What is FRAME?

One of the most popular trainings on the AlphaMastery™ platform is titled simply: FRAME. Its growing success reflects a hard truth that more and more men are beginning to face. Many men wake up one day and realize that they’ve given up the leadership position in their own relationship.

And with the loss of leadership, there almost always comes a collapse in authority.

But that’s not the root problem. The real reason for the collapse lies deeper:

They gave up responsibility first.

The FRAME course is entirely dedicated to this principle: you cannot maintain authority where you have abandoned responsibility. And no matter how confident, successful, or dominant a man may seem, if his internal structure is weak — if the frame is unanchored — then relational chaos is just a matter of time.

Why FRAME matters

If the frame isn’t clear, solid, and internalized, then relationship conflicts don’t just increase — they become unsolvable. Why?

Because without a shared, pre-established frame, arguments devolve into endless relativism.

Every point becomes debatable. Every boundary becomes negotiable. Every truth becomes “your perspective.” And when that happens, there is no finality in decision-making. The couple ends up locked in circular reasoning, emotional reactivity, or passive-aggressive distancing — all because nothing exists that would decisively end the dispute. The frame is what gives weight and closure to decisions. Without it, there’s only endless negotiation.

This is why FRAME isn't a dating trick or a communication skillset. It's a philosophical, moral, and structural foundation for masculine identity in relationships.

In the rest of this article, we’ll break down:

• What a frame is (and what it is not)

• Why most men accidentally lose it

• The connection between responsibility, authority, and moral finality

• And what it takes to build — and hold — a solid masculine frame in a postmodern world

Rules and Values as the Foundation of the Frame

So what exactly is a frame? In the simplest terms, a frame is a structured set of rules. And those rules often take the form of conditional logic:

“If X, then Y.”

Examples of personal frame rules might include:

• “If I am drunk, then I do not drive.”

• “If it’s past 8 PM, I don’t eat.”

• “If my child has a test tomorrow, they don’t play video games tonight.”

These rules shape behavior. They act as boundaries — and when lived consistently, they manifest the man’s internal structure in external life. They’re the visible tip of the iceberg. But here’s the issue:

Rules alone are not enough.
Because rules can (and will) conflict with one another.

The problem of conflicting rules

Consider the following two frame rules:

1. “If I’ve promised to help my partner, I do it no matter what.”

2. “If it’s past 01:00 AM, I go to sleep to protect my rest.”

Now imagine you’ve promised a friend, a business partner, or your wife that you’d help with something urgent — but it’s already 1:15 AM. Which rule wins?

This seems like a clash of behaviors, but at its core, it’s not about logistics.

It’s a conflict of values.

All frame rules are instrumental — they serve something deeper, something less visible:

A value.

Behind every rule stands a master value it serves. That’s what gives the rule weight — and that’s what resolves contradiction when two rules collide.

Two competing masters

Let’s examine the example above:

• Going to sleep by 1 AM primarily serves the value of self-preservation or personal well-being. One might try to stretch it: “If I sleep well, I perform better for others, provide for my family, and live longer.” Yes — but that’s a chain of reasoning that justifies a self-serving base with public-facing logic.

At its core, this rule protects you.

• Keeping your promise to help your partner, on the other hand, serves the value of loyalty, friendship, or partnership. Sure, a cynic might argue: “He only helps because he hopes to benefit later.” But this is an insufficient counterweight. The direct motive still arises from a relational value, not pure self-interest.

Thus, we see that:

Rules are the visible expression of values.
And when rules collide, only the stronger value decides.

This leads to a crucial masculine insight:

A man who does not know which value governs which rule — and which value outranks which — cannot hold frame in the long term.

Because when things get complicated (and they will), he won’t know what to prioritize. He will appear inconsistent, contradictory, or manipulative — even if he’s well-meaning. In the next section, we’ll explore what it means to order your values, how to build a hierarchy of absolutes, and why a man without that hierarchy is destined to either surrender authority or collapse into conflict.

SIVH — The Vertical Order of Values

As we saw in the previous section, every rule in a man's frame is guided by a value. But this opens up a much deeper question:

What happens when two good values conflict?

The truth is, values are infinite. We can list hundreds of things that are “good” — love, loyalty, fitness, freedom, education, fun, safety, creativity, tradition, efficiency, kindness, truth...

In many relationship models — especially those influenced by the modern corporate world — there’s this shallow belief that a couple or family can just “agree on a shared list of values,” and that’ll solve conflict.

But this is absurdly insufficient.

Why? Because without hierarchy, values become just a pile of apples on a table. Each one looks good, smells nice, and can be picked up and admired at any moment. But when conflict hits, you can’t carry all of them. You have to pick one. And drop the others.

This is why merely “sharing values” means nothing.

What matters is:

Which value wins when two good values collide?

This is where hierarchy enters. And it’s what turns a loose set of ideals into a functioning FRAME.

The necessity of vertical order

Friedrich Nietzsche noted that the problem isn't just choosing values — the real challenge is ordering them. A man must not only know what he believes in. He must know what he will sacrifice for what.

This leads us to a foundational principle of Axiomatology:

SIVH — Structured Internal Value Hierarchy.

SIVH is not a motivational poster. It’s a decision engine. It gives finality to otherwise ambiguous decisions by creating a vertical structure of values, ranked by lived priority.

And it is deeply personal.

Only you can build your own SIVH. Why?

Because only you can make the internal sacrifice necessary to put one value above another.

Let’s take a simple example:

• You value adventure and variety.

• You also value academic achievement and future status.

The collision: You’ve got an exam tomorrow… and a party tonight. You must choose. You will sacrifice one for the other. And your real SIVH will reveal itself — not in your words, but in your actions.

That’s how every man’s SIVH is tested and clarified — not by theory, but by conflict and sacrifice.

The top value — the crown of the frame

At any given time, your SIVH has a top value — a singular, reigning principle. In Axiomatological terms, this is the monotheistic singular top value.

And every other value beneath it is, in practice, sacrificed to serve it.

Let’s return to the previous example: If instead of partying or studying, you go to sleep — then your top value wasn’t fun or future—it was rest and bodily preservation. Everything else bowed to it.

The man who knows his top value — and has intentionally ordered everything below it — walks through life with clarity, authority, and calm decisiveness. His decisions don’t wobble. He knows what he must protect, and what he’s willing to lose.

That’s what makes a frame hold.

And when your frame is grounded in a lived, battle-tested SIVH, it becomes unshakable — not because you're rigid, but because you’ve already decided who you serve.

Unified Future Through Cooperation

At its core, having a solid frame means having a Structured Internal Value Hierarchy (SIVH) — topped by a monotheistic singular value, enforced through the logic of perpetual sacrifice.

Let’s say a man has built his SIVH and placed family at the top. That top value now governs all decisions underneath it. So if he’s tired and it’s 01:15 AM, but there’s work left that directly serves his family — the decision to continue working is already made.

There is no debate. No dilemma. No internal negotiation.

Why? Because the decision was made long ago, during the construction of the SIVH. In this case, family overrides personal comfort.
The man doesn’t wrestle with the options — he simply acts. The value hierarchy has already resolved the conflict.

To some, this might sound extreme. But what feels “extreme” is not the behavior — it’s the reintroduction of moral absolutes into a relativistic world.

And this is the essence of Axiomatology:

A FRAME can only be as strong as the absolutes it is built upon.

The need for external foundations

To build a strong and stable frame, most men will need to “outsource” the foundation of their top value — not invent it. Because as Friedrich Nietzsche ultimately demonstrated through both his writings and his life, constructing your own values from scratch doesn’t work.

The Ubermensch ideal — the self-created man with his own inner law — sounds compelling in theory. But in practice? It fails. And Nietzsche’s prophetic line, “God is dead,” was not a triumphant declaration, but a grim warning:


Without an absolute source of values, societies collapse.
And before societies collapse, individual frames collapse.

That’s why most historically resilient FRAMEs are rooted in religion, transcendent purpose, or at minimum, a defined metaphysical structure such as Christianity.
In this article, we won’t dictate what that foundation must be — but we must state clearly:


A vague or self-invented top value is not enough.
A durable frame requires anchoring into something greater than the self.

When someone enters your frame

Now, consider a woman entering a man’s frame.

If that frame is real — if it’s based on a SIVH with clear values and a top absolute — then it will manifest as a predictable and transparent “if–then” system.

“If you disrespect my boundaries, then I withdraw.”
“If we disagree on raising children, then we go back to the hierarchy of values.”
“If my mission is threatened, then I protect it above all.”

This kind of clarity doesn’t just reduce drama — it builds trust.

A well-structured frame makes the course of the relationship visible, especially to someone with the emotional intelligence to study it. It shows where things are going, how decisions are made, what can be negotiated — and what cannot.

The clearer the SIVH, the more stable the frame.
The more stable the frame, the more peaceful and purposeful the relationship.

In Conclusion

Many men today speak proudly of their “rules,” and occasionally even of their “values.” But as Nietzsche — and many other serious thinkers — have shown again and again:

Values, in isolation, are insufficient.

Without a structured internal hierarchy — without a vertical order — values become shallow decorations, not foundations.

And that’s why SIVH — Structured Internal Value Hierarchy — is essential to any real masculine frame.

Once a man has built such a hierarchy, everything becomes simpler:

• His values are no longer open to constant debate

• His behavioral choices follow naturally from his structure

• And in any relationship, the path he’s on becomes visible

In the negotiation phase of a relationship, a woman who is psychologically mature will quickly sense this. A man with a SIVH offers more than words — he offers:

• A direction (destination)

• A system (rules and values)

• A timeline (velocity)

• And a role (himself as the driver of the train)

As we explained in the “Trains vs. Taxis” model, entering a man’s frame is like boarding a train:

The man has a predefined destination.
The route is non-negotiable.
The vehicle is powerful and fast, but it does not deviate to entertain emotional whims.

By contrast, a woman unwilling to submit to a strong frame often seeks a “taxi driver” instead — a man with no structured hierarchy, no clear path, and no non-negotiable mission. He compensates for his lack of direction with flexibility and emotional servitude.

That man’s SIVH is either unclear or completely upside-down — with the woman herself elevated to the monotheistic top value. While that may sound flattering to her ego in the short term, in the long run it leads to suffocation, contempt, and boredom.

Because what most women desire — whether they admit it or not — is to enter a powerful man’s frame, not to become the center of a formless man’s emotional improvisation.

And that’s why:

The more based a man’s value hierarchy is,
The clearer his FRAME becomes,
The easier it is for a woman to understand where he’s going,
And the more likely she is to join him through voluntary sacrifice — not manipulation or emotional pressure.

When a woman sees:

• The structure

• The direction

• The timeline

• And the moral foundation behind it all

She can decide:

Do I want to go there too?
Can I submit to this mission, and make the sacrifices required to stay on board?

If the answer is yes — then cooperation begins. Not through coercion, but through shared SIVH alignment. That is what creates a unified future through cooperation.