框架控制
「框架控制」这个话题有点复杂。虽然我自己经常遇到，也能理解，但又感觉写出来很吃力。 因为，在我们看待问题或我们思考一件事情时，不仅是关于这个事情本身，也关于我们用什么视角，去看待这个问题。而框架，就是我们选择的视角，相当于一系列的不言自明假设。
例如，很多人说，婚前同居了，就是吃亏了。或者，和男朋友相处时，男朋友未经同意，就摸了自己的大腿，外人觉得算是性侵。 一个有帮助的思考方式是区分"我自己真正的感受"和"我内化了的社会评价"。就比如，如果男朋友强制摸了自己，自己是感觉自然和舒适，并没有觉得被侵犯了，那么，这时别人说的「性侵」，可能就是外部规训，而不是自己的真实感受。还有，婚前同居，其实都是类似。认清这一点，就不容易被模糊的羞耻感绑架。
面对社会的贞操观念，也是类似。如果一个男性因为你不是「处女」而「掉价」，实际上暴露的是对方的价值观落后，而非把你当成完整的人。与这样的人一起，不管自己贞操如何，在其他方面，有可能被物化和控制。 （而且，其实很多时候，社会规训，并不完全是男生强加的，很多规训，是女生强加给女生的。）
下面引用aella的一篇文章： When I mention my dad’s abuse, I usually mention salient things – physical pain, insults, and controlling behavior. These are “clearly bad” – if I tell that he you often told me I was lazy and would fail horribly at life once I left home, you know it’s bad, because it’s concrete, easy to imagine and obviously unkind. But this wasn’t the worst of the abuse; the most terrible parts were extraordinarily hard to understand or describe. 当我提到我爸爸的虐待时，我通常提到鲜明的事情——身体上的疼痛、侮辱和控制行为。这些是“明显是错的”——如果我告诉你他经常告诉我我懒，一旦离开家就会在人生中彻底失败，你知道这是错的，因为它具体、容易想象，而且明显是不友善的。但这些还不是虐待中最糟糕的部分；最可怕的部分极其难以理解或描述。
In his world, I felt insane – I couldn’t tell what was real, who was at fault, or why my heart hurt so much. My sense of clarity around my own intentions crumbled; everything I thought or did might have seemed good on the surface, but that goodness became just a disguise for my true, darker intentions – all helpfully revealed to me by my dad. And none of it was salient or concrete or easily understandable; I remember my mom once telling me, “I can’t describe what this is like to other people. The individual things seem so silly, I can’t put the important thing into words.” 在他的世界里，我感觉自己疯了——我分不清什么是真实的，谁该负责，或者为什么我的心会这么痛。我对自身意图的清晰感崩溃了；我所想或所做的事情，表面上看似乎都很好，但那 goodness 只是掩盖我真实、更黑暗的意图的伪装——而这一切都被我爸爸毫不留情地揭示给我看。而且这一切都不鲜明、不具体、也不容易理解；我记得我妈妈曾经告诉我，“我无法向其他人描述这感觉。那些个细节看起来很傻，我无法用语言说出重要的事。”
I’m going to try to put it into words, and the words I use for “the important thing” are frame control. 我将尝试用语言来表达它，我用“重要的事情”这个词来指代框架控制。
This isn’t just about my dad, and he wasn’t even particularly good at it when children weren’t his targets; frame control pops up elsewhere. It’s a feature of cults, leaders, of some charismatic people, of abusers in relationships, of some parents, of some ideological movements. It’s hit communities around me, hurt friends of mine. I don’t know how to fight it, but I at least want to name it. And naming it is really hard, because at first glance frame control looks like completely normal behavior. Every individual instance is “not that bad”; and when the knife that wounds you is invisible, you might doubt that you’re bleeding at all. Frame control is inherently illegible; it’s not something that checks a few clear boxes, it’s only really visible through the experience of the receiver. 这不仅仅关于我的父亲，而且当儿童不是他的目标时，他甚至不擅长这一点；框架控制出现在其他地方。它是邪教、领导者、某些有魅力的人、关系中的施虐者、某些父母、某些意识形态运动的一个特征。它影响了我周围的社区，伤害了我的朋友。我不知道如何对抗它，但我至少想给它命名。而命名它真的很难，因为从表面上看，框架控制看起来像完全正常的行为。每一个个体实例都是“没那么糟”；当伤害你的刀是看不见的时，你可能会怀疑自己是否真的在流血。框架控制本质上难以辨认；它不是一项勾选几个清晰框框的事情，它只有通过接收者的体验才真正可见。
In this post I’m going to advocate for some perspectives that I think can also be really dangerous. I’m going to avoid too many disclaimers or safety warnings throughout for the sake of directness, though I have some thoughts on danger at the end. 在这篇文章中，我将倡导一些我认为同样可能非常危险的观点。为了保持直接性，我将尽量避免过多的免责声明或安全警告，尽管我在文末有一些关于危险的想法。
Your frame is basically the set of assumptions you hold about the world around you, in every way there is – your values, your identity, your beliefs about meaning and social norms and economics and whatever, although most of it tends to be implicit or subconscious; probably only a small portion of your frame is directly expressible! Your frame might encompass anything from “Jesus is my savior” to “It’s bad to touch the sidewalk with your hands” to “I am valuable because I’m funny” 你的框架基本上是你对周围世界所持有的假设集合，以各种方式存在——你的价值观、你的身份认同、你对意义和社会规范、经济等的信念，尽管其中大部分往往是隐性的或潜意识的；你框架中可能只有一小部分可以直接表达！你的框架可能涵盖从“耶稣是我的救世主”到“用手触摸人行道是不好的”到“我因为有趣而有价值”等各种内容
Imagine your frame exists as a box around you; when someone engages with you, they try to get you out of your box and into their box in various ways. This can be via stuff like: 想象你的框架像是一个围绕你的盒子；当有人与你互动时，他们会用各种方式试图让你离开你的盒子，进入他们的盒子。这可以通过以下方式实现：
Debate: Trying to demonstrate, through reason and facts, how their box is better (“No, sex isn’t about power, it’s about sex, here’s a study!”) 辩论：试图通过理性与事实来证明他们的盒子更好（“不，性不是关于权力，而是关于性，这里有一项研究！”）
Recommendation: Showing that the box they’re in has been really good for them (“Viewing my body tension as actually about childhood trauma really cleared things up”) 推荐：展示他们所在的盒子对他们真的很好（“将我的身体紧张视为童年创伤确实让事情清晰了很多”）
Pressure: Holding social alliance with them as conditional on them joining you in your box (“I only really respect people who believe all lives matter”) 压力：将维持社会联盟视为他们加入你的“圈子”的条件（“我只真正尊重那些相信所有生命都重要的人”）
Rescue: Offering up their box as the solution for an issue you have (“Want to escape your suffering? Become aware of no-self”) 救援：将他们的盒子作为你问题的解决方案提出（“想摆脱你的痛苦吗？意识到无我”）
Aggression: Trying to push you into their box (“You’re a piece of shit for denying climate change, you’re the reason we’re all going to die”) 攻击：试图将你推进他们的盒子（“你否认气候变化是个人渣，你是我们都要死去的原因”）
These are all attempts to control your frame, but none of these is what I mean by frame control. These techniques can be manipulative or abusive, but they’re also broadcast clearly; in a similar way to how a man catcalling on a busy street alerts both the target and everyone else to their presence. It’s annoying, but clearly legible. It’s easy for you and everyone around you to say to each other, “Ah, that person wants something from you” and move on with your day. 这些都是试图控制你的框架，但其中没有一个是我想说的框架控制。这些技巧可能具有操控性或虐待性，但它们也清晰地传播着；就像一个男人在繁忙的街道上大声叫卖，既让目标人物也让周围所有人都注意到他的存在。这很烦人，但非常明显。你和你周围的人都很容易对彼此说：“啊，那个人想从你这里得到点什么”，然后继续过你的日子。
No; frame control is the “man doesn’t announce his presence, he just stalks you silently” of the communication world. It’s when you end up in the other person’s box without knowing that it happened. It’s not violence you can feel, or coaxing you can reason with; it’s a slow build of their frame around you until you don’t remember what your box ever looked like. Frame control is a quiet subversion of your agency; instead of offering up their frame for you to consider, they pull you in without consent, into a world you probably would never have endorsed from the outside. 不；框架控制是沟通世界中的“男人不宣告他的存在，他只是默默地跟踪你”的现象。它是指你不知不觉地进入了对方的框架之中。这不是你能感受到的暴力，也不是你能用理性说服的诱导；它是一个缓慢的过程，对方的框架逐渐围绕着你，直到你忘记了你的框架曾经是什么样子。框架控制是对你自主权的悄然颠覆；他们不是提供框架供你考虑，而是未经你同意就将你拉入一个你可能从未从外部认可的世界。
Frame control often results in doubt, denial, or suppression of your own feelings, as the frame controller has you in their frame and exerts a huge amount of energy to keep you there. Your own experience is warped to align with that of the frame controller, even (especially?) when this comes at cost to you. 框架控制常常导致你对自己的感受产生怀疑、否认或压抑，因为框架控制者已经将你置于他们的框架之中，并花费大量精力将你留在那里。你自己的体验被扭曲，以与框架控制者的体验保持一致，即使（尤其是）这对你造成了损失。
For a very simple, obvious example (not all of them are so obvious!), my dad would sometimes command obedience in things that were very painful to obey (e.g., permanently ending all contact with my best friend). This made me angry, but his frame treated my anger as a sign that I was sinful and corrupt, and I thus experienced my anger as a failure on my part. I would get angry, and then feel guilty for being angry, and spend a huge amount of effort suppressing the anger and trying to convince myself I felt grateful for how much effort my dad was putting into his parenting. 举一个非常简单且明显的例子（并非所有情况都如此明显！），我父亲有时会命令我服从那些非常痛苦的事情（例如，永久断绝与最好朋友的所有联系）。这让我生气，但他的框架将我的愤怒视为我罪孽和腐败的迹象，因此我把我自己的愤怒体验为我的失败。我会生气，然后因为生气而感到内疚，花费大量精力压抑愤怒，并试图说服自己感谢父亲在养育上付出的努力。
How is frame control done in such a surreptitious way? Surely you would notice if someone was telling you it’s your fault for feeling bad, right? 框架控制是如何以如此隐蔽的方式进行的？如果你被告知感到难受是你的错，你当然会注意到，对吧？
Sometimes, frame controllers will make high-risk moves that serve to alienate 98% of people and draw in the other 2%. “My organization is going to save the world” – a maybe crazy claim, but if you’re one of the people who really believes it’s possible to save the world, you might instead process the claim as instead incredibly brave, because you know 98% of people will think it’s stupid. And maybe it is brave! My point is not that the moves are bad or good, only that high-variance, high-risk moves will fail most of the time, but be very effective when they don’t fail. This can make frame control strategies that fail on you seem to be very obvious and easy to avoid, but the frame control strategies that work will feel extremely exciting. 有时，框架控制者会采取高风险的行动，这些行动旨在疏远 98%的人并吸引另外 2%。 “我的组织将拯救世界”——这可能是个疯狂的主张，但如果你是那些真正相信拯救世界可能实现的人之一，你可能会将这个主张处理为极其勇敢，因为你知道 98%的人会认为它很愚蠢。也许它确实很勇敢！我的观点不是这些行动是好是坏，而只是高风险、高变异性行动大部分时候会失败，但在不失败时非常有效。这可能使那些对你失败的框架控制策略看起来非常明显且容易避免，但那些有效的框架控制策略会让人感觉极其兴奋。
Also, frame control is often more likely to happen to vulnerable people. If you’re younger, or alienated from family, or don’t have a great social group, or if you’re very weird or neuroatypical and don’t easily feel seen, or if you end up in a system where your core needs are controlled by your compliance (romantic relationships and employment and MLMs can fit this), this makes you much more susceptible. 此外，框架控制往往更容易发生在弱势群体身上。如果你年纪较轻，或者与家人疏远，或者没有强大的社交圈，或者你非常古怪或神经典型异常且不易被看见，或者你最终陷入一个系统，在这个系统中你的核心需求受制于你的顺从（恋爱关系、就业和 MLM 都可能符合这种情况），这会让你变得极易受影响。
Before I’m more direct about identifying frame control, I want to clarify a few things. 在更直接地识别框架控制之前，我想澄清几点。
One is that good frame controllers put a lot of effort into avoiding the appearance of control. They will explicitly say things that appear to validate your emotions and increase your degree of freedom. They might appear empathetic, self-reflective, open to negative feedback, genuinely caring. Skilled frame controllers track the quiet social understanding of how you have to act in order to be perceived as good, and they are very careful to fill this (see the dutiful inclusion of option C in this otherwise aggressive tweet). This causes the victims to justify all sorts of harmful behavior to themselves – “Well, my boyfriend says he loves me and wants what’s best for me, so his punishment of my behavior must be good for me”, “Well that person says they’re open to being wrong, and have pointed out when they were wrong before, so it’s unlikely they’re wrong about x”. 一种情况是，优秀的框架控制者会花费大量精力避免显露出控制行为。他们会明确说出一些看似能验证你的情绪并增加你的自由度的话。他们可能表现出同理心、自我反思、乐于接受负面反馈、真心关怀。熟练的框架控制者会追踪那些关于如何行为才能被视为好的安静的社会理解，并且非常小心地填补这一点（参见这条原本充满攻击性的推文中对选项 C 的尽职尽责的提及）。这导致受害者会为自己各种有害行为进行辩护——"嗯，我的男朋友说他爱我，想为我好，所以他的惩罚我的行为一定是对我好的"，"嗯，那个人说他们愿意承认错误，之前也指出了他们的错误，所以他们在 x 问题上的观点不太可能是错的"。
Frame controllers, typically after they get a good foothold, also can determine the standard by which you measure what is good. Instead of just replicating good behavior, they also tell you what good behavior is, e.g. “correcting your sins is good” or “not giving what you want is good for you.” 框架控制者，通常在他们站稳脚跟后，也能决定你衡量什么是好的标准。他们不仅会复制好的行为，还会告诉你什么是好的行为，例如"改正你的罪过是好的"或"不给你想要的东西对你有好处"。
Second point is a doozy, and it’s that you can’t look at intent when diagnosing frame control. As in, “what do they mean to do” should be held separate from “what are the effects of what they’re doing” – which I know is counter to almost every good lesson about engaging with people charitably. 第二点是个棘手的问题，那就是在诊断框架控制时不能看意图。也就是说，“他们打算做什么”应该与“他们正在做的事情的效果”分开——我知道这几乎与几乎所有关于慈善与人交往的良好教诲相悖。
Frame control is an effect; very often, people who frame control will not be aware that this is what they’re doing, and have extensive reasoning to rationalize their behavior that they themselves believe. If you are close to a frame controller and squinting at them to figure out “are they hiding intent to control me,” you often will find the answer is “no.” 框架控制是一种效应；很多时候，实施框架控制的人自己并不会意识到自己在这样做，并且会为自己认为合理的行为提供大量理由。如果你接近一个框架控制者，眯起眼睛试图判断“他们是否在隐藏控制我的意图”，你通常会发现答案是“没有”。
This often functions as a trap to keep people in a controlled frame. For example, I once hung out for a while with a cult (which nobody, including me, viewed as a cult at the time), where their cult leader was doing a lot of really bad frame control stuff. The narrative inside the group (which is not universal across cults!) was that the cult leader was both deeply flawed and perceptive, and the things he did that hurt people were either for their own good, or an unintentional byproduct of him genuinely trying to do good. “He means well” was a crucial element of keeping people in this cult; focusing on his good intent functioned to dismiss and downplay the damage that was being done to its members. 这常常起到将人困在受控框架中的作用。例如，我曾经和某个团体（当时包括我在内，没有人认为它是个邪教）待了一段时间，该团体的领导者做了很多非常糟糕的框架控制行为。该团体内部的说法（这并非所有邪教都如此！）是，领导者既存在严重缺陷又很敏锐，他伤害他人的行为要么是为了他们的好，要么是他真心想做好事的无意后果。“他出于好意”是让人们留在该邪教的关键因素；关注他的善意起到了淡化并贬低对成员造成的伤害的作用。
And so, when evaluating frame control, you have to throw out intent. The question is not “does this person mean to control my frame,” the question is “is this person controlling my frame?”. This is especially true for diagnosing frame control that you’re inside of, because the first defense a frame controller uses is the empathy you hold for them. 因此，在评估框架控制时，你必须抛开意图。问题不是“这个人是否打算控制我的框架”，而是“这个人是否在控制我的框架”。这尤其适用于诊断你身处的框架控制，因为框架控制者首先利用的是你对他们的同情。
This all might sound pretty dark, like I’m painting a reality where you might go around squinting at empathetic, open, caring people who have zero ill intent whatsoever and trying to figure out how they are ‘actually bad.’ And this is kind of true, but if only because “I am an empathetic, open, caring person with zero ill intent” is exactly the kind of defense actual frame-controllers inhabit. The vast majority of good people with good intent aren’t doing any significant kind of frame control; my point is just that “good person with good intent” should not be considered a sufficient defense if there seems to be other elements of frame control present. 这一切听起来可能相当黑暗，就像我正在描绘一个现实，在这个现实中，你可能需要眯着眼睛观察那些富有同情心、开放、充满关怀的人，他们完全没有任何恶意，并试图弄清楚他们实际上是如何“真正坏”的。这在某种程度上是真的，但仅仅是因为“我是一个富有同情心、开放、充满关怀且完全没有恶意的人”正是实际操控框架的人所使用的防御方式。绝大多数怀有良好意图的好人并没有进行任何重大的框架操控；我的观点只是，如果存在其他框架操控的元素，那么“怀有良好意图的好人”不应被视为充分的辩护。
Much of frame control occurs in the land of things not said. We’re constantly, unconsciously making strategic moves in conversation that shift ourselves into more favorable positions. For example: 大部分的框架操控发生在未言明的事情之中。我们在对话中不断、无意识地做出策略性举动，将自己置于更有利的位置。例如：
You have a bad fight with your romantic partner, and things are tense. Shortly after the fight, you and your partner are hanging out in a group of friends. Your partner suggests the group should set up a fund where everyone can contribute to group trips, and the excess in the fund can cover emergencies. You announce that this sounds like a great idea, that communal bonding is great. 你和你的浪漫伴侣发生了一场激烈的争吵，气氛紧张。争吵后不久，你和伴侣在一群朋友中聚会。你的伴侣建议大家设立一个基金，每个人都可以为集体旅行贡献资金，基金中的盈余可以应对紧急情况。你宣布这个主意很棒，集体情感联系非常美好。
You publicly announcing reinforcement of your partner’s idea has a secondary function of aligning yourself with your partner and communicating to your partner you’re still affectionate despite the fight you just had. 你公开宣布支持伴侣的主意，其次要功能是与你伴侣保持一致，并向伴侣传达尽管刚发生争吵，你仍然充满爱意。
And maybe your partner responds that no, this isn’t about communal bonding, this is about handling emergencies. 也许你的伴侣会回应说，不，这并不是关于集体情感联系，而是关于处理紧急情况。
Your partner’s words were just clarifying their own meaning, but the secondary function is un-aligning themselves with you, pointing out your understanding failure, and implying the fight is still ongoing. On the surface the conversation is normal, but other communication is also happening, likely without conscious knowledge of the participants. The above example is from a personal experience, and when it happened I had zero conscious knowledge of the secondary functions. 你的伴侣的话只是澄清他们自己的意思，但次要功能是与你划清界限，指出你的理解错误，并暗示战斗仍在继续。表面上对话是正常的，但其他交流也在进行，很可能参与者没有意识到这一点。上述例子来自个人经历，当时发生时我完全没有意识到这些次要功能。
Conversation, action, and context are overflowing with secondary functions. Words have effects that aren’t just about the words, and so we get things like greeting rituals (hello how are you im fine how are you) designed to indicate alliance, “I’m busy again” means “I don’t want to date you,” telling the unattractive person they’re beautiful just the way they are indicates you are magnanimous and virtuous and value people for their inner spirit or whatever. We often ‘hear’ these by gut instincts; feeling uncomfortable, feeling affectionate, calm, agitated. We instinctively know the kinds of things to say to communicate the right unspoken functions. We get weird feelings around some people even if we can’t put a finger on it. 对话、行动和背景都充满了次要功能。话语的效果不仅仅关乎话语本身，所以我们有了问候仪式（你好，你好吗，我很好，你好吗）来表明联盟，“我又忙了”意味着“我不想和你约会”，告诉长相不出众的人他们本就美丽，表明你心胸宽广、品德高尚，重视人的内在精神或诸如此类。我们常常凭直觉“听”到这些；感到不适、感到亲切、平静、烦躁。我们本能地知道该说什么来传达那些未说出口的功能。我们即使说不清原因，也会对某些人感到奇怪。
Those examples are more obvious, but the vast majority are trivial. For example, if I tell my friend “I can’t talk right now I’m about to run to a doctor’s appointment”, it’s full of mundane implications. My priority right now is the doctor’s appointment, not you. I am taking time to tell you this. I want you to know about my life. I take care of my health. 这些例子更明显，但绝大多数都很琐碎。例如，如果我对朋友说“我现在不能说话，我要去赴医生预约”，其中充满了日常的隐含意义。我现在最优先的是医生预约，不是你。我在花时间告诉你这件事。我想让你了解我的生活。我照顾我的健康。
Frame control heavily relies on apparently trivial secondary functions. Frame controllers will say very normal sounding things with trivial secondary functions that also happen to give them more power. 框架控制高度依赖看似微不足道的次要功能。框架控制者会使用这些次要功能说出非常普通的话，而这些功能恰好能赋予他们更多权力。
For example, I was once visiting a tightly knit group where my presence was somewhat a threat to the leader; I was an outsider, and some people in the group respected me. At one point, while in a discussion about gender dynamics, the leader casually mentioned that “if Aella were a man, people would find her disgusting.” This was plausibly a normal thing to say in context; he was known for saying hard truths, for having insights about gender, and to be fair I was sitting there sweaty, topless, and on acid, and I hadn’t showered in a week (this was at burning man). But it also had the function of reframing respect for me as actually coming from attraction; with this sentence, it caused everybody listening to reevaluate their opinions about me, to doubt their own experience of liking what I had to say. It was also brilliant because it wasn’t a direct accusation to or about me; he didn’t say “Aella isn’t worth listening to”; it was framed as about the people perceiving me. This then increased my barrier towards challenging him, because I would have had to explicitly point out implications that would give him another foothold to resist. 例如，我曾在一次访问一个关系紧密的团体时，我的存在对领导者来说有点威胁；我是一个局外人，而团体中的一些人尊重我。在讨论性别动态的一次谈话中，领导者随口提到“如果 Aella 是个男人，人们会觉得她恶心。”在当时的语境下，这话或许很正常；他以直言不讳著称，对性别有深刻见解，而且说实话，我当时满身大汗、赤着上身、吸着迷幻药，而且一周没洗澡（那是在燃烧人节）。但这话也有重新定义我对他们的尊重实际来源于吸引力的作用；这句话让在场所有人都重新评估他们对我的看法，质疑他们喜欢我说话的体验。这也很高明，因为它不是直接对我或针对我的指控；他没说“Aella 不值得听”；而是将问题归咎于那些感知我的人。这进而增加了挑战他的难度，因为我必须明确指出那些暗示，给他另一个抵抗的把柄。
Or, Aubrey De Grey’s Facebook post. (Aubrey De Grey is a high profile man who was recently accused of harassment). He wrote a defense of his behavior in which he argues that the accusers are not at all malicious, but rather were deliberately ‘set up” by a third party who fed them misinformation. 或者，奥布里·德·格雷的 Facebook 帖子。（奥布里·德·格雷是一位近期被指控骚扰的知名人士）。他在为自己行为辩护的帖子中，认为指控者并非恶意，而是被第三方故意“陷害”，并为他们提供了错误信息。
This has the effect of establishing Aubrey as more authoritative than the accusers (he can see the real guilty party and his accusers cannot); it frames his accusers as innocent and mistaken victims (thus subverting their accusations as valid) and positions Aubrey as firmly determined to bring the true guilty parties to justice (why would you oppose him if you want to pursue the guilty?). 这产生了将奥布里塑造成比指控者更具权威性的效果（他能看到真正的罪魁祸首，而他的指控者却不能）；将他的指控者塑造成无辜且被误解的受害者（从而使其指控失去效力）；并将奥布里定位为坚定决心将真正的罪魁祸首绳之以法的形象（如果你想追究罪责，为什么要反对他呢？）。
The examples I’m giving are obvious, salient ones, because they stood out and I remembered them. But most of the time it’s a quieter accumulation of a thousand tiny implications, each one so small that to point one out would sound insane. It might be something like asking the frame controller if they want to go to the store with you, and they respond “no thanks, because I went last time.” – a completely innocuous comment, but in the right context it might be an implication that last time they went with you was doing you a favor and making a sacrifice. A lot of it is also not explicitly verbal – it can be how they say it, their body language, where they’re placing their attention. 我给出的例子都是显而易见、突出的，因为它们很显眼，我记住了。但大多数时候，这是一种更安静的一千个微小暗示的积累，每一个都如此微小，以至于指出任何一个都会听起来像疯子。比如问框架控制器是否想和你一起去商店，他们回答说“不用了，谢谢，上次我已经去了。”——这是一个完全无害的评论，但在正确的背景下，它可能是一个暗示，上次他们和你一起去是为你帮忙，做出了牺牲。很多情况也不是明确用语言表达的——它可能是他们说话的方式，他们的肢体语言，他们把注意力放在哪里。
Of course, everybody does things that I could recount here and assign a frame control frame to it; we constantly manipulate each other, asking implicitly to be viewed as competent, or kind, or insightful. And maybe it’s good to pay closer attention to this too! But the difference between this everyday thing and the frame control that traumatizes people is generally that of intensity, frequency, and practical control. If it occurs regularly, and in a direction that consistently reduces trust in your own mind, if it hands the frame controller power over your reality and devotion, and if this is backed up with credible threats to your needs (social acceptance, income, etc.), then I’m much more likely to give it a ‘frame control’ label. I provide examples of what’s not frame control, later. 当然，每个人都会做些我可以在此列举并赋予其“框架控制”标签的事；我们不断地互相操纵，隐含地要求被视为有能力、善良或富有洞察力。或许，关注这一点也是有益的！但日常行为与导致创伤的“框架控制”之间的区别，通常在于强度、频率和实践控制。如果这种行为经常发生，并且持续削弱你对自身判断的信任，如果它将你对现实的掌控权和忠诚度交给了“框架控制者”，如果这还伴随着对你需求（如社会接纳、收入等）的可靠威胁，那么我更有可能将其标记为“框架控制”。我稍后会提供一些非“框架控制”的例子。
If you try to point out the secondary effects, frame controllers typically have a more advanced version of the “it’s just a joke” defense. Why are you taking such a normal thing in such an uncharitable light? What issues do you have that are causing you to be so resistant (a’la the NXIVM flip)? If this happens in a culture of intense self-improvement, where people are used to finding actual insights by investigating their own resistance to things, this can be a very effective tactic, because it’s a question that points to a legitimately useful direction – there is always something interesting going on in your own experience. Parallels are drawn to sympathetic situations; for example, perhaps once you finally established a necessary boundary for your own good in a relationship with someone you cared about, and this person got agitated, accused you of making them feel bad and limiting their self expression. This is unfortunate, but you believe with your whole being that this person really should investigate their own resistance to your boundaries. And thus “investigate your resistance” is a powerful and well-known rule that people widely agree with, and this is why it’s so effective as a frame control defense. 如果你试图指出次要影响，框架控制者通常有一个更高级的“这只是一个玩笑”的辩护版本。你为什么要把这么正常的事情看得如此不怀好意？是什么问题让你如此抗拒（类似于 NXIVM 的翻车）？如果这发生在一种强烈的自我提升文化中，人们习惯于通过调查自己对事物的抵抗来发现真正的见解，那么这种策略可以非常有效，因为它指向一个真正有用的方向——你自己的经历中总有什么有趣的事情发生。人们会将其与类似的情况进行类比；例如，也许你终于为自己在一段与你关心的人的关系中设立了一个必要的界限，而这个人变得激动，指责你让他们感觉不好并限制了他们的自我表达。这很不幸，但你坚信这个人真的应该调查自己对你的界限的抵抗。 因此，“调查你的阻力”是一个强大且广为人知、人们普遍认同的规则，这也是它作为框架控制防御如此有效的原因。
The problem is if your goal is to end your suffering, and the actual best way to end your suffering is to change your circumstances, then “investigate your own resistance” is a distraction; it’s a frame where your circumstances are not considered as a changeable option. 问题在于，如果你的目标是结束你的痛苦，而实际结束痛苦的最佳方式是改变你的处境，那么“调查你自己的阻力”就是一个干扰；这是一个不将你的处境视为可改变选项的框架。
A related strategy is pushing the painful update button. I’m sure you’ve had experiences where you learned and grew, and it was really painful to do so. You had to face some hard truths, let go of how you saw yourself, and maybe even do a bit of surrendering your ego. This is legitimately good! But a key aspect of frame control is reframing harm as good – and so the pain from beneficial updates becomes an easy candidate. You might be promised insights about yourself (usually handed to you by the frame controller), and pain from those insights gets reinterpreted as evidence that the insights are valuable. No pain no gain. This also tends to be more common in meditation communities where they might encourage things like very hard work or lack of sleep or no food; “what, did you think growth was going to feel good?” the norm is whispered from every corner. “The pain you feel from this community and its leader is what growth means.” 一种相关的策略是按下那个令人痛苦的更新按钮。我确信你有过这样的经历，你在学习和成长的过程中真的感到非常痛苦。你必须面对一些残酷的真相，放下你对自己的认知，甚至可能需要做出一些自我放弃。这确实是好事！但框架控制的一个关键方面是将伤害重新定义为好事——因此，有益更新的痛苦就成为了易被接受的对象。你可能会被承诺关于自己的洞察（通常由框架控制者递给你），而那些洞察带来的痛苦会被重新解释为证据，证明这些洞察是有价值的。不经历痛苦就没有收获。这也更常见于冥想社群，他们可能会鼓励非常努力的工作、缺乏睡眠或饥饿；"怎么，你以为成长会感觉良好吗？"这种常态从四面八方传递着。"这个社群及其领导者的痛苦就是成长的意义。"
And to be clear, a lot of this is true. Frame control breaks your reality down to fit another one, and while I view this as poisonous, the act of breaking down your frame can have huge benefits – similarly to how forcing a child to sit through school might break their creativity but give them the ability to reliably perform boring tasks. When I first started doing LSD, I recognized a lot of parallels between the drug and my upbringing. “Oh, this is the same thing” I told my sister, who was tripping with me that first time. “Dad broke us in the same way, he just did it violently.” Being mentally broken by an abuser was super educational; it annihilated my sense of fight, it taught me surrender, how to handle huge amounts of pain without resistance, how to let go of everything I loved. And in LSD, though a vastly different tone and infinitely more healthy, I somehow encountered the same basic story. 而且要说明的是，很多这些话都是真的。框架控制会打破你的现实，以适应另一个现实，虽然我认为这很有害，但打破你的框架可以带来巨大的好处——就像强迫孩子上学可能会扼杀他们的创造力，但能让他们可靠地完成枯燥的任务一样。当我刚开始使用 LSD 时，我意识到这种药物和我的成长经历有很多相似之处。“哦，这是同一种东西”我告诉我的妹妹，她和我第一次一起使用 LSD 时正处于迷幻状态。“爸爸也是这样对待我们的，他只是手段更暴力。”被虐待者精神上的摧残非常具有教育意义；它摧毁了我的反抗意识，教会了我屈服，如何在不抵抗的情况下承受巨大的痛苦，如何放下我所热爱的一切。而在 LSD 中，尽管氛围截然不同，也更加健康，我却在某种程度上遇到了同样的基本故事。
This is part of the reason why escaping frame control situations can be so disorienting. Frame control situations can give you legitimate, valuable insight. It can open up deep, tender parts of your soul. You might genuinely love the frame controller. It can be some of the most meaningful experiences you’ve ever had. The basic story is a good one. It’s just that the goal of frame control is someone else’s power over you; the story is infused with poison. They grant you profound awe in exchange for serving them. And the combination of valuable insight at the level of your soul, mixed in with poison and subjugation to someone else’s will, can be a deeply traumatizing experience. People who escape frame control situations often have a really hard time making sense of the world or themselves or what is good or bad or how to feel; their own sense of judgment has been undermined so thoroughly they don’t trust themselves to hold their own frame anymore. 这就是为什么逃离框架控制情境会让人如此迷失的原因之一。框架控制情境能让你获得真实而宝贵的洞察。它能打开你灵魂深处最温柔的部分。你可能会真心爱上框架控制者。这可能是你经历过的最富有意义的事情之一。基本的故事是好的。只是框架控制的目标是他人对你的权力；这个故事充满了毒药。他们用为你服务来换取对你深深的敬畏。灵魂层面的宝贵洞察与毒药和屈从于他人意志的结合，可能是一次深刻创伤的经历。逃离框架控制情境的人往往很难理解世界或自己，或什么是好是坏，或该怎样感受；他们自己的判断力被彻底破坏，以至于不再相信自己能够再掌控自己的框架了。
Zoe Curzi (who worked at Leverage) says “a key confusing feature of leaving is that you weren’t acknowledging the badness, and now you have to. And for a while, the badness is all-consuming, because it’s the main thing you weren’t allowed to acknowledge while maintaining your relationship to the community or person controlling you. But something about this is ALSO fucky for sense-making, because it doesn’t acknowledge the powerful soul insights. But if you acknowledge only those, you’ll never leave. So the extremes create a yo-yo in recovery that often makes sense-making and integration an extremely long process, possibly never finished, very incoherent along the way.” 朱莉·库尔齐（曾在 Leverage 工作）说：“离开的一个关键困惑之处在于你之前没有承认那些糟糕的事情，现在你必须承认。一段时间里，这些糟糕的事情会完全占据你的注意力，因为它们是你维持与控制你的社区或个人的关系时被禁止承认的主要事情。但关于这一点，在寻求意义时也同样是糟糕的，因为它没有承认那些强大的灵魂洞察。但如果你只承认那些，你就永远不会离开。所以，这些极端情况会在康复过程中制造一个摇摆不定的状态，这通常使得寻求意义和整合的过程变得极其漫长，可能永远无法完成，整个过程非常混乱。”
In a lot of ways this is similar to an abusive upbringing. As a child, you bond tightly with the parent who teaches you, cares for you, molds your reality. You rely on them, and many wonderful things you value came from your relationship with them. So how do you come to terms with a world without them? 在很多方面，这类似于一个虐待性的成长经历。作为孩子，你会紧密地与那个教导你、照顾你、塑造你现实的父母建立联系。你依赖他们，许多你珍视的美好事物都来自与他们的关系。那么，你如何才能接受一个没有他们的世界呢？
I’m talking a bit philosophically about frame control, but in an attempt to get more concrete, here’s a non-exhaustive list of some frame control symptoms. Keep in mind these are not the same thing as frame control itself, they’re just red flags. Some of these overlap strongly with traditional cult signifiers. Also not all frame control has all of these. 我在稍微有些哲理地谈论框架控制，但为了更具体，这里列出了一些框架控制症状的非详尽清单。请记住这些并不是框架控制本身，它们只是警示信号。其中一些与传统的邪教标志高度重叠。而且并非所有框架控制都具备所有这些特征。
They do not demonstrate vulnerability in conversation, or if they do it somehow processes as still invulnerable. They don’t laugh nervously, don’t give tiny signals that they are malleable and interested in conforming to your opinion or worldview. I once had a long talk with a very smart man who was widely perceived as deeply compassionate and kind, but long after the talk I realized at no point in the conversation he had indicated being impacted by my ideas, despite there being multiple opportunities for him to make at the very least small acknowledgements that I was onto something good. It took me a long time to realize this because he’d started out the conversation by framing me as special, telling me it was unusual to find someone else who had the ideas I did, that I must have taken a different path. “He is someone who respects me” was the frame he set up, and so I was blinded to the stark lack of reinforcement or vulnerability he actually displayed. 他们在对话中不表现出脆弱，或者即使表现出，也似乎仍然坚不可摧。他们不会紧张地笑，不会发出微小的信号表明他们容易受影响，并愿意认同你的观点或世界观。我曾经和一个非常聪明的人进行过长时间的谈话，他普遍被认为非常富有同情心和善良，但在谈话结束后我才意识到，在整个对话过程中，他从未表现出我的观点对他产生了影响，尽管他有很多机会至少做出一些表示我确实说对了的认可。我花了很长时间才意识到这一点，因为他一开始就把我塑造成一个特别的人，告诉我找到一个持有我这样想法的人是多么不寻常，我一定走了不同的道路。"他尊重我"是他设定的框架，因此我忽视了他在实际表现中缺乏强化或脆弱性的明显迹象。
They have status and power. A key component that makes frame control dangerous is when it’s linked to concrete consequences; maybe people really respect them, maybe they control resources, maybe they are the person throwing big events, maybe they gave you a new name, maybe they have the power to exclude you from your social group. Less powerful people can also do frame control, but it tends to be tighter (e.g., only in a romantic relationship). 他们拥有地位和权力。使框架控制变得危险的一个关键因素是它与具体后果相关联；也许人们真的尊重他们，也许他们控制资源，也许他们是举办大型活动的人，也许他们给你起了新名字，也许他们有权将你排除在你的社交圈之外。地位较低的人也可以进行框架控制，但通常控制得更为严格（例如，只在恋爱关系中）。
Finger-trap beliefs; my term for beliefs where pulling against the belief only strengthens the belief. One example is how Christians say that Satan will make you doubt the existence of God. If you find yourself doubting the existence of God, this gets processed as evidence for Satan. Similarly, frame-controllers will instill beliefs designed to clamp down if you ever doubt the frame controller; “Other people will try to tell you we’re misguided because they’re too afraid of our power” results in “if I entertain the notion that the leader is misguided, does this mean I’m too afraid of their power?”. Frame controllers will often reframe ideas that challenge them as red flags that point to deeper flaws in the questioner. Often these defenses are established well in advance of the challenging idea, so that your memetic immune system gets disabled long before it has a chance to get activated. 死锁信念；我用来形容那种越是反对信念，信念反而越强的信念。例如基督徒会说撒旦会让你怀疑上帝的存在。如果你发现自己开始怀疑上帝的存在，这会被当作撒旦的证据来处理。类似地，框架操控者会植入那些在你怀疑框架操控者时会自动锁定的信念；"其他人会试图告诉你我们被误导了，因为他们太害怕我们的力量"会转化为"如果我怀有领导者被误导的念头，这是否意味着我太害怕他们的力量？"。框架操控者常常会将挑战他们观点的想法重新包装成指向提问者更深层次缺陷的红旗。这些防御机制通常在挑战性观点出现之前就已经建立起来，这样你的模因免疫系统在有机会被激活之前就已经被禁用了。
Reframing harm as beneficial. I discussed this earlier but to reiterate: in normal life we have self-protection instincts that tell us to run away from things that hurt. We also have norms where we’re taught not to do this – spending your childhood sitting in school might suck, but it’s “for your own good” so we accept it (which is bad, imo). Frame controllers use our prior understanding that ‘sometimes things I don’t like are good for me,’ and they make sure to map this onto everything about the frame controller you don’t like. Your pain, through one narrative or another, is evidence of goodness. 将伤害重新定义为有益。我之前讨论过这个话题，但为了再次强调：在日常生活中，我们有自我保护的本能，会让我们远离那些伤害我们的东西。同时，我们也被教导不要这样做——童年时坐在学校里可能很痛苦，但它“对你有好处”，所以我们接受了它（在我看来这是错误的）。框架操控者利用我们先前形成的认知，即“有时候我不喜欢的东西其实对我有好处”，并确保这种认知与框架操控者所不喜欢的所有方面都联系起来。通过某种叙事，你的痛苦就是善行的证据。
Sometimes, when your pain is processed as evidence of goodness, you often stop processing it as pain entirely; if you’ve ever looked back on a period of your life with shock that you could have handled that, likely this is because you viewed the harm as beneficial and thus did not process it as pain at all. This is often actively reinforced by frame controllers, who inhabit a worldview where it’s just not an option that a thing might be causing you pain. 有时，当你的痛苦被视为善的证据时，你往往完全停止将其处理为痛苦；如果你曾震惊地回想起自己曾经能够处理某个时期的生活，很可能是因为你将伤害视为有益，因此根本没有将其处理为痛苦。这通常被框架操控者积极强化，他们持有一种世界观，认为某事不可能给你带来痛苦。
They are the teacher, and you the student. They might make perfunctory gestures towards learning from you, but the general attitude, upheld by them and also the culture around you, is that knowledge passes from them to you. Unlike in traditional teaching, this usually extends to all things; they are uncomfortable with you holding subcategories of expertise, and will tolerate it only insofar as they can take credit for your power in some way or maintain a narrative where they have the ability to ultimately judge the value or role of what you’re presenting. They might take steps to keep you in the position of student, such as deliberately giving you tasks you’re bad at, or placing you in situations that make you deeply uncomfortable (with good-for-you explanations included, of course). Insofar as they grant you actual authority, it will only be after they’re convinced of your absolute, unfailing loyalty. 他们是老师，你是学生。他们可能会做出一些表面的姿态，表示向你学习，但普遍的态度，由他们以及你周围的文化所维持，是知识从他们流向你。与传统的教学不同，这通常扩展到所有事物；他们对你掌握专业领域的子类别感到不舒服，并且只有在他们能以某种方式为你的能力取得功劳，或维持一个他们有能力最终判断你所呈现的价值或角色的叙事时，才会容忍这种情况。他们可能会采取措施让你保持学生的身份，比如故意给你分配你不擅长的任务，或把你置于让你极度不适的情境中（当然会附上对你有益的解释）。只要他们授予你真正的权威，那也只会是在他们确信你绝对、无条件的忠诚之后。
A belief in their own importance. They often feel they have unique access to some knowledge that you can only get through them, whether it be religious or mystical or a complete theory of psychology. 对他们自身重要性的信念。他们常常觉得自己拥有某种只有通过他们才能获得的独特知识，无论是宗教的还是神秘的，还是完整的心理学理论。
A refusal to affirm ways in which your frame falls outside of theirs. In health(ier) relationships, people tend to “approach each other’s frames”; as in, set aside their own worldview for a moment, inhabit the other person’s, and talk to them “from that frame.” Frame controllers don’t do this; they do not come to you, they do not acknowledge or validate your frame. There might be some performative aspects of this; for example, saying “I know this is so hard” while the rest of their speech subtly doesn’t seem to indicate they actually understand that it’s hard. 不承认你的框架与他们的框架不一致的方式。在更健康的关系中，人们倾向于“接近彼此的框架”；也就是说，暂时放下自己的世界观，进入对方的世界，并从那个框架与对方交谈。框架操控者不会这样做；他们不会来找你，他们不承认或验证你的框架。这其中可能有一些表演性的成分；例如，说“我知道这很难”，而他们其余的话语微妙地似乎并不表明他们真的理解这有多难。
When conflicts or disagreements happen, they operate from an assumption that you simply haven’t seen the light yet. They might be very magnanimous about this, or listen to you for a long time, or say things like “that’s a great point,” but their attitude seems to imply that there’s not actually a possible reality where you are correct. They are gently, caringly waiting for you to realize the thing that they knew all along. They are so helpful. They are so patient as they help you to see the one truth. And if they have the one truth, how many other things are they right about, that you simply can’t see yet because you haven’t tried hard enough? 当出现冲突或分歧时，他们总是假定你还没明白真相。他们可能对此表现得非常宽容，或者长时间倾听你的意见，或者会说“那是个很好的观点”，但他们的态度似乎暗示你实际上不可能正确。他们温柔而耐心地等待着，让你意识到他们一直知道的事情。他们如此乐于助人。他们如此有耐心地帮助你看到唯一的真理。如果他们掌握了唯一的真理，那还有多少其他事情是他们正确的，而你现在却因为不够努力而无法看到呢？
There’s a narrative of openness and flexibility that deflects from areas of inflexibility. “I’m so kind and patient,” their actions imply, as they graciously sacrifice hours of their attention helping you work through why you don’t want to do a task they want you to do. 存在一种开放和灵活的叙事，它回避了不灵活的领域。“我如此善良和耐心，”他们的行为暗示，他们慷慨地牺牲数小时的时间，帮助你弄清楚为什么你不想做他们想让你做的事情。
They orient around their turf; they prefer to decide location and method of debates, they want you to come to their house; maybe they sit while you stand, maybe they don’t give interviews with anybody slightly hostile, maybe they want you to come on their show and frame it as evidence of wrongdoing if you decline. 他们围绕自己的地盘行事；他们倾向于决定辩论的地点和方法，希望你到他们家来；也许他们坐着而你站着，也许他们不与任何稍有敌意的人接受采访，也许他们希望你上他们的节目，并在你拒绝时将其作为犯错证据。
They consistently reroute pressure away from them. I once sat in on a dojo where I watched one of the students point out an error the teacher had made. The teacher then responded by asking the student a question that investigated what was behind the pointing out, what was really about them that caused this? The resulting discussion then was entirely about the student, and as far as I can tell everybody else forgot about the mention of the error. My dad used to refer to this tactic explicitly – “make sure they’re always on the defensive, don’t give them room to have energy for offense.” 他们始终将压力引离自身。我曾坐在道场里，目睹一名学生指出老师犯的错误。老师随后通过向学生提问来探究指出错误背后的真正原因，究竟是什么让他们如此行事？由此产生的讨论完全围绕学生展开，据我所知，其他人早已忘记了提及的错误。我父亲曾明确提到这种策略——"确保他们始终处于守势，不给对方留出进攻的空间。"
Similar to the above, they ask questions with forced answers – a common tactic in police interviews, when explicit. “Did you leave your dish in the sink?” “You know that I don’t like that, right?” “You left your dish in the sink, knowing I don’t like it, right?” “So you admit you are intentionally upsetting me”. Sometimes it’s less explicit – for example, once I was at a large group dinner with acquaintances and a man I didn’t like. He was talking about something I wasn’t interested in, mostly to a few other people at the table, and I drifted to looking at the ceiling. The man then said loudly, “Oh, looks like I’m boring Aella”. This put me into a position where I had to choose between either being honest about being bored and drastically escalating the social tension, or to politely disagree and thus lend social validation to what he was doing. 与上述情况类似，他们提出带有强迫性答案的问题——这是警方审讯中常见的一种策略，当问题比较直接时。“你把盘子留在水槽里了吗？”“你知道我不喜欢那样，对吧？”“你明知我不喜欢，还是把盘子留在水槽里，对吧？”“所以你承认你故意惹我生气了”。有时候问题不那么直接——比如有一次我和一些熟人以及一个我不喜欢的人一起参加大型聚餐。他谈论着我不感兴趣的事情，主要对桌上的几个人说，我则漂移到看着天花板。然后那个男人大声说：“哦，看来我让 Aella 觉得无聊了”。这让我陷入了一种必须选择的两难境地：要么诚实地说自己感到无聊，从而大幅升级社交紧张气氛，要么礼貌地表示不同意，从而间接认可他的行为。
They make “buried claims” – assertions that pressure you to jump through hoops to challenge the core. For example, “Everybody knows you’re sensitive” asks you to challenge everybody knowing before you can challenge being sensitive. If you angrily ask them to stop opening your door without knocking, they might say “Annoyance is understandable, it comes from a desire for privacy instilled into you by an isolated society.” If you want to tell them your annoyance is important, now you have to argue for an isolated society, or that no it’s not caused by society. 他们制造“埋藏的指控”——那些迫使你费尽周折去挑战核心主张的断言。例如，“大家都知道你很敏感”要求你在挑战敏感之前先挑战所有人都知道的事实。如果你愤怒地要求他们停止不敲门就开门，他们可能会说“烦躁是可以理解的，这是孤立社会在你身上植入的隐私渴望所致。”如果你想告诉他们你的烦躁很重要，现在你必须为孤立社会辩护，或者辩称这并非由社会引起。
They constantly redirect to salient measures. This is a very classic example with abusive parents, when they point out how they’re feeding and clothing you as an appeal to being a good parent. Why are you trying to tell them about a confusing, vague, bad feeling, when they’re doing all of these concrete things correctly? 他们不断将话题转移到显著措施上。这是一个非常经典的例子，涉及虐待型父母，当他们指出他们在喂养和给你穿衣服时，以此作为自己是个好父母的诉求。为什么在他们做所有这些具体事情都正确无误时，你还要试图告诉他们关于一种令人困惑、模糊、糟糕的感觉呢？
A refusal to collaborate with other perspectives. Most interactions have a normal push-pull of power, usually designed to distribute it evenly throughout the group; an obvious, simple example is responding to a compliment with a self-effacing joke. In this regard, frame controllers are antisocial rather than cooperative; they don’t participate with the group in evenly distributing power, they subvert other perspectives in service of their own power. 拒绝与其他观点合作。大多数互动中存在正常的权力推拉，通常设计为在群体中平均分配权力；一个明显、简单的例子是用自嘲的笑话回应赞美。在这方面，框架控制者表现出反社会而非合作的一面；他们不参与群体平均分配权力的过程，而是通过颠覆其他观点来服务于自己的权力。
So if frame control looks so similar to just being a normal person, what are some signs that someone isn’t doing frame control? Keeping in mind that these are pointers, not absolute, and not doing these doesn’t mean someone is doing frame control. 那么，如果框架控制看起来与普通人如此相似，有哪些迹象表明某人没有在实施框架控制？请记住，这些只是提示，并非绝对，不做这些并不意味着某人正在实施框架控制。
They give you power over them, like indications that they want your approval or unconditional support in areas you are superior to them. They signal to you that they are vulnerable to you. 他们赋予你权力，比如表明他们希望得到你的认可或在你不擅长的领域无条件支持。他们向你发出信号，表明他们对你很脆弱。
You feel really, deeply loved by them. Frame controllers often say they love you, or have demonstrations of love like loyalty, but often lack a subtle profound attention and selfless care. For example, both my mom and dad made terrible parenting mistakes, and both said they loved me, but I could feel the selfless care from my mom, but I had to ‘grapple with what love meant’ from my dad. 你感觉他们真的、深切地爱着你。框架控制者常常说他们爱你，或表现出忠诚等爱的证明，但往往缺乏微妙而深刻的关注和无私的关怀。例如，我的父母都犯过可怕的育儿错误，也都说我爱他们，但我能感受到母亲的无私关怀，而不得不从父亲那里“挣扎着理解爱的含义”。
They repeatedly validate your reality, wholeheartedly, without subtle implications otherwise, and even when they don’t agree. They defer to you as an authority on yourself. 他们反复验证你的现实，全心全意地，没有任何微妙的暗示，即使他们不同意。他们把你视为自己权威的权威。
Acceptance: in a sense, they view you as perfect the way you are, they assume your hidden intentions ultimately come from a place of deep goodness. While you might be attempting to fix things about yourself, and they might be down to help, they carry an attitude that you are fundamentally okay. 接纳：在某种意义上，他们认为你本来的样子就是完美的，他们假设你隐藏的意图最终都源于深厚的善良。虽然你可能试图修正自己身上的某些问题，而他们可能出于好意来帮忙，但他们持一种态度，认为你从根本上就是好的。
You don’t have to justify your preferences. While they might inquire about them, they respect what you want even if they don’t understand why, even if it seems irrational, even if you have no idea why. Your wants are treated as fundamentally valid regardless of what generated them. 你不必为自己的偏好辩护。虽然他们可能会询问，但他们尊重你想要的东西，即使他们不明白为什么，即使它看起来不合逻辑，即使你也不知道为什么。你的愿望被视为根本有效的，无论它们是如何产生的。
Frame control is damaging when it’s invisible; if you are fully aware of it, it might affect you similarly to how most normal, salient attempts to move frames do, like debating or persuasion. For this reason I don’t think all frame control is inherently harmful; it’s possible, for example, to be close friends with a heavy frame controller while being fully aware of all of the frame control moves they might be doing. I think this is really hard to achieve, though; being very close with someone almost by default means vulnerability to each other’s frames. When you want to “get their world”, empathize with them, see things the way they do, and especially if you respect them – this is how the frame control slips through. 框架控制在不明显时具有破坏性；如果你完全意识到这一点，它可能会像大多数正常、显眼的框架移动尝试一样影响你，比如辩论或说服。因此我不认为所有框架控制本质上都是有害的；例如，有可能与一个重度框架控制者成为亲密朋友，同时完全意识到他们可能采取的所有框架控制策略。虽然我认为这真的很难实现；与某人关系非常亲密几乎意味着彼此的框架都容易受到伤害。当你想要“进入他们的世界”，与他们产生共鸣，以他们的方式看待事物，尤其是如果你尊重他们——这就是框架控制悄悄渗透的方式。
And this is why my general philosophy for people who frame control is “burn it with fire.” I don’t have this for any other human flaw – people with terrible communication skills, traumatized people who lash out, anxious, needy people who will try to soak the life out of you, furious dox-prone people on the internet – I believe there’s an empathic route forward. Not so with frame control. 这就是为什么我对框架控制者的总体哲学是“用火烧掉它”。我没有对其他任何人类缺陷这样做——沟通能力差的人、受创伤而爆发的人、焦虑、需要他人的人试图耗尽你的生活、互联网上易怒且倾向于泄露个人信息的人——我相信有一条共情的前进道路。但框架控制不是这样。
Frame control uses the pathways of love, desire to do good, empathy – of any sort of human connection. Pushing the painful update button is effective because people genuinely want to grow. Finger trap beliefs snap shut because e.g. you were shown just how much the outside world persecutes this person and you are genuinely moved to be the one who shows them true kindness. You look for their human intent, you imagine what it’s like to be them, you empathically step into their world, and then it clamps down around you. 框架控制利用了爱的途径、行善的欲望、同理心——任何形式的人类连接。按下痛苦更新按钮是有效的，因为人们真心想要成长。手指陷阱信念会突然闭合，比如你被展示了外界如何迫害这个人，你真心被触动想要成为那个向他们展示真正善良的人。你寻找他们的人类意图，想象成为他们的感觉，用同理心进入他们的世界，然后它就会把你困在里面。
In this, I am a conflict theorist; this is not a mistake, this is war. And a part of me knows this isn’t “true” – as in, I could have been born into a brain that ended up doing strong frame control. I know they are real people with feelings and needs. But that “true” perspective will let them destroy you; when I run into strong frame control, I snap to an extremely antagonistic frame. No, you are not allowed into my life, my home, my friends, and I will try to remove you from the power you might use to hurt anybody else. Maybe I’m being overly dramatic about this because I’m more vulnerable to frame control than most, but another part of me simply doesn’t care. “They will use your fear of being overly dramatic to undermine your reality.” 在这其中，我是一个冲突理论家；这不是错误，这是战争。而我有部分意识知道这不是“真实”——也就是说，我本可以出生在一个最终会进行强力框架控制的大脑里。我知道他们是真实的人，有情感和需求。但那种“真实”的视角会让他们摧毁你；当我遇到强力框架控制时，我会立刻进入极度对抗性的框架。不，你不允许进入我的生活、我的家、我的朋友，我会试图消除你可能会用来伤害其他人的权力。也许我对这件事反应过度了，因为我比大多数人更容易受到框架控制的影响，但我的另一部分意识根本不在乎。“他们会利用你过度反应的恐惧来削弱你的现实。”
Breaking out of frame control is really high cost. In cults this is often clear – you lose your community or financial support or whatever – but the cost can also be internal. With frame control, you have to decide between two worlds – “They are normal and I am bad”, and “They are fucked up and I am sane.” And if they are fucked up, you have to be able to believe you need to separate from them, to cut them off from you fully. This is really hard to do. 挣脱框架控制代价极高。在邪教中这往往很明确——你失去你的社群或经济支持或任何东西——但代价也可能是内部的。在框架控制下，你必须选择两个世界——"他们是正常的而我是坏的"，和"他们已经疯了而我保持理智"。如果他们疯了，你必须能够相信你需要与他们分离，完全切断与他们的一切联系。这真的很难做到。
“For a normally empathetic person, the idea that someone could be so confused as to be so harmful that I have literally no idea how they could be healthfully allowed close to me or people I love is….very, very tragic.” – Zoe "对于一个有正常同理心的人来说，有人会如此混乱以至于造成如此危害，以至于我根本不知道他们如何能健康地允许接近我或我爱的人，这个想法是……非常、非常悲惨的。"——Zoe
Part of the motivation for inhabiting a world where anybody you love can be “saved” is that this means you yourself might be saveable. I have a wonderful friend who often invites questionable people to parties, and I suspect it’s because he views himself as questionable, and demonstrating inclusion of other questionable people is a way of demonstrating to himself that he also will be included. We want unconditional love and acceptance to be possible, because we want it for ourselves, and so solidly ejecting someone else is a destruction of that possibility. It means someone can be so bad that they’re ejected out into the dark, and you have to stand there staring at the decompression chamber as you press the button to open the doors into space. It’s brutal and it hurts and it’s terrifying; who are you, that you could do that to someone? Who are you, that you know your ship is surrounded by space? 在一个任何人你爱的人都可以被“拯救”的世界里居住的部分动机是，这意味着你自己也可能被拯救。我有一个很棒的朋友，他经常邀请可疑的人参加派对，我怀疑是因为他觉得自己也是可疑的，而展示接纳其他可疑的人是他向自己证明自己也会被接纳的方式。我们想要无条件的爱和接纳成为可能，因为我们想要为自己实现这一点，因此坚决地驱逐另一个人是对这种可能性的破坏。这意味着某人可以坏到被驱逐到黑暗中，而你不得不站在那里盯着减压舱，同时按按钮打开通往太空的门。这是残酷的、痛苦的、可怕的；你是谁，竟然可以对某人做这种事？你是谁，竟然知道你的配对被太空包围？
—
A lot of things I’m pushing in this post are pretty dangerous. I’m handing you a label of frame control and giving it permission to cut off empathy, to stop investigating your own motivations, to squint super hard at possible subtle motivations in others, to stop looking at intent and only look at effect. This is basically the opposite of all good advice, and even worse it seems like it might give a license to use frame control as a weapon – not just on others, but also ourselves. Technically, everybody “frame controls” all the time; we can probably find numerous examples where every one of us – including me – does the things I outline as bad. And people who frame control may also accuse others of frame control as a weapon for sowing self doubt (and dismiss accusations of frame control at themselves as simply weapons for sowing seeds of self doubt). 这篇帖子中我提出很多东西都相当危险。我递给你一个框架控制的标签，并赋予它切断同理心、停止探究自身动机、极度聚焦他人可能的微妙动机、停止关注意图而只关注结果的权限。这基本上与所有良好建议背道而驰，甚至更糟的是，它似乎可能赋予使用框架控制作为武器的许可——不仅针对他人，也针对我们自己。从技术上讲，每个人时时刻刻都在“框架控制”；我们很可能能找到无数个例子，其中我们每个人——包括我自己——都做了我描述的那些坏事。而那些使用框架控制的人也可能指控他人使用框架控制作为散播自我怀疑的武器（并将对自己被指控使用框架控制的指控简单地视为散播自我怀疑种子的武器）。
I don’t know how to address this problem. This is partially because it’s a moving target – as soon as frame control is named and described, then it can get Goodharted – frame controllers will use this as an instruction manual to become less visible. It’s also because frame control exists as a subversion of normal behavior; as the salient stuff is labeled bad, they stop doing the salient stuff, all the bad gets squeezed down into the cracks below our feet, and now you can’t tell which parts of the floor are poisoned just by looking at it. And if we manage to point at a spot and label the poison, it becomes salient, and the whole process starts again. 我不知道该如何应对这个问题。部分原因在于这是一个不断变化的目标——一旦命名并描述了框架控制，它就可能变得像“Goodhart 定律”一样，框架控制器会将其作为指导手册来减少自身可见性。另一个原因在于框架控制是正常行为的一种变体；当突出的行为被标记为错误时，人们就会停止这些突出的行为，所有错误都被挤压到我们脚下的裂缝中，现在你无法仅凭观察来判断哪些地方的地板被污染了。如果我们设法指出一个位置并标记出毒物，它就会变得突出，然后整个过程又会重新开始。
If someone tries to use this blog post to argue for someone doing frame control that you don’t see, it’s okay to still be skeptical. If they try to use it to argue that someone isn’t doing frame control, but you still feel a weird unsettledness you can’t name, it’s okay to still feel unsettled. Don’t let this post tell you how you should feel. Take this article lightly, take it as a pointer, take it as art. Take this as a frame itself that you can choose to look through, and put down if it’s not serving you. Ultimately, checking in with how you actually feel is the answer. I don’t mean to imply this is easy; it’s often really hard to know how you feel, and maybe it changes often and frame controllers put in a lot of effort to obfuscate this. But in the end, careful attention to your own sensations are your saving grace. 如果有人试图利用这篇博客文章来论证你并未察觉的框架操控行为，你仍然可以保持怀疑。如果他们试图用这篇文章来论证某人并未进行框架操控，但你仍然感到一种无法言说的莫名不安，你仍然可以继续感到不安。不要让这篇文章告诉你应该如何感受。将这篇文章轻松看待，将其视为一个指引，将其视为艺术。将其视为一个你可以选择透过它观察的框架本身，如果它不再为你服务，可以将其放下。最终，了解你真实的感受才是答案。我并非想暗示这很容易；知道自己的感受往往非常困难，也许你的感受经常变化，而框架操控者会付出很多努力来掩盖这一点。但最终，仔细关注自己的感受才是你的救命稻草。