[QUOTE=Finesse;32977]Not saying it does. Nor am I saying you should.
What I am saying is that people should be AWARE of stereotypes and the stereo types people are likely to form about you given the situation.
A key to controlling frames is to be aware of possible questions or incongruencies being projected.
[/QUOTE]
I think it's almost opposite. The people that actually have the strongest frames are those that are oblivious to the perceptions people have of them.
i dunno...this reminds me of the age old community discussion of ...if you have to consciously think of being alpha, are you not really alpha, just someone trying to be alpha.
Dallas PUA
The Pickup Artist Playground
Incongruence and framing hand in hand
21 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
by Guest » Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:38 am
[QUOTE=TopDog;32995]I think it's almost opposite. The people that actually have the strongest frames are those that are oblivious to the perceptions people have of them.
i dunno...this reminds me of the age old community discussion of ...if you have to consciously think of being alpha, are you not really alpha, just someone trying to be alpha.[/QUOTE]
Stupid, good looking guys get laid all the time because they have a strong frame: "Chicks dig me because I'm hot!" They have a strong frame because they are stupid. They are oblivious of the frame... hell they are are oblivious of the fact they are stupid. See Idiocracy for reference.
Being conscious of frames and how they work does not mean that you have a weak frame, or a strong one for that matter.
Frame manipulation takes understanding of social norms, stereotypes and social value. If a guy hits on a girl, her boyfriend intervenes and the guy flattens the boyfriend then the girl will be protective of the boyfriend and want to take care of him. If the boyfriend flattens the guy, she will go with the boyfriend who protected her. Fighting is a no win. If you are aware of this and AMOG the boyfriend so he looks like a tool in her eyes, she will go with you. You can't win by fighting so avoid the protective boyfriend frame and turn it into an overprotective, insecure tool frame. You win.
Understanding stereotypes and using them to manipulate frames is much more powerful than having a naturally strong frame. The protective boyfriend in the example above may have a strong frame but his inability to control frames means he can get AMOGed. If you can react to any situation and reframe it, you have way more power in a social situation than someone with a naturally strong frame who is unaware of it.
i dunno...this reminds me of the age old community discussion of ...if you have to consciously think of being alpha, are you not really alpha, just someone trying to be alpha.[/QUOTE]
Stupid, good looking guys get laid all the time because they have a strong frame: "Chicks dig me because I'm hot!" They have a strong frame because they are stupid. They are oblivious of the frame... hell they are are oblivious of the fact they are stupid. See Idiocracy for reference.
Being conscious of frames and how they work does not mean that you have a weak frame, or a strong one for that matter.
Frame manipulation takes understanding of social norms, stereotypes and social value. If a guy hits on a girl, her boyfriend intervenes and the guy flattens the boyfriend then the girl will be protective of the boyfriend and want to take care of him. If the boyfriend flattens the guy, she will go with the boyfriend who protected her. Fighting is a no win. If you are aware of this and AMOG the boyfriend so he looks like a tool in her eyes, she will go with you. You can't win by fighting so avoid the protective boyfriend frame and turn it into an overprotective, insecure tool frame. You win.
Understanding stereotypes and using them to manipulate frames is much more powerful than having a naturally strong frame. The protective boyfriend in the example above may have a strong frame but his inability to control frames means he can get AMOGed. If you can react to any situation and reframe it, you have way more power in a social situation than someone with a naturally strong frame who is unaware of it.
- Guest
by Guest » Thu Sep 03, 2009 1:11 pm
[QUOTE=Neuromancer;32997]Stupid, good looking guys get laid all the time because they have a strong frame: "Chicks dig me because I'm hot!" They have a strong frame because they are stupid. They are oblivious of the frame... hell they are are oblivious of the fact they are stupid. See Idiocracy for reference.
Being conscious of frames and how they work does not mean that you have a weak frame, or a strong one for that matter.
Frame manipulation takes understanding of social norms, stereotypes and social value. If a guy hits on a girl, her boyfriend intervenes and the guy flattens the boyfriend then the girl will be protective of the boyfriend and want to take care of him. If the boyfriend flattens the guy, she will go with the boyfriend who protected her. Fighting is a no win. If you are aware of this and AMOG the boyfriend so he looks like a tool in her eyes, she will go with you. You can't win by fighting so avoid the protective boyfriend frame and turn it into an overprotective, insecure tool frame. You win.
Understanding stereotypes and using them to manipulate frames is much more powerful than having a naturally strong frame. The protective boyfriend in the example above may have a strong frame but his inability to control frames means he can get AMOGed. If you can react to any situation and reframe it, you have way more power in a social situation than someone with a naturally strong frame who is unaware of it.[/QUOTE]
Hmm.
i wasn't commenting on frame manipulation.
If i head out in a wild peacocking outfit, people will have preconceived notion that i am a carefree, free spirited person. But all throughout the night, if i need to consciously think about projecting that image because it's really not me, the opportunity to sniff out incongruence is greater. I'm consciously trying to live up to a stereotype.
Contrast that to a naturally free spirited carefree person that dons the peacocking outfit. He's not thinking "am i projecting a carefree fun loving attitude, will people think of me as a wild and crazy guy"...he just is, there is no mismatch so rather than trying to project a frame, he just IS that frame. I tend to believe that will be stronger vs someone trying to project that frame.
Not sure i'm making my point clearly...but these threads make my head hurt. :cool:
Being conscious of frames and how they work does not mean that you have a weak frame, or a strong one for that matter.
Frame manipulation takes understanding of social norms, stereotypes and social value. If a guy hits on a girl, her boyfriend intervenes and the guy flattens the boyfriend then the girl will be protective of the boyfriend and want to take care of him. If the boyfriend flattens the guy, she will go with the boyfriend who protected her. Fighting is a no win. If you are aware of this and AMOG the boyfriend so he looks like a tool in her eyes, she will go with you. You can't win by fighting so avoid the protective boyfriend frame and turn it into an overprotective, insecure tool frame. You win.
Understanding stereotypes and using them to manipulate frames is much more powerful than having a naturally strong frame. The protective boyfriend in the example above may have a strong frame but his inability to control frames means he can get AMOGed. If you can react to any situation and reframe it, you have way more power in a social situation than someone with a naturally strong frame who is unaware of it.[/QUOTE]
Hmm.
i wasn't commenting on frame manipulation.
If i head out in a wild peacocking outfit, people will have preconceived notion that i am a carefree, free spirited person. But all throughout the night, if i need to consciously think about projecting that image because it's really not me, the opportunity to sniff out incongruence is greater. I'm consciously trying to live up to a stereotype.
Contrast that to a naturally free spirited carefree person that dons the peacocking outfit. He's not thinking "am i projecting a carefree fun loving attitude, will people think of me as a wild and crazy guy"...he just is, there is no mismatch so rather than trying to project a frame, he just IS that frame. I tend to believe that will be stronger vs someone trying to project that frame.
Not sure i'm making my point clearly...but these threads make my head hurt. :cool:
- Guest
by Guest » Fri Sep 04, 2009 12:53 am
[QUOTE=TopDog;33002]Hmm.
i wasn't commenting on frame manipulation.
If i head out in a wild peacocking outfit, people will have preconceived notion that i am a carefree, free spirited person. But all throughout the night, if i need to consciously think about projecting that image because it's really not me, the opportunity to sniff out incongruence is greater. I'm consciously trying to live up to a stereotype.
Contrast that to a naturally free spirited carefree person that dons the peacocking outfit. He's not thinking "am i projecting a carefree fun loving attitude, will people think of me as a wild and crazy guy"...he just is, there is no mismatch so rather than trying to project a frame, he just IS that frame. I tend to believe that will be stronger vs someone trying to project that frame.
Not sure i'm making my point clearly...but these threads make my head hurt. :cool:[/QUOTE]
If you are fighting to be congruent you aren't doing the framing in the first place. You have 3 choices when you do what you said above. You can choose to be uncomfortable in your peacocking and that will show as incongruousness. You could choose to accept that the image you are portraying is you and you will be congruent. You could also role play someone who is congruent in your peacocking and portray the character that you imagine that person to be. You accept the stereotype.
The first option we will all agree is ineffective. The second one while quite effective is stiff because it only provides one option for you, the one you accept. The third option can be whatever you want it to be.
You could be the gold chain wearing, silk shirted mobster or you could be the deep cover cop portraying a silk shirted, gold chain wearing mobster. Hell you could play the ultimate PUA one minute, the international playboy the next and then turn it on its ear and be the ambiguously gay cosmetologist. If you accept the congruence of the naturally free spirited guy you are limiting yourself to one character.
We are grifters. We know how to manipulate society and social norms however we want. Accepting our own stereotypes of ourselves is self limiting. Choosing how we want to portray ourselves from minute to minute congruently by manipulating other peoples stereotypes is MUCH more effective.
i wasn't commenting on frame manipulation.
If i head out in a wild peacocking outfit, people will have preconceived notion that i am a carefree, free spirited person. But all throughout the night, if i need to consciously think about projecting that image because it's really not me, the opportunity to sniff out incongruence is greater. I'm consciously trying to live up to a stereotype.
Contrast that to a naturally free spirited carefree person that dons the peacocking outfit. He's not thinking "am i projecting a carefree fun loving attitude, will people think of me as a wild and crazy guy"...he just is, there is no mismatch so rather than trying to project a frame, he just IS that frame. I tend to believe that will be stronger vs someone trying to project that frame.
Not sure i'm making my point clearly...but these threads make my head hurt. :cool:[/QUOTE]
If you are fighting to be congruent you aren't doing the framing in the first place. You have 3 choices when you do what you said above. You can choose to be uncomfortable in your peacocking and that will show as incongruousness. You could choose to accept that the image you are portraying is you and you will be congruent. You could also role play someone who is congruent in your peacocking and portray the character that you imagine that person to be. You accept the stereotype.
The first option we will all agree is ineffective. The second one while quite effective is stiff because it only provides one option for you, the one you accept. The third option can be whatever you want it to be.
You could be the gold chain wearing, silk shirted mobster or you could be the deep cover cop portraying a silk shirted, gold chain wearing mobster. Hell you could play the ultimate PUA one minute, the international playboy the next and then turn it on its ear and be the ambiguously gay cosmetologist. If you accept the congruence of the naturally free spirited guy you are limiting yourself to one character.
We are grifters. We know how to manipulate society and social norms however we want. Accepting our own stereotypes of ourselves is self limiting. Choosing how we want to portray ourselves from minute to minute congruently by manipulating other peoples stereotypes is MUCH more effective.
- Guest
by Guest » Fri Sep 04, 2009 1:30 pm
[QUOTE=Finesse;33016]Manipulate is such a bad word, how about, paint.
"We know how to manipulate society and social norms however we want."
to
"We know how to paint society and social norms however we want."
There we go. Calms my innerds.[/QUOTE]
Manipulate is the better word. That is why I used it. Like deviant has a bad connotation because of how it is used. I hate to say it guys but we are deviant manipulators.
Oxford dictionary:
[B]manipulate[/B]
• [B]verb[/B] [B]1[/B] handle or control with dexterity. [B]2[/B] examine or treat (a part of the body) by feeling or moving it with the hand. [B]3[/B] control or influence cleverly or unscrupulously. [B]4[/B] alter or present (data) so as to mislead.
[SIZE=-1]— DERIVATIVES[/SIZE] [B]manipulable[/B] [FONT=Arial narrow][SIZE=-1]adjective[/SIZE][/FONT] [B]manipulation[/B] [FONT=Arial narrow][SIZE=-1]noun[/SIZE][/FONT] [B]manipulator[/B] [FONT=Arial narrow][SIZE=-1]noun[/SIZE][/FONT].
[SIZE=-1]— ORIGIN[/SIZE] from Latin [I]manipulus[/I] ‘handful’.
[B]deviant[/B]
• [B]adjective[/B] diverging from normal standards, especially in social or sexual behaviour.
• [B]noun[/B] a deviant person.
[SIZE=-1]— DERIVATIVES[/SIZE] [B]deviance[/B] [FONT=Arial narrow][SIZE=-1]noun[/SIZE][/FONT] [B]deviancy[/B] [FONT=Arial narrow][SIZE=-1]noun[/SIZE][/FONT].
You cleverly control social situations in a way that diverges from normal standards. It's not like you are standing at the bus stop whacking off in front of children, but you do manipulate social situations to your benefit. Everyone does or at least tries to.
In a job interview, do you put your best foot forward? Are there interview skills seminars all over the place? Do you make your resume show you in the best light? Finesse, do you put on job applications that you see no problem in showing up late from time to time? Do you have that in your resume?
We rarely tell people who we really are. In fact we don't even tell ourselves. You don't like to admit that what you do in pick up is manipulative. Of course it is. The outcome and the motivation is what defines your morality. Sick fuckers keep women duct taped in their basements. Great guys give women the most enjoyable experiences of their lives. Everyone manipulates. We are deviant.
"We know how to manipulate society and social norms however we want."
to
"We know how to paint society and social norms however we want."
There we go. Calms my innerds.[/QUOTE]
Manipulate is the better word. That is why I used it. Like deviant has a bad connotation because of how it is used. I hate to say it guys but we are deviant manipulators.
Oxford dictionary:
[B]manipulate[/B]
• [B]verb[/B] [B]1[/B] handle or control with dexterity. [B]2[/B] examine or treat (a part of the body) by feeling or moving it with the hand. [B]3[/B] control or influence cleverly or unscrupulously. [B]4[/B] alter or present (data) so as to mislead.
[SIZE=-1]— DERIVATIVES[/SIZE] [B]manipulable[/B] [FONT=Arial narrow][SIZE=-1]adjective[/SIZE][/FONT] [B]manipulation[/B] [FONT=Arial narrow][SIZE=-1]noun[/SIZE][/FONT] [B]manipulator[/B] [FONT=Arial narrow][SIZE=-1]noun[/SIZE][/FONT].
[SIZE=-1]— ORIGIN[/SIZE] from Latin [I]manipulus[/I] ‘handful’.
[B]deviant[/B]
• [B]adjective[/B] diverging from normal standards, especially in social or sexual behaviour.
• [B]noun[/B] a deviant person.
[SIZE=-1]— DERIVATIVES[/SIZE] [B]deviance[/B] [FONT=Arial narrow][SIZE=-1]noun[/SIZE][/FONT] [B]deviancy[/B] [FONT=Arial narrow][SIZE=-1]noun[/SIZE][/FONT].
You cleverly control social situations in a way that diverges from normal standards. It's not like you are standing at the bus stop whacking off in front of children, but you do manipulate social situations to your benefit. Everyone does or at least tries to.
In a job interview, do you put your best foot forward? Are there interview skills seminars all over the place? Do you make your resume show you in the best light? Finesse, do you put on job applications that you see no problem in showing up late from time to time? Do you have that in your resume?
We rarely tell people who we really are. In fact we don't even tell ourselves. You don't like to admit that what you do in pick up is manipulative. Of course it is. The outcome and the motivation is what defines your morality. Sick fuckers keep women duct taped in their basements. Great guys give women the most enjoyable experiences of their lives. Everyone manipulates. We are deviant.
- Guest
- Guest
21 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests