Crazy-ass Attention-seekers

[Lacewing]

For what its worth, which is probably nothing, I did not see mick doing anything other than just pointing out a view, which they have. I did not see an attacking of any person, but rather just pointing out a behavior.

Well, that's interesting, Ken. Here's how I saw it: My opening post was NOT focused on MY complaints, it was focused on trying to understand what makes people behave the way they do. So Mickthink's opinion that I should stop complaining does not resonate with my intention for the thread. I admitted my involvement in feeding certain behaviors. Mickthinks told me to "try harder". What the fuck? That appeared to me, like an ego trying to reprimand another as if Mickthinks is pretending to be in some sort of superior position.

Maybe I'm wrong... but I usually have a pretty good sense about people and their behaviors.

The "issue" of this thread is about something many of us have seen and commented on. So lecturing ME on how to deal with it, seems like little more than someone's arrogant trip.

[ken]

For what its worth, which is probably nothing, I did not see mick doing anything other than just pointing out a view, which they have. I did not see an attacking of any person, but rather just pointing out a behavior.

Well, that's interesting, Ken. Here's how I saw it: My opening post was NOT focused on MY complaints, it was focused on trying to understand what makes people behave the way they do. So Mickthink's opinion that I should stop complaining does not resonate with my intention for the thread. I admitted my involvement in feeding certain behaviors. Mickthinks told me to "try harder". What the fuck? That appeared to me, like an ego trying to reprimand another as if Mickthinks is pretending to be in some sort of superior position.

Maybe I'm wrong... but I usually have a pretty good sense about people and their behaviors.

The "issue" of this thread is about something many of us have seen and commented on. So lecturing ME on how to deal with it, seems like little more than someone's arrogant trip.

I was only expressing what I previously saw, but, after re-reading mick's quote that you were directly responding to, now I see that mick was doing something else, by telling you what to do, so I apologize for My view.

If I may I would like to make two other comments:

It appears this post was, i think, regarding 'two people? in particular,' but asking others why these two people behave the way they do, so you could better understand. I gave My reason why I do crazy-ass attention-seeking stuff and the truth is I can only really speak for me, and no other person, just like only those two people could explain the real reason why they each mis/behave the way they do. However, based on previous experiences you ain't ever going to get any thing sensible from them. You are not going to get a reasonable, if any, response from them. Other people would like to and can provide some insight into then and others, but they can not provide the accurate and real reasons and answers for why some other people do what they do.

The other comment is:

You wrote that your opening post was focused on trying to understand what makes people behave the way they do. Then, you also wrote, "But I usually have a pretty good sense about people and their behaviors." Obviously there is a slight contradiction there, which is of no great importance nor concern, but what I found, completely unintentionally, in helping Me to understand what makes all people behave the way they do, was concentrating on My self only. I did this by asking the same sort of question you did, and then answering it myself. I was trying to understand why I did what I did do. This questioning and very openly and extremely honestly answering those questions about myself only, led to the uncovering of the fundamental reason why all people do what they do. And, that reason leads to the answer to the real, true and correct answer for all people.

Now this last sentence probably appears to be contradictory to the last sentence of My previous comment, but it is not.

Picking up on what others may not notice, or subliminally and/or unconsciously miss, and then doing the "same" sort of thing, so that others will hopefully notice My "wrong" doing and challenge and question Me about it, is just another one of My "crazy-ass, attention-seeker" ways.

It is not the best way to behave I know, but I do not, yet, know how to express succinctly or accurately.

[Walker]

Does anyone have any insights?

Methinks thou doth protest too much.
http://literarydevices.net/lady-doth-protest-too-much/

Too much protest over so little is itself a form of attention seeking.
In establishing itself as a perpetual, repetitive theme it might even be crazy-town, if not Crazy-ass.
First know the why for yourself.

[Hobbes' Choice]

There is a condition that has been labeled as the "Martyr Complex", where a person will post something and then revel in the abuse that follows. I'm not sure what the exact psychological condition is called, but the "Martyr Complex" is close enough. It seems to be common on forums and is possibly just another form of trolling. Sometimes responding just feeds the condition, and sometimes a lack of response is read as support that just feeds the delusion.

That is Bob all over.

He thinks himself as Cassandra. He knows the solution to the whole world's problems and has constructed a scheme and se of iron clad policies but he is doomed that no one will ever believe him.

He thinks that is so because the whole world except him is stupid, and that his plan makes perfect sense to him alone.

Screen Shot 2016-09-02 at 14.32.23.png

I kind of thought Cassandra complex is mostly about predicting disasters all the time. I encountered somebody with that talent on another forum, he was quite amazing. And I'm fairly sure martyrdom complexes are recognisable by their constant droning about all the hopes and dreams they gave up on for the sake of some particular ingrate.

In my (not at all professional or qualified) opinion, one of our very special posters surely has Delusional Disorder of the Grandiose Type. Not so very different from those guys who think they are Napoleon.

My guess for the other remains Narcissistic Personality Disorder although I could be persuaded that he takes more of a buffet / smorgasbord approach to hi insanity.

This is the first philosophy forum I've ever really used. I sort of assumed that the P word itself attracts a lot of nutters who think their thoughts are special, unique and new, even when all the evidence suggests they are bland, incoherent and stale.

I think many of these syndromes have much to recommend them in comparing Bob's symptoms. There is no reason he has to comply with any of them exactly, but has a personality disorder that includes some features of them all. Narcissism is certainly key to his attitude.

[Hobbes' Choice]

No, I believe a 200 font size with a smilie to boot is a sure sign of madness.

Do you? Irony just goes whoosh! right by you doesn't it bob.

[Hobbes' Choice]

My first philosophy teacher asked me why I wanted to join his class. I spluttered some of that standard shit about wisdom and universal truths and whatnot. He then explained that it's really more an intellectual joyride in a clown car powered by bullshit.

When required to explain what the subject really involves, I usually paraphrase Isiah Berlin's less cynical take on the matter. But secretly I still think Mr. Ellis was bang on the money there.

And what did Mr. Berlin say about Philosophy?

[Hobbes' Choice]

I do not know what other people's reasons are, but the reason my "crazy-ass attention-seeking" purpose for being here is because no one in "real life" will listen to Me.
.

Surely if they all have exactly the same amount of intelligence as Einstein that should tell you something?

[FlashDangerpants]

I think many of these syndromes have much to recommend them in comparing Bob's symptoms. There is no reason he has to comply with any of them exactly, but has a personality disorder that includes some features of them all. Narcissism is certainly key to his attitude.

I guess this is true. He has spent 40 years collecting his madness. He probably has a little bit of everything.

What sold me on the DD explanation is that those guys can hold one internally consistent set of outrageously implausible beliefs for the duration of the 'episode', and also that they will interpret any randome coincidence or event as being about them. Which sort of covers all that gemmatria simplex stuff as well all those other pathetic credentials.

And what did Mr. Berlin say about Philosophy?

He said any field of study is essentially defined most by the sorts of questions it answers as much as the techniques it it uses. What makes a question philosophically interesting is that not only is the answer to it in doubt, but there is also dispute about what the correct answer would look like. So when that last bit is resolved, the question will typically move beyond philosophy to whichever field applies the appropriate method and it will get answered there.

I'm not sure what would happen to this reasoning if too many people agreed with it.

[Hobbes' Choice]

He said any field of study is essentially defined most by the sorts of questions it answers as much as the techniques it it uses. What makes a question philosophically interesting is that not only is the answer to it in doubt, but there is also dispute about what the correct answer would look like. So when that last bit is resolved, the question will typically move beyond philosophy to whichever field applies the appropriate method and it will get answered there.

I'm not sure what would happen to this reasoning if too many people agreed with it.

I've read some Berlin, and liked his way of thinking. In studying the "Enlightenment" I loved the way he dumped the concept in to the empty historically determined box that it belongs in, asserting that no 'member of the enlightenment' was in the least bit aware that they were creating it.
For Hume and Adam Smith (the 2 biggest figures of the so-called Scottish Enlightenment), 'enlightenment' was not even in their vocabulary. And much has been made of a minor essay from Kant in which he talks about Aufklarung, as if he was talking about "THE" enlightenment whereas he was doing nothing of the kind.
So what you say about the discipline determining the question is apt.
For the philosopher or psychologist, 'enlightenment' is about a personal reflection , for the historian it becomes an almost self-volitional phenomenon which all 18thC studies must comply through a Shibbolethic barrier to filter out non-historians. Though, it has to be said, philosophers also fall for this fictive construction.

[ken]

I do not know what other people's reasons are, but the reason my "crazy-ass attention-seeking" purpose for being here is because no one in "real life" will listen to Me.
.

Surely if they all have exactly the same amount of intelligence as Einstein that should tell you something?

Yes it does. It tells Me that every person can be as stupid, and, as intelligent, as every other person. It all depends on how closed or open a person is. If, and how, people WANT TO listen shows how intelligent or stupid they are being at that particular point in time.

You write as if to imply that einstein had MORE intelligence than another. If so, how could he actually have more intelligence, and how did he actually have more intelligence?

[Hobbes' Choice]

You write as if to imply that einstein had MORE intelligence than another. If so, how could he actually have more intelligence, and how did he actually have more intelligence?

The same way he had a bigger nose than some people, or had curlier hair.

[ken]

You write as if to imply that einstein had MORE intelligence than another. If so, how could he actually have more intelligence, and how did he actually have more intelligence?

The same way he had a bigger nose than some people, or had curlier hair.

You are AGAIN NOT answering the question of HOW?

OR, you are someHOW suggesting intelligence is passed on genetically??? If so, then HOW or IF a person is intelligent or not is solely depended upon their parents?? And, if that is the case, then NO person can be held accountable nor responsible for HOW intelligent or stupid they are. Therefore, any criticism you try to pass onto others, for what they actually do,can not be held as being correct in any way. And, this type of stupid behavior is also NOT a fault of yours that you could be held accountable for because absolutely everything you do is a result of and because of your parents genetics. Is this right?

[FlashDangerpants]

if that is the case, then NO person can be held accountable nor responsible for HOW intelligent or stupid they are.

In the same way we don't hold you responsible for the size of your nose or curliness of your hair ken?

[ken]

if that is the case, then NO person can be held accountable nor responsible for HOW intelligent or stupid they are.

In the same way we don't hold you responsible for the size of your nose or curliness of your hair ken?

That is okay, but how can I then be held responsible for being "wrong"? If everything I do is all because of genetics, then I can not in any true sense be held responsible for my actions?

How could I be held accountable for doing "wrong"?

If we do not hold people responsible for any genetic features, then why do we hold people responsible for behaving stupidly and/or intelligently?

[FlashDangerpants]

I don't fool myself that I have the answers to questions I don't understand about quantum physics; I will never have those answers because I don't really understand a word of the subject. I also don't care and I am not interested in trying to acquire the understanding it would take to participate in whatever the debate is there. On top of that, I don't get the maths, nor do I get much simpler maths than the crazy shit those guys use. In that sphere of enquiry, I am definitely too ignorant, and probably too stupid to participate.

But I'm not running around a physics forum accusing them all of being shit because they don't understand my glorious insights. Insights that I am unable to express properly and lack the talent to scrutinise for myself.

If I were to ignore this and go to a physics forum demanding attention and sulking when nobody agreed I had the answers they are seeking, because as far as I was concerned my lazy ignorant half-assed bullshit was better than the real thing.... that would be me copying what you are doing here.

So I could be blamed for things other than my stupidity. My arrogance and presumption would probably top the list. Whether I am smart or not should not interfere with my ability to recognise that I don't have a perfect understanding in any field. Especially not in one where I have put in zero effort to learn but still wish to declare myself the best genius ever.