This appears to be an example of weaponized generalization. The examples of what frame control looks like and doesn't look like are broad to the point of meaning anything you want them to mean, OR, lack any sense of boundaries.<p>The author says everyone exercises frame control all the time, including themselves, and doesn't know what to do about it. In another sentence says their reaction when encountering it is to 'burn it with fire'. It ends with telling people to rely on their feelings.<p>Convoluted, conflicted, generalized, and entitled. Everything I don't like.
Have an NPD dad and this rings a lot of bells. In addition to what's written here, it's helpful to study that disorder to better navigate the idea of frame control (NPDs carefully tailor reality in this way). A good starting point is Dr. Les Carter on YouTube if you're unfamiliar with the disorder.
This feels like a good description of narcissistic behaviour, at least from my personal experience. Not sure if there's an existing term in psychology for it since it's not quite gaslighting, but I do like frame control as a term.
I find it a bit upsetting that in true HackerNews character, so many comment just to express that the author's thoughts are naíve, unfounded, or just plain wrong.<p>This is what I got from her writing:<p>1. She hates this because it's scarred her and loved ones.
2. This is invisible though. I think radiation is an apt analogy. It's everywhere all the time, but rarely enough to do damage.
3. But it can hurt you and she has seen the scars.
4. It's very possible that you've never seen it's effects and never will.<p>And I struggle to see how to disagree with these points. A significant portion of her post is admitting that her description will not be a perfect one.<p>I feel she openly acknowledges that she could be wrong. And I also feel it would only be courteous for us, the readers, to acknowledge she could just be right.
This is an important concept to understand, but the author has an extremely pathological perspective, evidently caused by a poor paternal relationship.<p>Any giga-successful founder is going to have frame like a five hundred year old oak. Perhaps the archetypal example is Steve Jobs’s (in)famous Reality Distortion Field.<p>In virtually any pitch meeting the investor’s Bayesian prior is that you’re not worth investing in. If you can’t hold frame that you are you’re not going to make it to yes.<p>Another example is romantic success. The most successful persons in that field maintain a powerful frame that they are desirable to be with.
I believe the article is an example of overthinking.<p>If you think so much about an issue without the right data you will get wrong conclusions. In other words, garbage in, garbage out, no matter how smart(how good your processing unit is) you are. This woman looks intellectually smart, emotionally dumb and immature.<p>This woman had a pathological relationship and generalizes over it. She is projecting that relationship over everyone, and that is a serious mistake.<p>In spite of being an adult woman she has a "victim mentality" and a tendency to create a "self fulfilling prophecy" because healthy people will avoid her like the plague.<p>People that had a healthy relationship with their parents or people in general does not want or need to deal with people that consider every one else an abuser, just because they were abused by someone.<p>If your father rapes you your mind will associate all men as rapists because he is the most important man in your life. But that is wrong.<p>If your parents are enemies inside marriage with a terrible relationship you will generalize all marriages as bad because it it the marriage that you know better. But that is wrong.<p>The way to deal with long lasting traumas is working on it emotionally, not rationally and usually over a long time too until you can make progress.
I feel OP's definition needs to be narrowed down a bit. Debating climate change with someone that denies it is not a matter of opinion. Accepting that the sky is blue doesn't mean that I jumped into the other person's frame or I inherited their belief system. It just means I learnt a new fact.
Science: Sun rises in the east
A: Sun rises in the west
B: Here is some evidence that sun rises in the east (recommendation) (or) You're insane for not believing in that (pressure?)<p>Is B trying to use components of frame control to take over A's reality?<p>IMO the article feels very convoluted