FRAME

[ChristopherColumbus]

The ultimate frame is poetry.

Timeless Musing

A cloud, spun and curled by some stratospheric force,
Veils a low glowing sun now slowed in its course,
To occupy lazily a late afternoon sky,
Intransigent before the evening’s scheduled rise.

Ha! The audacity of this airy form most flimsy,
This vaporous shroud’s most vapid of whimsies;
To presume to preside over the halting of the day…
Yet, that a cycle can’t cease, who’s ever to say?

 

[guru1000]

It comes down to people's own individual personal perceptions, and I honestly have no control over if an individual personally LIKES or HATES me.

Tenacity, how others perceive you is a choice in how you wish to present yourself. Those who have blocked you did so simply because you provided negative value to them. Those who admire you did so because you provided positive value to them.

To some, your choice to be an annoying Tenacity superseded your incentive to be an inspiring Tenacity, and thus you were blocked.

To others, your choice to be an inspiring Tenacity superseded your incentive to be an annoying Tenacity, and thus you were admired.

Tenacity seems to think he has no control in who he wishes to annoy or inspire. Guru says you do have a choice by understanding your audience (know who you are speaking to), and tailoring what you decide to share accordingly.

To BlueAlpha, you gave him great educational and fitness advice.
To TO, as he tried to help you, instead of thanking him for his assistance (however helpful), you denigrated him.

Your behaviors were choices. Tend to the audience and choose providently. This is the art of successfully influencing people a/k/a frame.

 

[Tenacity]

Those who have blocked you did so simply because you provided negative value to them. Those who admire you did so because you provided positive value to them.

Dude I'm the same, exact, person to everybody. When I agree with you I state my agreement, when you say something I disagree with....I state my disagreement. What you have is SOME people are not "ok" with you disagreeing with them. You did the same thing a year ago when you flipped out on me when I disagreed with points you made in the millionaire thread.

To some, your choice to be an annoying Tenacity superseded your incentive to be an inspiring Tenacity, and thus you were blocked.

To others, your choice to be an inspiring Tenacity superseded your incentive to be an annoying Tenacity, and thus you were admired.

What? Annoying Tenacity? Inspiring Tenacity?

Poon King runs around calling people beta fag.gots who disagree with his theories. I simply ask him to post a pic since he's so "alpha" to show his alpha lifestyle. That's being the Annoying Tenacity?

Tenacity seems to think he has no control in who he wishes to annoy or inspire. Guru says you do have a choice by understanding your audience (know who you are speaking to), and tailoring what you decide to share accordingly.

BeTheChange and Poon King have been PRICKS since day one, before Tenacity even got here. All you have to do is scroll through their post history. "Tenacity" didn't do a damn thing to turn those fools into the pricks that they are.

To BlueAlpha, you gave him great educational and fitness advice.
To TO, as he tried to help you, instead of thanking him for his assistance (however helpful), you denigrated him.

I gave everybody good advice, hell, I post my ENTIRE LIFE on this damn board. Some people take that and see good in it (like BlueAlpha), others take that as an opportunity to attack me and bring up my "issues" every 5 minutes like Howie does.

And I did thank T.O. for his contribution, I was asking the guy follow up questions and he got pissed off when I didn't come to the same conclusions he came to....which basically was the conclusion that I was just a "piece of shyt" and needed to accept it. Think I'm lying? Go back and read through that 25 page Anger Thread, his advice to me was to ACCEPT I was a piece of shyt, when I'm not even a piece of shyt lol.

 

[guru1000]

So you disagreed with the posters mentioned, and they blocked you.

I disagreed with the same posters on various issues on diverse threads. I was not blocked. Other posters, too, have disagreed with the posters mentioned, but they were not blocked.

1) If many posters have disagreed with the same posters you mentioned but were not blocked, where is the communication problem? With the posters mentioned--or-- with You?

2) Can one control the manner in which one's communication is construed, or do no nuances in language exist whereas one can respectfully disagree with solid rhetoric without being blocked?

 

[TheMonkeyKing]

Owning the frame is simply evidencing your unequivocal higher value in the subject’s mind.

When you own the frame, you could act like an alpha, and the girl will value you.
When you own the frame, you could act like a beta, and the girl will value you.

When you own the frame, you could call everyday, and she will value you.
When you own the frame, you could never call, and she will value you.

When you own the frame, you could be an azzhole, and she will value you.
When you own the frame, you could be a nice guy, and she will value you.

When you own the frame, you could call one minute after the first date, and she will value you.
When you own the frame, you could call one week after the first date, and she will value you.

When you own the frame, you could seduce hard on the first date, and she will value you.
When you own the frame, you could avoid seduction, and she will value you.

When you don’t own the frame, you could have textbook “game,” and she will not value you.

I am generally on board with this. However... these are secondary consequences.

I will read through the responses herein at some point, but one thing jumps out immediately. I'd say owning the Frame is actually:

Owning the frame is simply evidencing your unequivocal higher value in one's own mind, in addition to the subject's.

You might well achieve all of the things listed above by maintaining frame. However you might not. That being:
When you own the frame, she will value you, and she will fck you.
When you own the frame, she will value you, and she won't fck you.

Nobody has a 100% hit rate. Nobody. Even under optimum conditions. That doesn't mean frame was lost or had a guy was low value. It's a simply woman's prerogative to act as she pleases, sometimes regardless of logic or discretion, as we all know.

The list above places a lot emphasis on these secondary consequences of frame, ignoring the primary effects (personal body language, demeanour etc etc) which cause the cause the consequences. Frame is a personal state of mind that is ideally relatively constant, regardless of the actions or reactions of others to that frame.

 

[guru1000]

TMK, my responses follow:

Owning the frame is simply evidencing your unequivocal higher value in one's own mind, in addition to the subject's.

Not to say that a seducer, alone, is what a DJ should aspire to, but, could not a seducer demonstrate higher unequivocal value to another through artifice (and thus own the frame), but self-perceive no higher value? This doesn't alter the original argument.

But as not to convolute the issue, yes, a DJ should strive for both in one's mind and the subject's mind for other reasons than seduction.

When you own the frame, she will value you, and she will fck you.
When you own the frame, she will value you, and she won't fck you.

Nobody has a 100% hit rate. Nobody. Even under optimum conditions. That doesn't mean frame was lost or had a guy was low value. It's a simply woman's prerogative to act as she pleases, sometimes regardless of logic or discretion, as we all know.

It has been adopted by the Manosphere that woman do not operate by logic. I have said adoption of this thinking is how women manipulate men. Women throw a temper tantrum and are socially excused because "they are simply emotional creatures who just can't help it," but they know exactly what they are doing as they are socially-adept, cunning and calculated in their machinations. This predates back to the (fictional) historical story of Adam and Eve. Ask any divorce attorney about the myriad men who were blindsided in surprise divorces with all their bank accounts wiped clean, which of the two genders is more logical.

Women will operate within their best interests. Always.

Accordingly, if a woman values you, she will fvck you. This doesn't mean if you were Brad Pitt, you would have a 100% success rate, because, even Brad Pitt, does not fit all buttons (of value) for all women. Women have different tastes, different desires, different value systems. The goal in seduction is to ascertain the subject's needs, and hit those needs with (serving) value displays.

Frame is a personal state of mind that is ideally relatively constant, regardless of the actions or reactions of others to that frame.

This is one's own frame, as pointed to another posters. We are discussing how to "own" the frame between you and another/others. Notably, if your frame does not serve her needs, then you won't own the frame (between you and her).

 

[playa99]

@Tenacity i like you, you are the real deal as evidenced by both of us recently.

I value your honestly and willingness to put everything out there. Others don't value that and simply want to have the discussion.

The 'hardline' red pill guys don't want to discuss anything other than their views.

You know what I do for a living, and it is extremely villified. I can not offer value to a certain type of company/person, whatever i do, I am seen as a jobsworth. My sales technique is based around finding companies who value my products and services.

The same can be said about anything. I find value in how @guru1000 talks about the correct mindset. Others will find value in his escapades with 9s.

 

[TheMonkeyKing]

Women throw a temper tantrum and are socially excused because "they are simply emotional creatures who just can't help it," but they know exactly what they are doing as they are socially-adept

I wouldn't say temper tantrums signify logical thinking, not in the classical sense of logic anyway; more so, it's a skewed operant conditioning. There are some scheming women, for sure. But I don't think those are they who are typically prone to throwing tantrums.

Accordingly, if a woman values you, she will fvck you. This doesn't mean if you were Brad Pitt, you would have a 100% success rate, because, even Brad Pitt, does not fit all buttons (of value) for all women.

My aspie pedantry aside, this is something of a contradiction, yet also confirms the point I make. Point being, if a girl wont fck you, that shouldn't diminish your personal value as she might just value someone else more.... We don't want guys tying themselves up in knots over a failure to lay, when actually they didn't really do anything wrong. We don't want guys overcompensating - altering personal or interpersonal frames - in one respect or other with the next girl, simply because the last one didn't put out. Long story short - lose some, win most.

This is one's own frame, as pointed to another posters. We are discussing how to "own" the frame between you and another/others. Notably, if your frame does not serve her needs, then you won't own the frame (between you and her).

A very intricate relationship between the two - your frame and the frame; this is very advanced stuff that will be lost on many.

 

[playa99]

I wouldn't say temper tantrums signify logical thinking, not in the classical sense of logic anyway; more so, it's a skewed operant conditioning. There are some scheming women, for sure. But I don't think those are they who are typically prone to throwing tantrums.



My aspie pedantry aside, this is something of a contradiction, yet also confirms the point I make. Point being, if a girl wont fck you, that shouldn't diminish your personal value as she might just value someone else more.... We don't want guys tying themselves up in knots over a failure to lay, when actually they didn't really do anything wrong. We don't want guys overcompensating - altering personal or interpersonal frames - in one respect or other with the next girl, simply because the last one didn't put out. Long story short - lose some, win most.



A very intricate relationship between the two - your frame and the frame; this is very advanced stuff that will be lost on many.

This.

I am fast realising that being a DJ is being on the right side of a very faint set of lines, which can at first appear contradictory.

Be persistent without being desperate
Have 'wants' but stay away from 'needs'

I go into the vets, the vet has the frame in conversation, as they are the expert. That does not diminish my frame in any way.

Knowing when to show your value and when to let others show their value is paramount.

 

[TheMonkeyKing]

I am fast realising that being a DJ is being on the right side of a very faint set of lines, which can at first appear contradictory.

It's true, and which side of which line will vary according to individual and circumstance. Dating women is akin to playing a game of chess and a game of poker simultaneously; you'll need a strong arsenal, knowing what piece does what, while also employing a certain level of deception when required.

That being said:

Knowing when to show your value and when to let others show their value is paramount.

...the point I make about the intricate play between personal frame and interpersonal frame; a man of genuine value need not consciously 'show' his value because he is simply living a valuable existence. His value is ultimately apparent, needs no real conscious demonstration and ultimately dictates the interpersonal frames he moves within. This is approaching natural, alpha/super-alpha status.

Indeed, a man who pushes his own value on others loses value by coming across as insecure in some way - by overcompensating in another.

 

[guru1000]

Point being, if a girl wont fck you, that shouldn't diminish your personal value

Never stated nor implied that it should.

Deeper territory follows. Let's discuss.

We don't want guys overcompensating - altering personal or interpersonal frames - in one respect or other with the next girl, simply because the last one didn't put out. Long story short - lose some, win most.

Depends on the person.

Person 1: Fluid personal frame. Adapts to the target, feeds the target's needs, and wins the target (target is disposable at his beck and call).

Person2 : Intransigent personal frame. Shotgun approach. Will serve the needs and win those who are within his frame. Will lose those whose needs are outside his frame.

Here, in SoSuave, we preach men to be Person 2, correct? Let's challenge this argument:

One could argue that Person 2 has a stronger sense of self, as his frame is intransigent. But Person 1 "wins" more in the context of what he is trying to win.

1. Counterpoint to Person 1: Person 2 is being true to himself which is more important than "winning," while Person 1 is compromising himself and thus really losing.

Counterpoint addressed: Person 1 is also being true to himself, as he, "himself," is fluid, and so no compromising of himself, Mr. Fluid, exists.

2. Counterpoint to Person 1: Winning is being true to yourself, not winning the outcome.

Counterpoint addressed: Person1 is being true to himself, Mr. Fluid, and winning the outcome, together.

3. Counterpoint to Person 1: Person 1 loses value by altering himself to fit the needs of the subject.

Counterpoint addressed: Person1 does not alter "himself," as he, himself, is fluid.

4. Counterpoint to Person 1: Person 1 is inherently weak, as he has no personal convictions.

Counterpoint addressed: Person 1 does have a conviction: To be fluid. Person 2 could be understood as weak by being a slave to convictions that were formed primarily by the indoctrination of social constructs.

5. Counterpoint to Person 1: Person 1's fluidity could impose harm upon Person 1. For example, if the target wanted to get married, Person 1's concurrence to such a need could have dire financial consequences.

Counterpoint addressed: Correct. Person 1's fluidity should only be limited to acts that cannot cause personal injury directly, incidentally, or consequentially.

Any other counterpoints to Person 1's modus operandi?

 

[TheMonkeyKing]

Never stated nor implied that it should.

I think it needs stating at least. Which is why I did.

Person 1: Fluid personal frame. Adapts to the target, feeds the target's needs, and wins the target (target is disposable at his beck and call).

Person2 : Intransigent personal frame. Shotgun approach. Will serve the needs and win those who are within his frame. Will lose those whose needs are outside his frame.

Here, in SoSuave, we preach men to be Person 2, correct?

My interpretation, subjective as it is, mistaken as I may be, is that we actually do promote the values of Person 1.

Person 2 has an old-school learning of the game, to learn step by step method, is reactionary, dare I say, working within the frame of the subject and lacking true personal frame of ones own. An act, essentially.

Person 1 is from a nu-school train of thinking, less reactionary, but more proactive, lifestyle-forming. Men akin to you and me. Actually developing a frame and true value to work with, opposed to chasing women round in their frame of reference, armed with hand book of pick up techne.

This is the evolution of the thing for me. Not to discredit our predecessors, we owe them a debt never to be repaid, but that's the way the world works. Evolve or gtfo, essentially.

A very interesting conversation all the same.