I have already mentioned frames several times. And l am sure many of you have some idea of what l mean by "frame", but are seeking a clear definition. A "frame" is a general focus or direction that provides an overall guidance for thoughts and actions during an interaction. Put in layman's terms a frame determines the underlying meaning of behaviours and actions. On the other hand, a meta-frame determines the overall underlying meaning of the interaction. So, think of the meta-frame as a giant frame which all of the other frames fit inside of.
Let's look at an example. Imagine a guy goes up to a girl in a bar and says, "You are so beautifuI" and the girl rudely responds, "Yea yea...now go buy me a drink". He responds by saying, "sure, anything you want sweetheart".
Now imagine another guy going up to a girl and chatting her up. After a few minutes the girl says, "buy me a drink" to which the guy chuckles and says, "Is that your best pick up line? You struck me as someone more creative than that".
I would put some big money on the first guy not shagging the girI. However, the second guy has a pretty good chance.
You might be wondering, why this is the case? Or, what is different about these two examples? Or, what exactly is going on here?
The difference is that in the first example, by the guy responding to the rude woman's request--for him to buy her a drink--he is allowing the following frames to be set:
1. That he is a pushover, since he is rewarding her rude behaviour.
2. That he must be the one who is interested in her, not necessarily the other way around.
3. That he is trying to get her to stay and talk with him.
Put in other words, this is how he is allowing the underlying meanings of his behaviours and actions to be defined. Unfortunately, the frames he has set both imply and fit inside her meta-frame: that she is the PRIZE, that he is trying to win her over, and etc. This meta-frame is unlikely to lead to this guy getting laid.
Some of you might be thinking that this whole talk of frames is silly because a person cannot really change the underlying meaning of an interaction; it is just objective reality.
But l am here to tell you that this is bullshit because underlying meanings and frames are not objective reality. They only exist inside the skulls of human beings. So, when a woman says something rude to you and you buy into it being true, you are in her frame. When you say something to a woman, and she buys into it, she is in your frame. But none of this is objective reality. It is just what a person accepts as their subjective reality. Put in other words, frames, meta-frames, and underlying meanings are not reaI.
So let's look at why the second guy has a much better chance of shagging the girI. The reason is that he is sticking to his guns and not falling into her metaframe: namely, that she is the PRIZE and that if he wants to talk to her he has to buy her a drink.
Instead of doing this, he flips it around on her and maintains the belief that he is the PRIZE in the interaction. Now she may or may not fall into his metaframe. But even if she doesn't, he is conveying the message that he is unwilling to buy into her meta-frame.
Did you get that? This is very very important.
A frame determines the underlying meaning of behaviours, and actions. And a meta-frame determines the overall underlying meaning of interactions. Frames and meta-frames only exist inside the skulls of human beings, not in objective reality. Put in other words, frames and meta-frames are just what a person accepts as their subjective reality. A man is always best off maintaining the meta-frame that he is the PRIZE in an interaction. A woman may or may not buy into his frame, but at least by maintaining the meta-frame he is not buying into her being the PRIZE in the interaction.
Go out to a busy coffee shop or bar. Find a seat where everyone in the place is visible to you. Then, observe all of the male/female interactions. While observing each individual interaction, try to determine what the meta-frame (the overall underlying meaning) of the interaction is. Then try to figure out who is defining this overall underlying meaning.
Was this article helpful?