak about female frame specifically. The reason for this is because it seems to not be very well understood and is the cause of much confusion here on TRP.
Female frame, like almost everything related to women, is emotionally driven and therefore very vague and ill-defined. Being inside their frame, as a result, is to live within their emotionally charged world. Anyone who's been stuck deep in their frame (e.g. BB Marriage, BP relationship, etc) will know how frustrating, inconsistent, and confusing this is. And that's in addition to how any Frame warps the way we view the world. Nasty stuff right there - a perfect recipe for unintentional or self-inflicted gaslighting by the way.
Naturally, TRP realized that female frame is a bad thing and should be avoided by maintaining our own frame. RP readers apply that with great success. Except some of us end up frustrated because it's impossible to share emotional connections with women. The consensus then becomes that 'deep' relationships with women are impossible. They are only good for fucking.
Gentlemen, please think that through for a moment: we are (hopefully) all holding frame more or less consistently, enforcing our logic and generally stable state on women. And then we complain that it's cold, logical, and emotionless? When we made it that way by design - by virtue of how we crafterd our frames? Surely you can see the fallacy here and why understanding the mechanics of Frame is so damn important.
Properly, the statement should be: deep relationships with women are impossible when always maintaining male frame.
Whether you believe it's worth submitting to female frame, even if just temporarily, or not - that's your choice. The dangers are manifold (onesitis, unicorn syndrome, beta behavior) and risking that step requires good control and ability to frame / reframe. I won't try to make a case either way and let everyone decide for themselves. This was just a good way to illustrate how misunderstood the concept of Frame is, and why male frame bumping up against female frame causes so many issues in inter-personal relationships.
Post Reframe Reactions
One more thing that really needs to be said: after a successful reframe, people tend to respond with negative verbal or nonverbal patterns. With men it may be something like „Fine, we'll do it your way“ or „Whatever you say“ or „Fuck you“ - usually a direct admission that the shift has happened. With women the meaning is usually hidden in subtext and the words tend to sound more like „You're such a jerk“ or „I can't have serious talks with you“ or „You're impossible“.
The reason I mention these phrases is that, except for in very rare cases, they mean the reframe went down successfully and you can go back to 'regular' interaction – though not without being wary of a future attempt at reframe on their behalf; you aren't in a safe zone, just back in control. It's important to realize that this shift has occurred so that you don't keep pushing for frame when you already have it. That tends to come off as overbearing or domineering.
In rare circumstances, that effect is desirable. Most of the time however it backfires and you end up with a new problem. The thing to remember is that reframing is asserting dominance in some form – even if it's done politely – and often elicits negative responses from the person forced to give up their frame. That's understandable and to be expected. They are surrendering control, after all, and most likely feel attacked, frustrated, helpless, or something similar.
Pushing too far in this moment of vulnerability can lead to all sorts of weird behavior, regardless of gender, as the person who lost frame begins to realize how helpless they are. Fear responses may kick in, the other person might fight back directly, or maybe they just start feeling very ill at ease with the situation. Unless it's your intent to make them feel that way, and it probably won't be in most cases, ease off. Return to whatever you consider normal patterns. You've established your frame. All you have to do now is maintain it. There's rarely a need to shove it down anyone's throat.
Conclusion
Frame is a complex topic that, as with most RP ideas, depends on the individuals involved and the situation they find themselves in. While the basics (maintaining frame, reframing, general trends of male vs female frame) can be outlined in abstract terms, the specifics of how these concepts play out in practice cannot.
The examples given in this post have shown versions of maintaining frame and reframing, both in more and less 'traditional' variations. We also took a brief look at how our frame and reframes affect others, with particular weight being given to how female frame is often suppressed by male frame.
In summary, anecdotal examples were used to illustrate the aspects of interpersonal relationships and human interaction which TRP refers to in shorthand as 'Frame'.
introspect2314 9y ago
It works very reliably once you eliminate the variables in your life that make you "inherently" emotionally and mentally unstable. Frame is not as flexible as you make it out to be.
The way you reframe it is to deny cuddling, and if you for some reason fail to do that, deny sex. Women do this to men all the time. Men (especially BP) rarely pass up an opportunity for sex, even when denying it can lead to much greater rewards down the line.
Here's an example: I'm at a 4-month training program for work. There is a HB8 in my class, and because she is the only attractive female on the entire campus, she has become an HB10. She gets massive amounts of attention from other men (BPs, no doubt), and she uses those men to her advantage, as I naturally expect she would. She was leading a pack of men around at the bars one night. I was leading a separate mixed group at another bar, and we crossed paths. Long story short, I was on my A-game as usual, and she asked me to come back to her place and spend the night.
This chick gets her way with every guy I work with because every guy I work with is drinking the BP kool-aid. Every single one of them would have tried to fuck her in these circumstances. Because I had another 3+ months to game this girl -- if I really felt like I wanted to -- I straight up denied her sex. We messed around for a bit, went to bed, woke up, and went about our lives. Two weeks later, this is all starting to pay off big time. She is constantly seeking my approval, giving me subservient IOIs, coming up to me, expressing a desire to hang out with me, etc.
I do not give in to a woman's ideas of how a relationship should proceed. I am now the prize. That is my frame.
kazaul 9y ago
Unlikely to happen. I'm not about to kill myself anytime soon and no amount of therapy is going to undo the mess in my head. After 15 years, it's easier to just work around the problem than try to 'fix' it. Unless the medical community suddenly figures out how to rewire my brain and fix a few muck-ups in my biology, I'm a bit stuck.
As for frame being flexible. That's an interesting question.
Let's assume my definition is correct and Frame is a mental point of reference central to a person's world view. So „don't let a woman dictate my life“ is a solid aspect of good Frame. But you don't have to always act based on that mindset and, as a result, can express yourself in a variety of ways while maintaining internal frame (your mentality hasn't changed even though, maybe, that one time you did let your wife choose where to eat – which technically runs counter to your rules). Also, you point of view can change over time or can be faked, which means it can't be entirely consistent.
All of that will affect how your Frame expresses itself in a given moment. It doesn't change your internal Frame, the idea central to yourself – that's consistent. But the way it applies in the moment isn't consistent. It's by definition situational and that's why the 'Reframe' process is even a thing. If it was all about thought processes, all you'd have to do is change your mind and that would be it. But you don't really change your mentality when you reframe. You change how you act and express yourself, which is directly related to the Frame as perceived by others.
Now let's look at female 'frame' (or anti-frame, which is more what it resembles). It isn't like their mental point of origin is bouncing all over the place. Their emotions might be, and they may act in a variety of ways that seem illogical to most men, but they are still following the basic principles of „I want this because feelz“. That is their „frame“, their mental point of origin. So we can assume their frame is more or less consistent inside too. It's just the way it's expressed which varies.
So now we have to decide what frame is. Is it just the mental point of origin? In that case Frame is fixed and changes only very slowly.
But then why do we need to 'Reframe'? Why is framing a situation in a different light so critical if all it's about is the internal mechanics? Shouldn't just changing our mentality be enough? Why do we have to act differently to actually achieve a result?
The explanation for me is:
There are two aspects of Frame; the external component (that others perceive and which can vary wildly) and the internal component (our mental point of origin, which is more or less consistent).
That's playing dread. It's an option to reframe but was not worth it in this situation. Why would one reach for a nuke - even a tactical warhead – over a simple border incursion when one can go for a less drastic option?
introspect2314 9y ago
The simple answer is to avoid erosion of one's frame. If I'm working on an important task and my girl suddenly wants sex, that is more likely than not a shit test.
kazaul 9y ago
Think this is a situational misunderstanding.
I could have replaced 'working' with 'reading a book'. It'd have the same effect based on the importance of what I was doing (none in the greater picture). The reason she came over at all was because I'd been soft dreading her all day. If anything, it was a comfort test but I screwed it up by going too far, hence the reframe.
sir_wankalot_here 9y ago
Ok this is a good example.
Reading a book is seen as entertainment.
Vs
I am studying my book for work. Has changed your frame from you are entertaining yourself to you are working.
NeoreactionSafe 9y ago
Women really don't have a Frame in the sense that a masculine male does.
Men desire Freedom, Women desire Access
Frame for a masculine man "feels like Freedom"... it's how we relax behind our firewall called the ego.
Women are all about Access, so they are always expanding and attempting to swallow up resources.
Imagine Frame as the penis. The penis gains pleasure by it's erection and the focusing of mental energy towards that focal point. This is the creative energy force.
A woman's erotic drive is to take a phallic energy and swallow it and in the process consume it's energy. The women seeks to absorb energy by Access to it.
A woman with Frame isn't a woman.
Frame is a firewall... a barrier... a boundry condition... there is no incentive for a woman to have such a thing because she is all about Access within a shared herd mind mental space.
In a woman's mind there are no barriers.
Women desire Access to everything... they want nothing in the way.
kazaul 9y ago
Agreed. It really isn't the same thing. I may have not made that point clear enough.
In my mind, Frame is just a way of saying "do they have their shit together?" and, gender is irrelevant as all biology determines is how shit has to be together. A man has his wall. A woman maneuvers around the wall. I'm not sure if calling both Frame is a good choice. A more apt description would be anti-frame. Or an inversion of frame. Or something to that affect.
One thing I have to disagree on: there is a boundary condition in the female mind. It gets reached when fear for their continued well-being becomes far greater than the benefits of access. It's... creepy to see it happen in real life. Once the boundary is reached, the female frame (or whatever we're calling it now) fails completely and what's left behind is a very odd feeling void.
NeoreactionSafe 9y ago
Fear tends to place us in a more easily manipulated condition.
It's like with 911.
At the time of the attack it was such a fearful situation that everyone channeled their energies in support of GW Bush. His approval rating reached 90%:
http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/cvfspjk4hesmzts2bc0brg.gif
...and I was 100% in support of everything he wanted to do as the fear of foreign invasion and terror dominated our judgement.
It was only in the last few years that the video of Building 7 falling down for no reason that I was able to say to myself:
"Hey, this was a fake."
...and so your entire historical understanding changes.
Compiled Footage of Building 7's Collapse - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg
Fear breaks our Frame and exposes us to influence.
The elites have known this since the dawn of human history... it still works.
sir_wankalot_here 9y ago
It seems like you don't understand frame.
Frame is not being influenced by the other person's arguement. Reframing is changing the perspective of the argument and it is done with metaphor and analogy. This was the point behind my post here.
http://acrackletsthelightin.info/2016/04/13/Understanding-metaphore-to-understand-frame/
Using neoreactions example of 911.
If you want to create fear, well look at GA Bush. This is an attack on our homeland, out way of life is at risk, was symbolizes USA is at risk.
If you want to remove fear More people die in automobile accidents in USA, then died in 911. Two buildings do not represent USA. USA is an idea, ideas can not be destroyed by terrorists.
As Neoreactionsafe said, fear is an extremely strong emotion. And once GW Bush used it, it is extremely difficult to break. That is why my attempt at removing the fear does not work too well.
As neo said again
Substitute men with conservative and women with progressive. Don't confuse the political parties with the political terms.
And the progressives are masters at frame and reframe. This is why they are winning. I plan to write a post on this.
An example of reframing is the all state advertisement for insurance (correct me if I am wrong). They have a picture of a baby being held by some hands, and then they say you are in good hands
I might have the commercial wrong, but the principal still applies. What is insurance policy has been reframed as a father figure. A piece of paper and a corporation has been changed into a caring parent.
kazaul 9y ago
How is frame not influenced by argument? You say: words are metaphors, shorthand for an image to be planted in the recipient's mind. String these together and you create a perspective.
Every argument made is an attempt to underline a certain perspective. Thus every argument is a (often poor) attempt at a reframe. Just because these shifts are not drastic and do not necessarily have affect anything does not mean they are not taking place.
Furthermore, one can hold two (or more) perspectives at the same time and believe they are all equally valid. Doublethink, basically. It's entirely possible to have multiple Frames in play in one conversation. Powertalk makes use of this. The image imparted to one perspective is different than that given to another despite the fact that the message is the same. How the metaphor is interpreted depends on the audience is not possible to represent in a single Frame because not everyone will perceive the message the same way.
I agree that Frame is about creating altered emotional states through metaphors and analogies. But there's always more than just one mental point of origin in play; at the very least the sender and the recipient will have one. Even extreme responses (e.g. Fear) will be interpreted differently based on the mental state of various parties. So how do we represent this in a 1-N or (even more tricky) M-N communication scenarios within the concept of Frame?
My understanding is that Frame is short for 'Frame of Reference' and refers to both how an individual perceives information being exchanged and which Frame (of Reference) is currently dominant in a given exchange. Everyone has a subjective reference, and the result of the interplay (the struggle for control) between the frames involved is what defines an interaction. Whichever mindset currently dictates sets the tone has Frame and the one not actively in control will either attempt to assert itself (reframe) or submit.
Again, this is my definition of Frame. It clearly differs from yours, though I get the sense we're talking about the same dynamic, just from very different perspectives.
sir_wankalot_here 9y ago
Everything you said is correct but ....
You are assuming most people are smarter then they are. How these metaphors are created depend on the person's belief systems which are influenced by their culture, religion, type of job etc.
The first company to really tap into this was Coca Cola. Even before WW2, their ads would differ vastly from country to country. Simple example, in America it is a culture of the individual so the ad would have the focus on one person. In SE Asia there is no individual, people are scared to be alone. So the ad would promote drinking Coke as a group activity.
For autistics/aspergers this mechanism of creating images from words is essentially broken. Extreme case was an artist with severe autism, they took him up in a helicopter over a city, they then asked him to draw what he saw. It was exactly like a photograph. This is why they are less prone to being manipulated.
For the psychopath, some neuroscientists believe that the reverse holds true. He is able to project himself into each different belief system. This then explains his ability to charm.
There are a couple of new books about Stalin, where they differ is they examine him as a person and they are based on newly available material like the diaries of his wives, mother and people who knew him personally. Stalin built an image of himself as a coarse peasant of limited intelligence.
The real Stalin was highly intelligent. Interestingly enough he was an accomplished poet, before 1917 he had published under different names. He then made statements like a priest studies people he was trained to be a priest originally.
One thing that everyone who knew his personally said, he was extremely charming. Even Roosevelt when he met him said this.
After 1917, Stalin took great pains to create a new image of himself, and he maintained that image. He was Georgian, in the 1930s someone was compiling a book on Georgian poetry, unknowingly they included some of his work in it. Stalin found out and then told the person to remove the poems which where his, at the time the person was confused, he didn't understand why Stalin wanted these poems removed.
In hindsight it makes perfect sense. He was worried that it would bring attention to the poems, someone might find out he is the real author and it would destroy his image.
piatti_rotanti 9y ago
Great post, thanks for taking the time to write it out.
Could you elaborate on the following part of your comment in the other thread more? This post ran long and it kind of got left out.
Which option you take is up to you and based largely on how you work as a person. I'd suggest option 1 for most men in most cases, option 2 for those trying to maintain a 'stable, easy-going' LTR despite ups and downs, and 3 only for people who actually enjoy engaging with women on their playing field. You can also mix all three variations into a single conversation, adapting depending on what's most useful.
Option 1 and 2 are pretty simple and easy to execute. Option 3 is far more intriguing.
kazaul 9y ago
Of course. I tried to work it in but, frankly, the post was too long already. I couldn't fit it into the same thematic thread. And that's kinda the issue.
What I was talking about isn't traditional game. It's a Dark Triad / manipulation thing. I'm high Mach mid Psych by nature and nurture so I see the way people work very differently than most readers (and most men in general; I more resemble a woman mentally than a man in that I can and often do run on emotional logic). Now, to elaborate on the option 3 you mentioned.
I've been trying to figure out how to word it and the best I can come up with is that it's „emotional gaslighting“. What I mean here is that one changes the other person's perception of their own emotions rather than their perception of past events. It's based on the words you use, the emotional impact they carry, and how you phrase yourself. I can't quite say what words or how to phrase it because that's highly situational and I determine what to say based on 'feeling'.
So, wait. Gotta step back again. The way to gauge a woman's emotions accurately is to step into their frame. Yes, you can make guesses from outside, but to really feel what the hell's going on with them you have to share their mental (emotional?) point of origin. Once you are there you (well, at least I can, dunno if everyone is the same) get a fairly good sense of how your words will affect someone. So all you really have to do is pick the words that make her 'feel' like you want to.
Remember, you're still in her frame here, keeping yours very minimal (just a wall around your mind to prevent onesitis etc). So everything you say and do will have a magnified effect. And, since you are trying to install a part of your 'emotional' mindset in her, you have to talk about yourself in subtext, basically. Everything you say should reflect her emotional perception of you. You're not saying „like me“ you're saying „bla bla bla“ while the underlying implication is: you're actually mine now and this is important.
This will lead to some form of escalation as I mentioned; which I think is the friction of her emotional state (i.e. frame) being aligned to yours against her will. Because she won't be fully aware what's happening (female logic is emotional, so if you actively change the emotion, you change her entire narrative) she'll just perceive something to be a little odd. I've heard it described as this creeping sense of frustration or irritation; something is just slightly off and it raises their emotions. If you push your agenda too fast or there's been a lot of high tension you end up with a fight, usually a messy one, and then a lull where this effect sets in. Otherwise you just get drama and occasional bitchyness before that same lull.
Yeah, I know dealing with any of this runs counter to TRP rules, but what you're doing is getting her addicted to your frame (or more accurately: the emotional translation of your frame). So you have to be in her frame at least for a while or the effect won't have enough time to wramp up. How long that takes can vary between minutes and an hour or so. I've never had it take longer than that but there may be some kinda preparation you gotta to. I can't think of anything but, then again, I work on emotional logic by default so I can't say.
Anyways, eventually her frame will bend and, well, it feels like something in her just snapped. I earnestly wish I could describe the process better but I don't for the life of me know how the hell it happens. It just feels like something went 'click' inside their emotions and suddenly some part of their frame is perfectly aligned with mine despite the fact neither of us have really changed our points of view. Whatever topic / viewpoint / idea that is will them become a 'bonding' topic and there will be a deep emotional connection surrounding it, one that can last years and outlive the actual relationship.
I've consistently heard it described as „being deeply understood“ and... man. I'm trying not to get stuff mixed up in my head because I mash up so many different 'techniques' and ideas in more recent relationships. Have to think back to before TRP. Yeah, it was the same thing there. Enter in her frame. We had a heated, escalating argument. And, maybe half an hour later we bonded over something. I don't even remember what it was, but I know she mentioned it when we last saw one another, years after the fact. I'd completely forgotten it had even happened. What was the topic now? Something completely nonsensical (a band, a book? I can't remember) but the implied connection ran well beyond the surface. IIRC it was something that was of great importance to me at the time; a cornerstone of what defined my mental state. I think it may have been a band.
As far as I can understand it, the effect is basically that you've linked subjective emotional weight to some piece of your 'frame', something that she will now (indefinitely?) associate with you because it was imparted with such significance at that moment. A genuine connection on an emotional level, not just in words or whatever. It isn't the BP or beta style entering their frame. It isn't trying to make them like you in a desperate attempt to get laid. It's... genuinely connecting for a moment on some topic of emotional significance.
Ugh. I'm doing badly at transcribing my internal narrative into comprehensive logic. I can figure out the feelz inside me and know this thing happens; last time was just a few months back. But I can't put it together in clear, logical steps. The best I can come up with is: make her feel good about being with you for reason X, whereby X is irrelevant and the feel good matters.
Then you'll bond over X (which invariably important to your mental origin) on an emotional level. To a degree, and to a certain extent. This isn't some 'one solution solve all' kinda thing but it helps solve so many issues TRP talks about on a regular basis. Unlike with most relationships, there's an emotional connection and it isn't just one way; it's shared to a degree. Trust levels will shoot up as you 'get' them as a person and loyalty tends to be higher, presumably because it's rare to feel so close to someone.
I really don't know if just anyone can accomplish this as I don't hear it talked about often. Most of the stuff I hear suggests this is completely impossible, and all bonding with women is superficial at best. Which... runs contrary to my experience. But, then again, I'm not the norm and it's something I'm painfully aware of.
Argh. Wait. I just noticed I've described several mechanics here as one:
1 entering her frame and maintaining minimal boundary
2 emotional gaslighting which alters her perception
3 translating frame into emotions by imparting significance
4 bonding over superficial topic related to the above
Technically, these are only loosely related. And I think they get progressively more difficult as you go down the list. Entering frame is simple enough. Gaslighting... will be harder. Translating frame into emotion might well be beyond the mental processes of most men (and women?) and bonding is a result of the earlier so not really a step in itself, just a mechanic.
Does any of this make any sense? I really wish I could just send you the emotional pattern I feel during this process via text. It describes what happens in perfect clarity. But I can't translate it into words or logic very well. Stupid brain.
piatti_rotanti 9y ago
I think I understand what you're saying, thanks for the explanation.
Edit: where I'm getting stuck is how to do so without losing your own frame and getting too emotional, if that makes sense. I'm great at pulling them into my frame and holding it but the, admittedly more advanced, idea/technique of willingly entering theirs to influence from within and doing so without getting entirely caught up in it is a completely foreign concept.
It makes sense on a conceptual level but I'm having trouble working my mind around the execution.
[deleted]
kazaul 9y ago
This is it and explained better than I did.
Note: /u/piatti_rotanti - you may be interested in this too
I believe if you are emphatic you can learn this pattern without actually needing the psychopathic traits. You need extremely good self-control and Machiavellian skill to not get stuck in their frame. The reason I say this is a friend of mine has adopted smth that resembles this mechanic and he shares no DT traits, just high empathy. He can't hold frame or get himself out if he slips up, because he isn't willing to accept RP despite being generally alpha-ish, but he can and does achieve the deep connection (admittedly, by luck due to lacking Machiavellian skills).
With me, the dangers don't quite exist the way they do for most because high levels of emotional disruption (such as being stuck in female frame) set off psychopathic traits. So even if I slip and loose frame, I kick myself out eventually. If you don't have that natural safeguard, you'll have to actively 'remove' yourself from their frame BEFORE you get stuck – or have help if you do get stuck. I've done for my friend when he drifts off.
So I guess that's one piece of advice: if you aren't psychopathic to any noticeable degree, and want to learn this, make sure there's a RP friend around to knock some sense into you in case you get locked in female / beta frame.
Also, a warning to RP men toying with this stuff (especially empaths):
It is extremely easy to get addicted to the emotions that run within female frame. A highly pleasing moment, such as bonding sex or a deep, emotional conversation, is akin to heroin. You will want more. Guaranteed. Even if you are completely 'alpha' and RP aware, you will long for another taste of that deliciousness. And, since the moment is much more than 'alpha fucks, it will be deeper and profound in ways that make your head spin. It will cut straight into your heart and feels, and is extremely likely to trigger beta behavior, even if you are completely and entirely aware this is happening (you'll know it's stupid but you won't really want to change it).
The solution is to get out immediately. Do your thing, have sex, have the talk, bond, and get the hell away – physically, if possible (such as, after sex, go to the toilet even if you don't have to piss and it feels 'wrong' to leave). Play hard or soft dread. At least until you have frame back. Give yourself time until you do it again. Make sure you've established 'alpha' frame again and got her used to that pattern. Don't try to hold or build an entire relationship on this. It will NOT work – even for me, and my entire life is centered around this concept. Alpha is a necessity. This is not an alternative option to alpha(ish) game. Just a way to make relationships about more than just tits, ass & sex.
piatti_rotanti 9y ago
Yeah, I can see how it would be extremely dangerous to get stuck in that mindset. Thanks for the follow-up.
piatti_rotanti 9y ago
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for the examples!
alvlear 9y ago
Wow. I cannot believe what I just read. You sir, are a Machiavellian INFJ. The odds of this are probably one in a million. TRP has created a monster.
INFJs are the only type that can enter another person's emotional mind, and literally feel what the other person feels. Other INs can do this too, even though most people do not realize this, but this capability, in a well developed INFJ, is nothing short of magical. You have to be careful though OP, INFJs have been documented getting stuck in other people's frames, leading to devastating mental breakdowns.
As a type, you are exceedingly rare, therefore, your advice, unfortunately, is not implementable by most of the men here.
Through your work, I have now added a new tool to my Machiavellian arsenal. I like to make women fall dangerously in love with me. My cold demeanor typically leads to outcries for affection. I like that. Using this tool, I will now enter their frame and say something like: "You know you are mine. You can always come to me."
Thank you for sharing your delicious consciousness, OP.
[deleted] 9y ago
[deleted]
kazaul 9y ago
Considering OC probably won't respond (hint, hint), I'll give it a shot. And yeah. That would be an interesting post.
Note: do excuse if this gets 'feelsy' in logic. I have a hard time laying out my thoughts in linear narrative.
Okay, I know one INTJ (probably) who is very similar to me in way of life experience with the main difference being 'thinking' vs 'feeling'. We've gone through roughly the same developmental phases (albeit a few years removed) and picked up many of the same facets of life. The difference is he will think, then act and feel, where I will feel and act, then think. The result of this is he is more 'masculine' and I more 'feminine' in our behavior.
Example: he decided to go on to study and is finding emotional enjoyment there, whereas I decided to 'pursue my passion' after trade school and 'make it work' through improv. Thinking vs. Feeling.
Another difference is he scores mid N, low P, low M, while I score high M, mid P, low N. The result is he's more honest, forthright, and deliberate in his behavior while I'm more deviant and backhanded. That, more than the MBTI Type, defines how we use our knowledge and insight about humans and the world. Result is that he can manage 'dashing' and 'charming' much better than me, whereas I am 'cute' and 'dark'.
Example: he will enact 'retribution' on me if I manipulate him (subtly, playfully) whereas he would not initiate that sort of thing. I will not retributive except in extreme cases but I will initiate.
Another major difference is, while we're equal in SVM and into the same types of girls, he is more naturally alpha than me. But he can't completely accept RP and actively rebuts it, whereas I didn't. Again, the difference here is that I want to 'manipulate' whereas he wants 'integrity'. I know, I know, that makes no sense in the long run because RP = integrity but from his standpoint it adds up. He can accept I'm into RP (and knows this) but he sees it as a 'manipulative' path, and he wouldn't be wrong in my case (I abuse RP theory to my own ends as much as to improve myself).
Now let's talk about the 'emotional' connections I was talking about. We both do that – he recently managed the first really 'deep' bond by accident. He was extremely confused by it and shut down almost the day after, mulling over what had happened. This didn't happen to me the first time; I ran with the emotional roller coaster until dissonance kicked off my psychopathy and I hard-dreaded out of beta mode.
I have to admit: without my P traits, I would be BP today. I fall HARD and FAST and completely delve into that. But I'm too cruel to let that stand. Unlike most INFJs, I abuse my ability to affect others as much as I use them to help others. The fact that emotional distress kicks off my P means that I don't ever really completely go beta, and never did even in BP days.
This is very different for him. It's his thinking that keeps him from going outright beta, and any choice to experience feelings is very deliberate. He won't let a woman walk all over him the way I will and for good reason: he can't extract himself from emotional hellscapes as easily as I can. He doesn't share the low remorse I do, and is high enough N to care about himself in ways I don't think are important.
As a result, the way we bond is very different. He does it for himself in the sense that he wants to enjoy a deep connection, and will pursue this deliberately. I do it to fuck and to make people like me to compensate for low N. We also spin our words very differently. He KNOWS what he is doing whereas I don't. I've never seen him say something by accident, whereas I run my mouth off with no idea what the hell I'm actually saying (verbally), being only aware of the emotional impact.
Also, I fight. I am aggressive, confrontational, and remorseless. I will help people as quickly as I will wreck them for my amusement. I've never seem him do that. He's more interested in his self and will not engage in aggressive or confrontational behavior unless pushed, and even then it's deliberate and calculating. I don't calculate. I make up reasons on the fly and adjust constantly. The result is a very different way of using the same knowledge (we have about the same knowledge levels about life; his is just more structured and mine more nebulous).
I don't know how much any of this applies to you however, as I don't know you as a person, but maybe it helps?
[deleted] 9y ago
[deleted]
kazaul 9y ago
I think there is some connection.
INFJ for example is, almost by nature, less bound to honesty as we 'feel' externally and adapt to our environment. I think many INFJs can relate to being a mirror / reflection of surrounding people and emotions. This - almost by implication - causes higher M traits.
Now, my mid P is more related to past emotional trauma than MBTI type, but it's likely that certain types are far more likely to develop certain traits than not. E.g. if I had not been so willing to help / feel for others even when under strain, I would never have been hurt as badly as I was, and the psychopathic schism (triggered only by external threats, and always only by that) probably wouldn't have occurred as I wouldn't need that callous indifference just to protect myself.
Now this is highly subjective of course. But I think there is a certain relation. Would really be interesting to study this but that's beyond my ability.