Feed on

hbd chick asks,

if you were jason richwine, how would you have reframed the “discussion” about his thesis? wanna learn more about this reframing business.

For those readers who don’t know, Jason Richwine is was the Heritage Foundation data cruncher who got metaphorically burned at the stake (a witch hunt in all senses but for an actual pyre) and canned from his think tank job for a dissertation he wrote while at Harvard which trafficked in horrible, no good, very bad hatefacts.

Also, for those who don’t know, “reframing” is a well-known game concept that means to change the context of a conversation so that it is more personally advantageous to one’s goals. Reframing is an old sales technique (“Picture yourself owning this…”) that was reformatted for use as an applied seduction technique. Here’s the PUALingo definition of the term:

To say or do something that alters the context (“frame”) through which someone sees an idea or situation.

If the girl is shit testing the pick-up artist, he can reframe with a smarter remark or ignore her altogether. For example:

HB: Are you trying to pick us up? (in negative tone)

PUA: Is that the first thing you say to anyone who approaches you? I had a simple question to ask the group, but it’s alright, I will ask someone else more polite.

So what hbd chick is asking is for an explanation of how Richwine could have appropriated a powerful seduction technique to “seduce” the media gatekeepers and (dwindling) numbers of truly open-minded fence-sitters over to his side. Or to at least curb the frothing bloodlust of the witch hunters so that his job with Heritage was spared.

A very good question, for a lot of the tactics that successful womanizers use to bed women can also be put to good use in other social arenas.

First, a quick primer on reframing. A good reframe should flow from an attitude of self-amusement, or amused mastery. Self-amusement means you will respond to attacks against your character or your status with condescension, ridicule, sarcasm, or utter disregard.

A good reframe, like the one illustrated above, will put your interlocutor into the defensive crouch. In matters of seduction, the defensive crouch is where pussy tingles are born. In politics, it’s where The Narrative — aka The Cathedral, aka The Hivemind, aka The Anti-White Male Establishment —  is undermined.

Reframing follows the principle of “The best defense is a good offense”. If a girl calls you a cad, you don’t apologize or try to deny it. That would be defensively acceding to her frame. Instead, you accuse her of being socially awkward. By putting her on the defensive, she is forced by the sudden change in momentum of the conversation, (and, if a crowd is assembled, by their expectation), to answer your charge. Answering charges is the lower status, WEAK POSITION. Delivering charges is the higher status, STRONG POSITION.

Chicks dig a man in the strong position.

And casual observers dig a data cruncher who stares down the lords of lies and calls their bluff.

So how could Richwine have reframed the national conversation about his factual findings — yes, remember, he was vilified for FACTUAL findings on the basis of BUT MY FEELINGS! AND THEIR FEELINGS! AND BIGOT! — so that he emerged from the ordeal perceived as an admirable man and his enemies the sputtering idiots they are?

There are FOUR main reframing methods, and I’ll give an example of a hypothetical Richwine response using all four.

1. Agree and amplify.

THE TORCH-LIT MOB: Richwine, you have sinned against the Church of Anti-Racism. Your thesis is bigoted and hurtful!

RICHWINE: So hurtful, I know! The truth has that effect on lying pussies. I hope to send more of you into hysterics. You put on a good show. Dance, monkeys.

2. Ignore and redirect.

THE TORCH-LIT MOB: Richwine, you have sinned against the Church of Anti-Racism. Your thesis is bigoted and hurtful!

RICHWINE: Math is hard for a lot of people.

3. Self-serving misinterpretation.

THE TORCH-LIT MOB: Richwine, you have sinned against the Church of Anti-Racism. Your thesis is bigoted and hurtful!

RICHWINE: You really know how to make a guy feel powerful. But don’t worry, I don’t bite. You can stop pulling your skirts over your heads.

4. Flipping the script.

THE TORCH-LIT MOB: Richwine, you have sinned against the Church of Anti-Racism. Your thesis is bigoted and hurtful!

RICHWINE: I understand. You have to have a bad guy so you can feel like the good guy. But you can be more open-minded. Anyone can be, all it takes is having your awareness raised.

Now naturally, Richwine wouldn’t have to reframe with quite so much Heartiste-y flourish, but the concept is applicable to all modes, highbrow, lowbrow or shiv-woww, of verbal sparring. As long as you get the concept, the words will fall into place.

I suggest Geoffrey Miller, the latest sacrificial realtalker to be targeted by the angry equalist mob, get on board the reframe train. Forget apologetics, Geoff, that’ll only feed the beast’s hunger. You don’t bend over and make it easier for the fatass-rammers, especially not when the facts support your contention that fat craps really do have problems with self-discipline.

As for the personality traits mentioned above, Angelina Sutin and colleagues at the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Health and Human Services, have conducted perhaps the ultimate study on this, using some 2000 participants, spanning over 50 years and applying 14 500 measurements of weight. And they didn’t just content themselves with the Big Five personality factors but looked at all the subscales. They found that weight gain was most clearly related to Impulsiveness (a facet of Neuroticism), Warmth, Assertiveness, Positive Emotions (all facets of Extraversion), and a lack of Order and Self-Discipline (facets of Conscientiousness). […]

So yes, the obese group is not unlike its negative stereotypes. Of the, “lazy”, “sloppy”, “less competent”, “lacking in self-discipline”, “disagreeable”, “less conscientious”, “poor role models”,” unintelligent”, “unsuccessful”, “weak-willed”, “unpleasant”, “overindulgent”, it seems “disagreeable” and “unpleasant” are the only clear misses.

This is not to hate on the obese, but to call a spade a spade. The idea that the problems of the obese are outside themselves is an unhealthy illusion here examplified by Slate Magazine’s Daniel Engber,

Stop hating. If we weren’t such unrepentant body bigots, fat people might earn more money, stay in school, and receive better medical care in hospitals and doctor’s offices. All that would go a long way toward mitigating the health effects of excess weight—and its putative costs

This under the false assumption that fat people have the same intelligence and Self-Discipline and that the reason they cancel appointments is not due to Impulsiveness and lack of Conscientiousness but only because of other peoples prejudice. In doing so, he enables fat people to stay fat and to blame society for their problems, and to, like the Obesity Society, view the condition as unrelated to willpower.

The harsh truth is that the obese are in a lot of trouble. They are less attractive in the workplace because of their combination of intelligence (or lack thereof) and personality. Work performance is best predicted by IQ scores and next best of Conscientiousness. Impulsive behavior on the other hand predicts crime and accidents. Most employers are probably not aware of the research linking obese people to these characteristics and outcomes, but they know from experience that employing an obese person is a financial risk with no apparent reward.

Chateau Heartiste is now offering PR services to any neoreactionary PACs.


Comments are closed.