Name is Greg

I'm a Weeb, Gamer, Marvelian, libertarian, Forever DM, Author, Biohacker, Psychiatrist, Hedonist, Pentalingual, Materialist (Computationalist), Antitheist, Futarchist, Positivist, Naturalist, Reductionist, Transhumanist (H+), Scientismist Consequentialist, Monogamist, Rationalist, Ex Lachesist, (Soft) Pleasure Dom, 8w7, Adrenaline Junkie, ExTx-A, House Dimir (Blue/Black), Meritocrat, Sapiosexual and Lawful Evil.

How may i entertain your fancy today?

Wiki Contributions


Well, given the drop in upvotes, i can only imagine you weren't alone, so that's probably on me, should have made it clearer ;-)

GuySrinivasan there are instructions on casting a dark spell, step by step

You don't cast Avada Kedavra with happy thoughts, you cast it with the intention to kill

You cast fiendfyre with blood

And you cast "TARE DETRIMENS" by having very bad brain habits, on average

This wasnt a guide for the purpose of doing it. This was a guide for the purpose of recognizing it when done to you and seeing them dance the steps and having them reified

If it wasn't "icky", why would it be a dark art?

This is a great thread for explaining how to spot the frame

I have a lot to say on frames, but a very foundational lesson also worth mentioning is how the spell casting takes place, and how to Counterspell

It happens in 5 steps

  1. Someone sets a frame
  2. Significance control: thread expand if you agree, VS thread minimize if you decide to ignore it and move
  3. Frame negotiation: agree, reframe, or set your own (opposing) frame
  4. Agreement
  5. Cementing

If you set the frame, you can control the frame from beginning to end. However, if someone else sets the frame, then you first want to decide whether to expand on that frame, or to minimize it.

Significance Control

The more significant a frame is, the more it impacts the conversation, so whether you want to minimize or expand is an important decision

If you decide to challenge a frame, you also expand on it. So if you lose that negotiation, then you face much bigger consequences because you first expanded it, and then lost it. Indeed the opposite of minimizing is not to say it doesn’t matter but, often, is to simply ignore it.


If a frame is agreeable to you, you want to expand on it. There are many ways of thread-expanding, including:

Asking questions such as “why is that” or “why do you think so” Asking leading questions: ie. “oh wow, do you really think so” Strategic disagreement: such as “you think so? But this other person said the opposite”. Now they’re forced to defend and talk more, which expands the initial frame Laughing: a way to “covert expanding” anyone with a Facebook account is familiar with. This is what lawyers sometimes do to highlight the opposing lawyers’ mistakes (you could see plenty of that during the Depp VS Heard defamation case: most people never realize that most of the snickering was done on purpose to sway public and jurors’ opinions) Agreeing and expanding: you agree, and explain why you agree Agreeing and sharing: you agree, and share a story that supports the frame or belief Agreeing and rewarding: you agree, and you tell them why you appreciate them for saying or doing what they did

(Side note: Most techniques of frame negotiation also expand on a frame. So you want to be careful not expanding disagreement or irreconcilable differences when you need rapport. And this is why, generally speaking, “agreeing and redirecting” is a fantastic form of frame control: it’s because it sets your own frame while minimizing the disagreement and leveraging the commonalities)


Whenever a frame is disagreeable to you, you can either challenge it, or minimize it

If you have the power to challenge it and change people’s opinions, or at least if you want your disagreeing voice to be heard, then you can speak up.

Many other times, it’s best instead to minimize a frame, and move on. Minimizing a frame includes:

Ignoring it "Yeah yeah-ing it”, such as to agree but with little to no conviction and then moving on Thread-cutting (ie.: Changing topic) a common, and effective technique (if well executed) Offer small and partial third-party agreement: ie.” yeah, some people feel that way”, and then moving on


Now for the most important step

Imagine you agreed on a good frame that’s good for you. What do you do now?

You want to expand on that frame to increase the (perceived) benefits and the follow-through.

This phase is called “thread cementing”, an incredibly useful technique.

Frame cementing means: Expanding and solidifying the thread of the “agreement reached” to solidify the new frame and increase its effectiveness. Frame cementing increases the likelihood that the other party will stick to the new negotiated frame, and/or it increases the likelihood that the Persuasion will be internalized and accepted as the new reality (VS just agreeing with the frame as a form of short-term capitulation)

This final step... actually has additional substeps (Human psychology is hard, okay?!!!)

  1. You reach a point where a frame is agreeable to you

  2. Cement it by asking for confirmation

A frame that is agreed by the other party immediately increases its power by 10 fold. It makes people feel part of the decision, which increases adoption and followthrough, as well as increasing “intrinsic motivation”.

Some ways of doing it: • “ What do you think“: an agreement with less nudging gets more buy-in and is even more powerful • "Do you agree“ • "It makes sense, doesn’t it”

Note: silence often (thougb not always!) means one is in the process of accepting it, but might feel disempowered to admit it. Generally speaking, the frame agreed upon should feel good

  1. Cement it by providing your own confirmation

Confirm your own agreement about the frame and, ideally, also confirm it by sharing your good feelings about the new frame

For example: ▪︎ “I’m glad we agree“ ▪︎ “ I’m happy we see things the same way“

  1. End with a collaborative frame and/or reward

For example: • “Yeah, it makes sense, right? You get it because you’re also a smart guy/gal“ • “ I’m glad we’re going to do this. And I’m glad it’s going to help (because I care about you)“: show that you are glad about the new frame/agreement because it will benefit them, and because you care about them. Super powerful. But be honest about it please -or don’t say it-! • Silence and smile: confirms nonverbally the good vibe

  1. Next steps and taking action

If it was a frame that requires taking action, move on to the next steps.

(Side note: The more you had to persuade, the more you want to show that you are also tasking yourself with some steps. Eg “Great, so you can take care of X, I’ll do Y and Z, and we’ll meet at 4pm“)

Frame cementing is super powerful, BUT you better be genuine when using, and you better use it with real win-win frames or with the best intentions for the people you’re persuading.

When you use it for win-lose, that’s the stuff of manipulators. And albeit it can work in the short-term, over the long-term many people will catch on. As a matter of fact, the higher the quality of the people you deal with, the more likely it is they will catch on

Even when you use it for win-win you must be careful. You can still come across as a bit too sleek, which raises some red flags

Give people space to agree by themselves. Ask questions more than making statements. And when you must intervene, live by the motto "nudge, don’t push".

Also make sure you stress the win-win nature of the agreement, together with how glad you are because you care about them.

One final Warning: Unchallenged Frames Self-Cement Over Time

This is important to remember

Frames that go unchallenged tend to cement themselves. Especially when they repeat over time.

What happens is that the frame, from a verbal or nonverbal statement that simply describes or comments on reality, becomes more and more a reality of your shared (social) life.

This is a very important principl, because it means that if you let bad frames go unchallenged, then you lose arguments and/or persuasive power forever, not just in the few seconds that the frame lasts. And if they are repeated frames, they can also compound power over time

This is a similar principle for micro-aggressions: if you let micro-aggressions go unchallenged, then they build-up, and you die by a thousand cuts.

This usuallg means that it’s a good idea to get in the habit of challenging most frames are irrational/disagreeable early on in every new relationship

I once had a Self-Insert MC in a book of mine with this system. He had 4 parts:

1) The Kid: Scared, cowardly, wanting peace, friends, love, stealth and stagnation as the now was better than ever before and every step forward meant a possible pitfall that could be avoided

2) The Killer: Essentially what happens when the Kid gets proven right one too many times but the now isn't good enough anymore. Maniacal, violent, selfish, no values or honor, An animal that has stripped all intellect but what it needs to scrape back up to a better place so the Kid can have another chance in the right now, Can only think in Short term impulses and solves for the best outcome in days at best or hours at worst.

3) The King: The one who wishes for progress, improvement, and building. The one ruthlessly looking for long-lasting optimization of everything, who wishes to satisfy the Kid better than ever before, the one who will build the best future even if he has to get his hands dirty, but only if getting his hands dirty won't hamper him a decade down the line

4) The Icon: An imaginary version of the MC, speaking to him from a future of luxury and joy and tribal perfection, where he's loved and respected. He exists mostly to consult the King as every action in the now echoes in the future, and since he's an ideal, he always counts down from perfection, always making it a point to remind him what he just took away from him

Ah, yes, existential crisis and getting called out in the morning

That's exactly what I come to this site for

We aren't. The question is, could a being that is not TRULY omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent or eternal be considered God? Because if the answer is yes, then there is much less internal inconsistency between the actions of God in the narrative and his attributes

Okay, I'm sorry, I know I am a horrible human being that is a product of its time and can't comprehend the societal macroevolution of his own species but DAMN IT, these people are way, way, way too ethical for anything human-like to be seen upon them. They literally stopped celebrating the effective salvation of their entire species for the youth of a species that causes little to no stimuli liable to evoke sympathy in evolutionary terms. And I know I'm shallow, and I know we'd all love to think we're more decent as a whole than tojudge our intergalactic neighbors by looks alone but if the aliens in question looked like insectoid crystals, I'm sorry, we would care little more about them than we care about the black widow spiders eating their own husbands or, hell, as meerkats do to their young when times get tough. Sure, no conscience, that is an exceptional argument to make that in a perfect world would end the debate there... on paper. In reality we cannot help it but be extremely affected by such radical changes in outward appearance... sigh, thank Eliezer for the confessor. I'm identifying so much right now

Would be glad to if we could find at least one completely reliable sourcee that is undeniably from a female source that is not pandering to the market for publicity. It should be noted I am not infering such a thing is the rule, I am merely stating my own ignorance and incapaility of determining solid statistics on the matter

I think it should be noted that there will be at least some humans willing to convert, maybe even among the lords and ladies of the ship, and yet they could not possibly express a consent for the species. Humans in this case are severly disadvantaged on account that while the aliens are speaking with seemingly the highest authority, they're asking Collombus to speak on behalf of the whole Eurasia. Should the humans not explain that, even if it relatively weakens their bargaining position? On that note, how could the other aliens express the opinions of their whole species without communication to their home planet's government.