Thread: Attention Seeking

There's 'attention seeking' in order to fulfill a purpose (which many social interactions require to an extent), and then there's attention seeking because gaining the attention of someone else is the end result in of itself. The two are completely different.

If I inject a viewpoint into a conversation for instance, I'm doing it because I feel I have something to add to the discussion, and because I'm interested in getting involved in the conversation. Whilst it involves drawing attention onto myself to get my point across, that is a means to an end. Someone exhibiting attention-seeking behaviour by contrast does that simply because they desire the attention for whatever reason.

I haven't read the thread you mention, but I'm guessing by the title that it involves users ranting and complaining in some form. The purpose of such threads is mostly to provide an outlet for frustration; even ranting in text form about some idiot who is ruining your day can be surprisingly cathartic. It's not there for users to scream the internet equivalent of "HEY LOOK AT ME EVERYONE!!!111".

I'm honestly surprised that you find this difficult to understand, myself.

As for your poetry, whether it's attention seeking or not depends on why you're posting it. If it's to solicit constructive criticism and feedback, or simply because you feel users might be interested in reading it, that's fine. If you're doing it because you want the attention to validate yourself, then that's attention-seeking behaviour.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

Perhaps this is something everyone does, but is not aware of. It is, for the most part, not done very consciously, so I would not be surprised.

Do not be fooled.

Everyone on this forum who posts a lot is at least a little bit attention seeking because we want people to listen to our thoughts and opinions. But some people are more attention seeking than others because they want sympathy or a response in addition to an open ear. Arguably we are all like that to a degree.

Whether that's a bad thing, I can't really see how it could be... If we all do it we should just accept it.

Sympathy is great, so what's wrong with trying to find it?

Originally Posted by Photolysis

There's 'attention seeking' in order to fulfill a purpose (which many social interactions require to an extent), and then there's attention seeking because gaining the attention of someone else is the end result in of itself. The two are completely different.

It isn't just one or the other. There are different levels. Someone's goal in explaining something might not at all be attention-seeking, yet the feeling of validation is still part of the result. For example, if I'm knowledgeable about a topic and discuss it with someone because I'm genuinely interested in it, the primary goal is not to gain attention. Yet there almost always exists something in me that feels good for being judged as intelligent by anyone observing the conversation, and is almost constantly aware of what people's impressions of me as a person will be.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

I haven't read the thread you mention, but I'm guessing by the title that it involves users ranting and complaining in some form. The purpose of such threads is mostly to provide an outlet for frustration; even ranting in text form about some idiot who is ruining your day can be surprisingly cathartic. It's not there for users to scream the internet equivalent of "HEY LOOK AT ME EVERYONE!!!111".

I didn't think anyone wasn't aware of that thread.
What is the release, exactly, in ranting about one's day to other people? Is it not that they feel they'll receive validation about their problems from those other people, and is that not the same as a cry for attention?

Originally Posted by InvisibleWoman

Do not be fooled.

Fooled into thinking what I said? Or fooled by people who claim not to have the issue?

Originally Posted by Dianeva

It isn't just one or the other. There are different levels. Someone's goal in explaining something might not at all be attention-seeking, yet the feeling of validation is still part of the result. For example, if I'm knowledgeable about a topic and discuss it with someone because I'm genuinely interested in it, the primary goal is not to gain attention. Yet there almost always exists something in me that feels good for being judged as intelligent by anyone observing the conversation, and is almost constantly aware of what people's impressions of me as a person will be.

Millions of years of evolution in a situation where humans lived in small tribes where reputation was very important will do that. Regardless, it doesn't matter if you get a warm fuzzy feeling from showing off your intellect, and it doesn't matter if you pay attention to how people are responding. As long as your primary motivation is something other than drawing attention to yourself, then it isn't attention-seeking. It's all about intent.

I didn't think anyone wasn't aware of that thread.
What is the release, exactly, in ranting about one's day to other people? Is it not that they feel they'll receive validation about their problems from those other people, and is that not the same as a cry for attention?

I don't tend to read outside ED much these days.

Where's the release in ranting? Simply by expressing the view in the first place. It's metaphorically punching something in frustration to make themselves feel better. If you're doing it to be validated by others, yes that's attention-seeking (and if you actually want feedback on whether you were wrong then you're not going to ask for it in a one-sided rant). If it's just to express your anger and get it out your system, no it's not a cry for attention

I was about to post a thread asking if it's wrong that I strongly dislike stupid people. But then I read your post and now I don't want to.

Most people seem to be very aware of the social impact of their actions and to choose their actions to gain some desired benefit. Very much like what one would expect from a monkey that was unusually adapted to social manipulation...

Whether or not you agree with this statement, I find it to be true:

Attention = Energy

Whether it's actual energy, or simply a psychological feeling of rejuvenation in the brain, is not my concern.

But because we are mostly unaware of this effect, we adapt all sorts of dramas as a means to gain attention. The big four, as explained in the Celestine Prophecy, are aggression, criticism, aloofness and self-pity. Because we are unaware of the way attention feeds people, we are unconsciously out to drain others of their attention for the purpose of feeding ourselves, and we don't see anything wrong with this because we don't know we're doing anything at all. It's sort of like a fight for psychological dominance and we first learn our particular methods of drama by dealing with out parents and adapting to the specific ways they drain us. If your parents were very aggressive and intimidating, you take on a self-pity complex; if your parents were very critical, you take on an aloof complex; if your parents we aloof, you take on a critic complex and if your parents craved sympathy you take on an aggressive complex.

That being said, the two major ways people start drama on the internet where there is no real means of intimidating anyone, are criticism and aloofness. When dealing with a critic, you are often forced into an aloof role because anything you explain, honestly, will be met with criticism so you shy away from fully explaining yourself. When dealing with an aloof person, you are forced to pry extra hard and because the process is so draining you end up criticizing them in order to win back some of that energy.

There are particular users, some on IRC, some on the forums, which play these drama games dispositionally. They cannot have a discussion without stomping on the other person's ideas, or they cannot make a claim and make vague but provoking posts which cannot be adequately responded to without resorting to putting words in their mouth. Over time, one begins to cater to their worldview more and more because they fear the repercussions from this person. The only way to combat it is to become particularly aware of the effect, and if possible stop the drama dead in its tracks by bringing to the surface what they are not even aware they're doing. To honest awareness of their purposely provocative intentions without taking part in the drama itself, the attention seeker will have no response. Rather than react to particularly provocative posts, realize the game being played and cater to the posts which are not intentionally made to spark drama.

As far as Rant, Rave, Cry and Complain, I think sometimes people need to vent. Perhaps they are also looking for a little sympathy or validation, but I don't see anything wrong with that unless people are utilizing a drama complex in order to drain others.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Whether or not you agree with this statement, I find it to be true:

Attention = Energy

Why use two words for the same thing? Does one word make you feel more "special"?

Whether it's actual energy, or simply a psychological feeling of rejuvenation in the brain, is not my concern.

Precisely. But then why complicate the matter by even introducing the word "energy" in the first place?

When dealing with a critic, you are often forced into an aloof role because anything you explain, honestly, will be met with criticism so you shy away from fully explaining yourself.

What about learning to accept criticism and, if valid, adapt to it and if invalid, ignore it? Is there a problem with that?

When dealing with an aloof person, you are forced to pry extra hard and because the process is so draining you end up criticizing them in order to win back some of that energy.

What about just letting them be aloof? If they don't want to share with you, then you can just not waste the "energy" in the first place? Or be glad to see it gone, there's new "energy" coming every instant?


Confusions like this are one of the reasons that I don't think that the "energy" analogy is any good. I've seen people try to apply ideas from physics (which they poorly understand) to try to derive spiritual statements from it.

If you spend energy trying to talk to somebody and they don't want to talk, then you don't get energy back by criticising them.

You may recover some lost ego.
You may make yourself feel better.
You may gain some form of transient social dominance.

But in the end, you just waste more energy criticising them. You have to move your mouth or your fingers to do it and this uses chemical potential energy. Not moving your mouth or finger doesn't use nearly as much chemical potential energy. After all, it's not like there's some beam of color draining out of them and back into you.

This whole "energy" thing is just a bad analogy for social dominance and ego as you're using it. Why am I not surprised?

How many electron volts have I stolen from you in criticising your ideas?

energy equals or resonates the volume, color, distance, frequence, resonance too, and lucidity of attention?

For example, i just got heavy tarffic of likes here (attention) = short/fast frequence,, while i was just socializing and empathizing out of my heart (to give view of emotional state).. at that point those likes really buggered me (but on the corners of my mind also smiled at me) for I was trying to hang-out instead of fish attention... so the effect was multiplayed energy

or just different kind of emotional energy that i recall ever having here

PS - I am not concerned with your dilemma over my vocabulary. Energy is a perfectly suitable word to use because when one is being drained by another through the initiation of drama, they feel like they have less energy, less power and less confidence. Whether or not you have a problem with the english language, it does not change the truth behind my point. On everything else you said, I pretty much agree, the only proper response for a critic or aloof or any other action used to stir drama and drain you is non-participatory. Don't get hooked in.

As far as your argument that it wastes more energy to start a drama, the energy spent initiating a drama is obviously a lot less than the reward for draining another person of their energy/attention or it would not be such a regular activity.

Labyrint - The energy obtainable from rejuvenating oneself by basking in gnosis is much greater and more wholesome than through draining the attention of others.

for the OP (that being dianeva).. part of me is comologically crazy and take s everything in here as a reflection of it's own dreaming ... thing that have been on the surface in lot of recent threads I've been reading. So from that viewpoint nick you're using brought to my mind concepts of Artemis; Diana, Mother of Artemis (eva-analogy) and whatelse. So for me you have been a reflection of hunter-goddes of unconcious sides of feminine aspect and in strong synch with the moon. Given Godform does have some strong emotional problems in known mythologies. I am sorry for I can't escape (no matter who says what) myself blaming me of strong and wrong kind reflection. For this is a dream forum, I've thought that ways of communication here were along logic of dreams. lately I've been spending time dualize this dreaming self out of 'real-life-connected' self for experincing greater glarity and sense of amount things are hold real or consious here.

So after reading who is the OP here and realising the level which people answer to OP instead of dreaming together, I forgive my drama and beg your pardon.

That's just how I am. I'm working with it so I would not like anyone to take pity on me or start some drama about which institution I should be in for trying to tell how I take the world.

That said, some funny attention seeking.. I honestly did see Seroquel to reflect that what 3 years of medication under the drug of same name had done to my brains and mind. Long times under strong antipsychotes do rewire the brainconnections in some limiting and hierarchial way. (my friend found an article somewhere,, with some time i can fetch it if not else believed) Though I haven't been under medication for quite a while now (thank god), these connections that couple of neuroleptes did to me seem to bee somehow remembered by my brains. So even if I don't take those meds anymore, i sometimes find myself in reality formed by long time under meds. I'm not a slave of that hardwiring anymore, more like tourist looking back at those experinces. That is one thing i refer as channels, for they really do resemble them (in my experience offcourse). So i took poster Sero... first more like reflection of that. I guess he/she didn't realise that i wasn't enterily joking then

The more I think about this, the more it seems my recent concerns that I seek attention more than others are invalid, and are only due to my inclination toward obsessing over thoughts and being paranoid as a result.

you're in love with yourself, is all.

Nope. Quite the opposite, really.

you give me far too little credit, but okay dianeva.

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

you give me far too little credit, but okay dianeva.

This is an example of an aloof statement intended specifically for the purpose of draining others by causing drama.

Can you point me to a single greenhavoc post for which this isn't the case?

No. He is the definition of attention seeker.

This is an example of an aloof statement intended specifically for the purpose of draining others by causing drama.

no it wasn't

Can you point me to a single greenhavoc post for which this isn't the case?

but her response is

you can either ask me how this is so, or you can continue to self destruct. either way i am completely neutral, which is something the both of you have yet to comprehend

No. He is the definition of attention seeker.

ex: self destruct

I haven't read all of this thread yet 'cause I just saw it, but I can say that there are a few different reasons I post in RRCC. The first one is just because if I'm depressed then saying it/typing it up makes me think about it and sometimes just that'll help me feel better by the end of it. The second is because... well, and I don't know if everyone does this, but I've realized that I'm able to stick to something much better if I actually tell someone I'm going to do it, often not even requiring that person to react in any way. Like if I need to stop doing some bad behavior and I fight it for a long time, eventually I'll tell a close friend "Hey, stop me if I do this thing again." and after that it just becomes really easy and they usually never even have to say anything. So ranting about some things is nice.

But lastly, yeah, there's a little bit of attention seeking it. I try to keep checks on myself about such things and I'm not really too concerned about how much I do it because I don't think it's really that bad right now, though I'd welcome criticism if it seems like it is. For the record, I don't think you really seem like an attention seeker.

Also, I don't think there'd be anything at all wrong with posting that poem if you just want to see what people think of it and for your work to be noticed. Isn't that why the Artist's Corner is there?

Originally Posted by Alyzarin

Also, I don't think there'd be anything at all wrong with posting that poem if you just want to see what people think of it and for your work to be noticed. Isn't that why the Artist's Corner is there?

Definetly nothing wrong. But for the all would be artist in internets and the shooting down culture of some art sites, changes are no-one will say anything good about anything posted in Artist's Corner if you don't make some drama first. Think of it as a commercial or trailer for real piece. Of to post something to my lonely threads and cut my wrists afterwards

@ Dianeva: Loved the Poem btw,, how you get into the mood and sound of it

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

PS - I am not concerned with your dilemma over my vocabulary. Energy is a perfectly suitable word to use because when one is being drained by another through the initiation of drama, they feel like they have less energy, less power and less confidence. Whether or not you have a problem with the english language, it does not change the truth behind my point. On everything else you said, I pretty much agree, the only proper response for a critic or aloof or any other action used to stir drama and drain you is non-participatory. Don't get hooked in.

ok. But then I have an issue with the english language? You're the one coopting words that you don't understand ("energy") and claiming to agree with most of my other points but then attempting to refute the main one. Of course it's my issue with the language. That makes a lot of sense.

LOL.

As far as your argument that it wastes more energy to start a drama, the energy spent initiating a drama is obviously a lot less than the reward for draining another person of their energy/attention or it would not be such a regular activity.

That's not really very solid.

You're assuming that there's something being drained. There's only attention being given. The "victim" is free at any point to divert their attention elsewhere. Are you saying that by draining my attention, you could go back in time to the duration in which you were draining me and then pay more thorough attention to something else instead? Or is attention one of those things that once "given" can never be taken back?

People that don't understand physics shouldn't attempt to use ideas from physics (e.g. energy) as an analogy (which is precisely what's going on here) because they will only confuse themselves.

Once again, I am not concerned with your issue over a homonym. If that's even what it is. I am describing the psychological nature of parasitic interaction, given the label "drama" whereas people unconsciously create tension with others in order to achieve dominance, leaving the other person feeling drained by the interaction. Whether or not you believe they are drained of anything in reality is not my concern. Becoming aware of this effect is the only way to stop it from happening, and it is my intention to teach others to better anticipate attempts to drain them by realizing these interactions for what they are.

One must remain rooted in a completely honest conveyance of their position, without attempting to put their words in a fashion that would trump the other person nor stop the other person from trumping them, remaining detached from their position and realizing it is not connected to their person no matter how much the other person attempts to mold the two. One must stop playing a game wherein two people are fighting for success and simply remember that all they have is their honest opinion. Anything other than relating your most honest position is a ploy for dominance. Dominance means you are catering energy toward the other person through attention or vice versa. Claiming I do not understand physics is like claiming I don't understand literature for my use of the word drama in this argument.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I am describing the psychological nature of parasitic interaction, given the label "drama" whereas people unconsciously create tension with others in order to achieve dominance, leaving the other person feeling drained by the interaction ... Becoming aware of this effect is the only way to stop it from happening, and it is my intention to teach others to better anticipate attempts to drain them by realizing these interactions for what they are.

Are you claiming this parasitic tendency and compulsive intention is something inherent in all people; that, at heart, I seek to feed on you insidiously?

I would not call it inherent. It is not inherited, and it is not our default nature. We learn these patterns by defending ourselves from our parents, who ploy for our attention in a parasitic way out of ignorance that they are draining our energy. It makes them feel good and they are not consciously aware as to why, nor the damaging effect it has on the other person. We learn defense mechanisms in retaliation and bring these patterns into every relationship we enter after until we consciously unlearn the behavior.

The angels that protect us in our youth become the demons that haunt us in adulthood.