When the Argument Isn’t the Problem: Frames, Games, and Meaning
Every argument feels like it’s about facts.
You bring Fact A.
Someone else brings Fact B.
You draw Conclusion C.
Most people assume that if the conclusion is wrong, then the logic must be wrong.
But that’s almost never where the real problem is.
The real problem is why those facts were chosen in the first place.
That decision happens before logic. It happens in a deeper layer—one we rarely talk about—because it feels “obvious,” “given,” or “just the way things are.”
That layer is meaning.
Frames, Games, and Why We Can’t Talk About Everything at Once
To think at all, we need boundaries.
If we tried to talk about everything at the same time, we couldn’t talk about anything. So we create frames—bounded systems of meaning that allow us to reason, feel, and act without being overwhelmed.
I often call these frames games.
A game is not trivial. A game is a contained system with rules, assumptions, and limits. A profession is a game. A relationship is a game. Politics is a game. Even a worldview is a game.
Games allow us to operate—but they also hide their own assumptions.
And that’s where trouble begins.
Where Errors Actually Come From
Most persistent conflicts are not caused by bad reasoning inside the game.
They come from unexamined presuppositions outside the game.
When something inside a frame doesn’t work—when an argument keeps resurfacing, when tension won’t resolve, when the same fight keeps happening—that’s not just a disagreement.
That’s an anomaly.
An anomaly is not a mistake to suppress.
It’s feedback that the frame itself may be misaligned.
Why Geometry Explains This Better Than Politics
Consider classical geometry.
Euclid built geometry on five postulates—assumptions taken as given. From those assumptions, an entire system unfolds beautifully. Triangles sum to 180 degrees. Parallel lines never meet.
The system works perfectly—as long as the assumptions hold.
But when mathematicians encountered situations where those assumptions no longer applied, they didn’t “fix” geometry from the inside.
They created non-Euclidean geometry by questioning the presuppositions themselves.
The same pattern shows up in physics.
Isaac Newton’s laws worked extraordinarily well—until anomalies appeared. The speed of light refused to behave as expected.
The solution wasn’t better math inside Newtonian physics.
It required a new frame.
Albert Einstein didn’t patch the old game. He replaced the assumptions.
This is how knowledge actually evolves.
Why Some Arguments Never End
Some problems refuse to be solved because they are being asked in the wrong frame.
Politics is one of the most common examples.
Certain issues—especially moral ones—keep resurfacing no matter how many policies, votes, or court rulings are passed. That’s not because people are stupid or malicious.
It’s because the problem doesn’t belong to the political frame in the first place.
When a system lacks the conceptual depth to resolve a question, it will endlessly recycle conflict instead of producing clarity.
That endless recycling is a sign of meaning failure, not moral failure.
Ideology: The Frame That Eliminates Anomalies by Eliminating People
An ideology is a special kind of frame.
It has rules—but those rules apply only to others.
On one side are the “good people.”
On the other are the “problem people.”
In an ideological system, anomalies don’t exist—because anything that contradicts the frame is blamed on the out-group.
This feels emotionally stable.
It feels morally certain.
It also guarantees stagnation.
No feedback. No learning. No growth.
Why Relationships Break the Same Way Systems Do
This pattern doesn’t just apply to politics or philosophy.
It shows up in relationships.
An argument inside a relationship is often treated as a flaw in the other person. But recurring conflict usually signals something deeper: a mismatch in presuppositions.
What is the relationship for?
What counts as commitment?
What does respect mean?
When those assumptions go unexamined, arguments multiply—and nothing changes.
The argument is not the disease.
It’s the symptom.
Meaning Is the Layer Beneath Strategy
Strategy operates above tactics and techniques—but beneath strategy is meaning.
Meaning determines:
- What we notice
- What we ignore
- What offends us
- What feels “obvious”
- What feels threatening
Frames don’t just regulate thought.
They regulate emotion.
That’s why changing a frame feels destabilizing—even when the frame is dysfunctional.
Stability often matters more to people than truth.
Why This Matters
When you encounter:
- Persistent arguments
- Repeating mistakes
- Endless friction
- Emotional overreactions
- Issues that “won’t go away”
Don’t attack the person.
Don’t double down on the rules.
Ask a deeper question:
What assumptions is this game built on—and are they still valid?
Anomalies are not enemies.
They are invitations.
A Note on Intellectual Humility
Jean Piaget understood this deeply. His work on how children learn through games wasn’t just developmental psychology—it was epistemology. Knowledge doesn’t descend from above. It grows through interaction, error, and revision.
Friedrich Nietzsche understood it too—however controversially. Systems persist not because they’re true, but because they provide order.
And as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn observed, the line between good and evil does not run between groups—it runs through every human heart.
Which means no frame is immune from revision.
Final Thought
If every disagreement feels personal…
If every challenge feels threatening…
If every anomaly feels like an attack…
It may not be the argument that needs fixing.
It may be the meaning underneath it.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a “frame” in philosophy and systems thinking?
A frame is a bounded system of assumptions that determines how we interpret facts, logic, and experience.
What is an anomaly?
An anomaly is a recurring problem or contradiction that cannot be resolved within the current frame.
Why do political arguments never get resolved?
Because many political debates are actually moral or philosophical questions being forced into an inadequate frame.
How do frames relate to emotions?
Frames regulate emotional responses by defining what feels normal, threatening, or unacceptable.
Can frames be updated without collapsing stability?
Yes—but only if they remain permeable to feedback and anomaly.
Wrestling with persistent contradictions—in business, leadership, or life? —email me at [email protected] and let’s think it through together. Book a call:
This essay connects to the broader Meaning knowledge Branch: https://gabebautista.com/essays/meaning/
