Its extremely hard to effectively argue against your post by its very definition, because doing so would invariably force the commenter to either accept your frame, or fight back with their own attempt at frame control, and doing either simply proves your point. For all its worth, it is a brilliant piece of memetics.
So I will reduce my response to two points:
I notice I cannot think of a way to resist the Frame Control attempts you listed (1-16) without either forcing the other person into your frame, and thus performing rather robust Frame Control in return, or running for the hills. And since most people cannot survive as monadic hermits, and have to interact with others, this feels like we inevitably end up Frame Controlling one another. I cannot recall knowing any people who did not do any Frame Control, overt or hidden. In fact, just about ever person I know, no matter how empathic or rationalist, FCs most of the the time, and only desists if the wrestling for Frame becomes obviously inconclusive. The difference is not in how much they try to Control, but rather how precise their Frame is.
I notice I cannot think of a way your points on Non-Controlling (1-5) could be effectively used in a realistic context, other than extremely rare particular examples in 1on1 interactions with a SO or your child. If we did this, and only this, I cannot think of a way how we could prepare a child to exist in the Society and physical Reality (both of which have rigid and controlled frames that the child cannot resist without deadly consequences). I also do not see a way to have a romantic relationship with no Frame Control, unless it is a very, very loose definition of an open relationship in which people just accidentally align in their needs from time to time.
DISCLAIMER: Im also a person likely prone to Frame Control (masculine identity , ADHD, extrovert, emotionally robust), and come from a culture in which strong Frame Control is considered valuable/​high status. This might, or might not be biasing my views.
Its extremely hard to effectively argue against your post by its very definition, because doing so would invariably force the commenter to either accept your frame, or fight back with their own attempt at frame control, and doing either simply proves your point. For all its worth, it is a brilliant piece of memetics.
So I will reduce my response to two points:
I notice I cannot think of a way to resist the Frame Control attempts you listed (1-16) without either forcing the other person into your frame, and thus performing rather robust Frame Control in return, or running for the hills. And since most people cannot survive as monadic hermits, and have to interact with others, this feels like we inevitably end up Frame Controlling one another. I cannot recall knowing any people who did not do any Frame Control, overt or hidden. In fact, just about ever person I know, no matter how empathic or rationalist, FCs most of the the time, and only desists if the wrestling for Frame becomes obviously inconclusive. The difference is not in how much they try to Control, but rather how precise their Frame is.
I notice I cannot think of a way your points on Non-Controlling (1-5) could be effectively used in a realistic context, other than extremely rare particular examples in 1on1 interactions with a SO or your child. If we did this, and only this, I cannot think of a way how we could prepare a child to exist in the Society and physical Reality (both of which have rigid and controlled frames that the child cannot resist without deadly consequences). I also do not see a way to have a romantic relationship with no Frame Control, unless it is a very, very loose definition of an open relationship in which people just accidentally align in their needs from time to time.
DISCLAIMER: Im also a person likely prone to Frame Control (masculine identity , ADHD, extrovert, emotionally robust), and come from a culture in which strong Frame Control is considered valuable/​high status. This might, or might not be biasing my views.