framing is 90% of success

================

“Before beginning a hunt, it is wise to ask someone what you are looking for before you begin looking for it.”

Winnie the Pooh

==================

“I’ve often noticed that we are not able to look at what we have in front of us, unless it’s inside a frame.”

Abbas Kiarostami

===

“The difference between successful executives and unsuccessful ones is not the quality of their decision making. Each one probably makes good decisions 60% of the time and bad ones 40% of the time—and maybe it’s even 55% to 45%. The difference is, the successful executive is faster to recognize the bad decisions and adjust, whereas failing executives often dig in and try to convince people that they were right.”

===

Framing, frames, frameworks, models, all are attempts at offering some level of constraint to a discussion. At their best they can put a border around something so there is some clarity, at their worst they squeeze out substance, reduce something meaningful into something meaningless, and offer a misguided solution.

That said. Successful framing is 90% of success.

That statement is my version of ‘teaching people to learn’ not by telling, but maybe nudging them into a different learning space or, let’s just say, ‘some space.’ Maybe what I am saying is we don’t need to teach people how to learn, but rather remove the obstacles to learning and put them in spaces within which they can, well, learn. I do not know one person in the entire world who does not like to learn things. This means we don’t need to teach people to learn, and it certainly means we should stop telling people what they need to learn <implying they are stupid or learned the wrong thing>, but rather get out of their way and tell them to learn what they want and maybe give a little nudge on occasion to expand the learning space. What I just shared is partially my point of view as well as an example of framing. Learning is a positive thing (that’s framing) and the most effective learning is self-directed within a defined space (that’s a frame).

Which leads me to the space itself and framing.

Far too often we permit framing to be defined as some nebulous idea. And in doing so we talk about framing a shitload, but never really seem to get around to doing everything that needs to be done <implementing it in an effective way>. This doesn’t mean most framing people are not truly trying hard to bring about what they have framed. It’s just that their attempts get trapped in the wretched hollow between ‘ideology’ <conceptual shit> and the practical <which is by no mean easy or simple>.

And it gets even more complicated if someone can only envision what is <the current system> which leads to framing only tweaks & improvements. The best framing people not only see the system that exists, but also envisions a system that does not exist and creates a frame within which people can see the possibilities of all. That said. Outlining the outlines of an existing system is extremely valuable.

Inevitably successful framing is a reflection of several things all embodied in a process of information, education, dialogue, and ultimately, the insights generated from the process which will drive the choices. This sounds reasonable, but it ignores the world in which framing must occur.

Which leads me to larger context and frames.

The internet has eroded a sense of belonging to a large single community of humanity. I say that because society is a frame. The technology has relentlessly pried apart society, and civilization (as well as civilized thinking) so common sensemaking has less value than “I think opinions.” We have moved way beyond healthy skepticism of expert opinions to a more simplistic ‘whatever I believe is reality’ world. yeah. everyone has conflated ‘what I think’ with reality thereby encouraging everyone to not discus/debate but rather retreat to “I am happy with my opinions’ space. What this means is that while in today’s media and internet world we have far more choices than ever we see much less common information. The consequences of this less common information is that common sense making shared thinking is much less likely.

Which leads me to framing and dealing with this new reality.

Depending on the audiences and their needs, you want to “frame” the issue in terms of their interests. The proper framing of an issue helps shape the issue in such a way that it resonates with the audience and generates the “listening traction” in order to expand an audience’s existing framing. This is where both heroes and villains have an equal opportunity. Most framers, or thoughtful people, use some model – a 2×2, an X & Y axis, a 3-dimensional box – in order to help some confusing information seem, well, less confusing. Beware the model and beware the framing within the frame and beware the variables chosen. Yeah. User beware for heroes and villains use the same tools. That said. I, personally, don’t believe in focusing on fewer messages or fewer data points. I do believe you should be choiceful with regard to both, but I imagine this comes back to my opening point – learning. Framing is about opening minds, not filling minds. At this point many people would shift into the importance of stories to ‘engage emotionally’ beyond rationally, but I will not. Framing is different than storytelling. The truth is a story is a cage. What I mean by that is once a story has engaged with people it imprisons not only the ongoing narratives but minds and thought-making frameworks. Frames, on the other hand, are not cages. They are simply constructs within which there is freedom of thought and choicemaking.

Which leads me to framing is not just about a good plan nor is it just about effective adaptation … it is about having the flexibility to accommodate the unforeseen.

You don’t know what you don’t know.

A framework creates a layer between what you know, and do not know, and what you should know.

That said. As noted earlier, framing simply sets the stage for the discussion, a framework is simply a way to make sense of what you have framed, and a plan is something to be executed from all of that – and as you gain knowledge, know more, the framing changes, the input into the framework changes and, therefore, the plan should change. True framing is reflexive, we learn through questioning and discussion and trial and error and success. We learn from action and reflective observation. Frameworks shouldn’t constrain thinking/ideas, but rather promote growth of knowledge and progress.

I imagine I should point out this means because the world is increasingly complex this makes framing complex.

===========

Vague sucks and, yet, I would argue the majority of people only really have some vague outline of how the world works, how effective or ineffective a leader is and any specific relationship between cause & affect. This vaguery exists because it takes a lot of work to parse the details, and the appropriate details, and the ‘right’ details to make the outlines less vague and more tangible.

Is this work valuable ? sure.

Is this work necessary to increase some certainty in Life? Sure.

But the majority of people have shit to do <other than this type of work>. That is neither good nor bad … it just is what it is. A lot of pseudo intellectuals and smartish pundits bitch & moan and gnash their teeth over this, but they would lead a significantly less stressful life if they just accepted it and instead focus on effective framing. Why? In this ‘vague outline’ people inevitably create a vague/semi solid outline belief, i.e., “I think” realities. From there they look around on occasion and question that outline. The questions raised either support the outline or raise doubts and more questions. This is their frame.

All the while this is happening more information barrages the outline. In this barrage is a confusing mix of real, fake and quasi truths. All these confusing things do in the people’s minds is, contrary to belief, not confuse, but rather make the person more dismissive of the incoming confusion and steadier in whatever vague outline they may have constructed. The frame becomes a bit more solid.

Once again. This is neither good nor bad … it just is what it is. But at some point, the questions gain some gravitas. This can happen several ways but let me point out two:

• The questions themselves coalesce into some easy to understand ‘blob’ from which people who have a vague outline decide “my vague outline is wrong <or sucks>.”
• Someone weaves a narrative using the doubts & questions into a relatively succinct, believable and non-hyperbolic driven framing of an outline which people look at, scratch their heads, go “hmmmmmmmmm …” and decide this vague outline will replace the one they had in place, i.e., the frames and frameworks morph.

The first never happens fast enough to people who just cannot understand how and why some people have decided to live with some vague outline that just seems ‘not really a smart outline’ to them.

The second is not as easy as it appears. It isn’t as easy because problems are rarely as clear as we would like them to be and a narrative never lives without the context of all the barrage of real, fake and quasi truths impacting and denting and solidifying a vague outline that already exists.

In other words … everything has to do with everything else.

I imagine I have two points today.

First. We humans have come to accept a certain amount of uncertainty with regard to our lives and our decisions.

This uncertainty is also built into the vague outlines we tend to construct for ourselves. What this means is that the construct of our beliefs and thoughts and ideas may be certain to us and, yet, its silhouette accommodates some uncertainty. Within this framework the majority of people have enough shit to do that they slot their thinking. In one slot they place unequivocal certainty type thoughts. In another slot they place the “I will always be uncertain about this shit and thank God there is someone else at some higher pay grade than I who can be certain about it.” and, lastly, we slot all the shit in which we have formed some vague outline which accommodates a certain degree of uncertainty.

My point here is we tend to make this a binary discussion where the reality lies in a more complex mix of vagueness & clarity, certainty & uncertainty in which all can reside quite comfortably within the proper frame.

Second. Certainty, in and of itself, has degrees; it is not a simple black or white binary.

People can have vague outlines AND have questions with regard to their outlines and not want to ditch the outline. “How can you still believe that?” may be one of the most misguided and unenlightened questions that has ever existed. It completely misses the point in that it assumes ignorance, stupidity or some negative trait in order to hold on to some vague outline. A vague outline is a choice. No more and no less. We question choices all the time and, yet, remain with the original choice despite some fairly extensive doubts. I say this because it is silly to point out doubts and questions as a reason to ditch a vague outline.

In the end.

The truth is that we all live with some vague outlines albeit your vague outline may actually be one of my non-vague outlines, and vice versa. And when they are in conflict then … well … there is conflict. And this is where framing is 90% of success.

Life is an uncertain adventure in a diffuse landscape whose borders are constantly shifting.

While we tend to simplistically state ‘people don’t like to change,’ the reality is life is restless and “frames” are always shifting in some form or fashion. Effective framing accommodates both what exists and some of what is shifting. Vague outlines are both good and bad. Good in that they offer opportunities to expand existing mindsets, beliefs, and attitudes. Bad because if attacked most people will retreat into reduced frames of “I think-isms” realities. Once again, framing is how to effectively navigate those issues. So, yeah, framing is 90% of success. Ponder.