The Impossibility of a Shared Relationship Frame: Why Egalitarianism Fails in Practice

Dr. Orion Taraban addresses a common objection to his definition of \"frame\" as the \"world of the relationship,\" specifically in heterosexual contexts where he posits only two options: either the man is in the woman's frame or vice versa. The objection centers on the idea of a mutually constructed, egalitarian frame where both partners leave their individual frames behind. Taraban concedes the idealistic appeal of such an alternative but argues that, much like socialism, it sounds good in theory but doesn't work in practice, presenting three primary reasons why a shared frame is not feasible.\n\nThe first reason is the non-compromisable nature of significant life decisions. For crucial choices like where to live or whether to have children, true compromise is often impossible; one party must ultimately concede to the other's frame. Even if partners initially agree on major decisions, the passage of time and individual subjective experiences inevitably create an imbalance. One person will invariably like the outcome more, benefit more, or derive greater satisfaction from the 'mutually constructed' lifestyle, leading to a functional shift where one person increasingly lives within the other's frame despite initial shared intent.\n\nThe second and third reasons highlight the impracticality and inefficiency of attempting to continuously track and correct these subjective imbalances. While theoretically possible to constantly adjust the relationship frame to approximate equality of preference or net happiness, the immense amount of attention, time, energy, and even money required would be considerable. This constant negotiation would mean spending a significant portion of the relationship talking about the relationship itself, which Taraban argues is one of the least interesting and effective ways to engage in a partnership.\n\nInstead of striving for an unachievable shared frame, the episode advocates for "role complementarity" and specialization within the relationship. This approach suggests that each partner identifies their strengths and focuses on what they do well, which naturally leads to one person being more adept at constructing and maintaining the overall relationship frame. This concept is reinforced by the metaphor of a captain building a ship (lifestyle) and inviting passengers on board, emphasizing a clear, functional structure over an idealized, but impractical, egalitarian model for relationship stability and effectiveness.

I Define frame as the world of the relationship

either the man can be in the woman's frame or the woman could be in the man's frame that's it those are the only two options

why can't both parties leave behind their individual frames and enter into a mutually constructed egalitarian frame that serves both people

a little like socialism which is often associated with lofty sentiments and Noble ideals this doesn't really work in practice

with respect to most of the important decisions that a couple is forced to make compromise is impossible

one person is actually going to like that house more than the other one person is actually going to like living in New York more than the other one person is actually going to benefit more from their mutually constructed lifestyle than the other

the amount of attention and time and energy and money that would need to be spent in order to track the subjective experiences of both parties... would be considerable

most people don't want to live this way because in order to live this way you spend a sizable amount of the relationship talking about the relationship which is probably one of the least interesting things you can do in a relationship

all other things being equal we generally want the most parsimonious solution with the fewest moving parts

a better alternative is role complementarity each party should figure out what he or she does well and specialize

captains build ships their Lifestyles and invite passengers on board