I’ve seen this charge frequently in Mormon twitter (which is, post-Elon, a total sh*tshow). Defender of the faith types use this as an insult whenever they see someone who is an ex-Mo making a post about an experience that they think makes the church look bad. In their terms, highlighting these bad experiences means that the person is seeking attention. This is similar to defenders of the faith who claim that the church is living “rent free” in the heads of ex-Mos or that old chestnut, in which ward members agree about anyone saying anything negative that “they can leave the church, but they can’t leave it alone.”
A version of this happened to me, just once. Someone asked what was the craziest rule your mission had, and I shared our mission rule that you couldn’t attend church if you didn’t have investigators, which meant that quite a few missionaries were not regularly attending church, and those who did often would be rounding up drunks on the bus as their “ticket” into church. District and Zone Leaders would police the chapel doors, kicking out any missionaries who dared to show up without investigators, sending them back out to work, telling them they weren’t “worthy” to be there. This was all designed to ensure that missionaries weren’t just using church as an excuse not to work. I wrote about it in my mission memoir.
After I made that comment, a bunch of “defenders of the faith” chimed in accusing me of making it up: “Of all the fake things, this is the fakest!” and “Stop lying!” and “I bet she didn’t even serve a mission!” and the Seinfeld meme with Elaine saying “Fake, fake, fake, fake” (in reference to her orgasms).
One of Twitter’s finest went so far as to interrogate me on the location, dates I served and my mission president, all of which were none of his business but *shrug*, and then after I revealed that information, he begrudgingly agreed that maybe I was not actually lying. I’m not really sure why they were so invested in that story not being true. We did in fact have that rule. It was later revised, slightly, to include attending church with new members. Until I was a trainer, I didn’t much care whether we were barred from attending church, but when my trainee was upset about it (she had been inactive for years before deciding to serve a mission), I started to petition for the rule to change. It only happened several months later, and I suspected it wasn’t my efforts, but rather that one of the missionaries with ties to area leadership (pedigreed / celebrity contacts) was responsible for getting it changed.
Though I was bhated and cpersecuted for saying that we had this mission rule, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me dfalsely for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? We actually had this mission rule; and who am I that I can lie about it, or why does the world think to make me deny what actually happened? For we had had this mission rule; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it (and probably didn’t like it), and I could not edeny it…
Joseph Smith History 1: 25, sorta
Back to Twitter, though. At the same time as I’ve seen these harsh anti-ex-Mos coming out en masse everytime anyone says anything they think is critical, calling people liars and attention seekers, I notice a few other things: 1) most of these Twitter accounts are paying for a blue check mark, paying to boost their voices, and 2) this is almost exclusively a gendered insult, leveled at “uppity” women by aggressive Mormon men. This leads me to wonder who the real attention seekers are. Maybe…everybody? After all, it’s an insult that could apply equally well to just about anyone in a social setting who communicates their viewpoint to others. If you make a post and nobody likes it, isn’t it like the tree that falls in the forest? Did it even happen? And as with those who sell books about faith crises being the other side of the apologist coin, aren’t the faithful just as guilty of attention seeking? Are there some people who “seek attention” by making performatively faithful comments in Gospel Doctrine? Are there “attention seekers” who engage in self-aggrandizing during fast & testimony meeting? Yes to both.
Sometimes people want more attention, and sometimes they just get more attention. The insult implies that we should not want attention, or that anyone who gets attention is morally dubious, seeking glory, fame, celebrity. But attention can also be community approval, which last I checked is really important to those who remain in their congregations, particularly important the more demanding the culture of the group is. Everyone needs social approval, and if you are in a social group that doesn’t approve of you, you need to find a better group. Your mental health demands it. Humans are social creatures at our core.
There are two larger incidents in Mormondom that came to mind as I thought about this topic. The first was the example of a young woman who stood up in fast & testimony meeting and came out to the congregation. Someone she trusted filmed her with their camera phone and this video went viral. While those who support LGBTQ people were touched by the video, those who are against gay rights or who saw this as a way to smear the church called her actions “attention seeking” because it was filmed and shared. The other example I thought of is the opposed vote in General Conference that was also filmed and shared, illustrating what happens when someone votes “opposed” which is not what used to happen in the early days of the church. Again, because it was filmed and shared and went viral, this was called attention seeking. Abuse victims have also been accused of seeking attention. The girl who was kicked out of the testing center for wearing skinny jeans was accused of it.
The charge works to change the subject from the issue being highlighted (hypocrisy, abuse, misogyny, bad policies, bigotry) to the person who is bringing it to light, to exact retribution on them for “making the church look bad” rather than dealing with the policy or behavior the church is doing. Claiming that someone is “attention seeking” works to preserve the status quo by blaming the victim. It’s similar to claiming that a rape victim wanted to be raped based on how she dressed or behaved. It’s designed to undermine the credibility of the critic, not to address the criticism.
As with everything psychological, attention seeking has both positive and negative aspects. On the plus side:
Good Aspects of Seeking Attention:
- Validation and Affirmation: Seeking attention can sometimes provide individuals with validation and affirmation, helping them feel seen, heard, and valued by others. This recognition can boost self-esteem and foster a sense of belonging.
- Building Relationships: In social settings, seeking attention can be a way to initiate and maintain relationships. By drawing attention to oneself, individuals may attract like-minded people or create opportunities for meaningful interactions. You can replace a lost community with a new one, reducing anxiety and other stress. Even Steve Hassan (the anti-cult guy) talks about the importance of relationships with other former members of a cult one has left. These relationships can really help a person’s mental outlook.
- Achieving Goals: In professional or academic settings, seeking attention can be a strategic way to gain recognition for one’s accomplishments, skills, or expertise. This recognition can lead to opportunities for advancement, collaboration, or mentorship. This is how networking works. It’s not what you know, but who you know, and more importantly, who knows what you know.
- Expressing Creativity: Seeking attention can also be a way for individuals to share their talents, ideas, or creative works with a broader audience. This exposure can provide valuable feedback, encouragement, or opportunities for growth and development. I can think of no better example than Jessie Jensen’s fabulous TikToks or the Black Menaces short videos.
Bad Aspects of Seeking Attention:
- Validation Seeking: Constantly seeking attention as a source of validation can lead to an unhealthy dependence on external validation. This reliance can undermine self-esteem and self-worth, as individuals may feel insecure or inadequate without constant affirmation from others.
- Attention-Seeking Behaviors: Some attention-seeking behaviors can be disruptive, manipulative, or harmful to oneself or others. For example, engaging in risky behaviors, exaggerating stories, or creating unnecessary drama to attract attention can have negative consequences. Sometimes when a person receives group praise for sharing something that seems outlandish, there is an incentive to focus on the negative, dramatic or outlandish, moving the Overton window to a more extreme location. “Normal” stories are insufficient to gain the attention or sympathy sought in these cases.
- Shallow Relationships: Constantly seeking attention may result in shallow or superficial relationships, as individuals may prioritize quantity over quality in their interactions. This focus on attention-seeking behaviors can overshadow genuine connections and meaningful relationships. Some people will accept the good feelings associated with attention and short-term validation as a substitute for meaningful connection.
- Misalignment with Values: If seeking attention becomes the primary focus, individuals may compromise their values, integrity, or authenticity to gain recognition or approval from others. This disconnection from oneself can lead to feelings of emptiness, dissatisfaction, or regret over time.
It’s not simply a case of positive vs. negative. Sharing positive experiences can also be attention seeking. As with so many of these psychological traits, the key issue with accusations that someone else is attention seeking is that it requires us to know their motives, something we cannot know, and that people often don’t even know about their own behavior. That’s why charges of attention seeking are probably just outgroup critiques, designed to bolster one’s own credibility in the ingroup by attacking a perceived enemy. And basically, that behavior is pretty similar to attention seeking. It’s seeking approval from one’s own tribe.
- Do you think these charges of attention seeking are valid? Can you give examples?
- Have you ever received unwanted attention and been accused of seeking it?
- Have you seen people within the church also use attention seeking behaviors to gain approval from within the church?
- How do you counter the charge of attention seeking?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Hmmmmm….we’ve got quite a strong core of “attention seekers” right here…..Do we not?
Attention-seekers are shining light on a problem (theirs or someone else’s) that they perceive is not being solved to a specific degree/in a specific way that they envision in their head or heart. This is equally applicable to individuals at all ages.
I have a 7 year old daughter. When she was younger, I learned for myself when “she is seeking attention” by climbing the furniture – labeling it as “attention-seeking” didn’t keep her off my cabinets, connect her meaningfully to me, or discharge my parental obligation towards her safety.
I found that judging the situation as “she needs authorized movement (or at least a climbing surface she can climb on so I don’t keep harping on the furniture and getting tuned out) now” or “she needs a hug and something she can engage with that is better in her mind then climbing the furniture” is the most sustainable solution. Of course, I mentored her by highlighting proper furniture procedures at a time when she can hear me.
While my example is on some levels a “top-down” example (I’m in charge of my child and responsible for what they do) – my “authority” was limited to what I could offer my child in terms of the environment we stayed in and to what my child was willing and capable of engaging with. My focus of “change/contribute to a better environment” does not require being an overseer in that environment:)
I really believe in following Jesus Christ. I know lots of members of the church don’t get that, but in my humble opinion that is central to the gospel of Christ and it’s what every member ought to be focusing on. So what does Jesus Christ do when he sees a person in need of something? He meets that need if he has something to offer. It’s a basic ministering standard.
If I was ministering to an ex mo that needed attention I would give them attention. I would sit and listen to their troubles, like I would with anybody.
Members on twitter ought to be Christ like too. I don’t think the internet exempts us from charity, compassion, mourning with those who mourn, and comforting those who stand in need of comfort.
Those who are at an uncomfortable phase in faith crisis may not be up to hearing about another bad thing that happens to members of the church. If that is the case they can scroll on past or block the account, no harm no foul. But it isn’t their job to silence other people. Who made them a social media traffic cop? Nobody.
I love Amy’s example. Responding to people needing attention is a basic human action. When babies cry it’s always because they need attention in some way. So we meet a baby’s needs. We change and feed them and love them and rock them. If it all works out they get the attention they need and quiet down.
If the church wants unhappy members and ex mos to quiet down, they ought to give us some attention and make sure we know they hear our voices and know about the problems that hurt us. The church needs to provide a better way to communicate with them. Bishops and SPs only doesn’t cut it. I am not going to share my concerns with a busy, overworked guy who is just trying to follow the hand book and can’t change anything himself anyway. True communication has to be direct. Right now the church doesn’t offer a safe avenue for communication and attention to needs they have overlooked. They shouldn’t be surprised when people go to social media hoping to be heard, so that their problem gets the attention it deserves.
Once I had a great visiting partner. She visited the sick, helped a disabled woman, was a good friend, and usually took me with her on her charitable activities. The disabled woman needed regular help, and we worked in teams. My friend was on Thursday’s team and I was on Fridays team. I was also doing some volunteer work outside of the church. My bishop for some incomprehensible reason didn’t approve of volunteer work I was doing outside of the church. My friend was a frequent testimony sharer on Fast Sundays. I wasn’t. My friend frequently talked about our shared spiritual experiences. I didn’t. I was forced by requirements to finish my master’s degree to ask to be released form my calling, then went over a year with no calling. I figured out that the bishop was refusing to give me any calling because I had great female friends in the ward and they complained to me that they had submitted my name for a calling and he turned them down. So, I tried to talk to the bishop about what the problem was. In his frustration with me, he told me I should be more like my visiting partner, giving more to others, and used as examples the things she had shared in fast meeting that I had done with her. I just shook my head and left, too disgusted to even explain.
So, I left that meeting with my jerk bishop understanding that I needed to stand up in church and brag about how saintly I was.
The church rewards those who do their alms before men, that men might see, and not those who do them in secret that the Lord might see.
Twitter was already bad before Elon Musk took over, but now it’s a complete dumpster fire.
Social media is all about attention seeking these days, so the charges of attention seeking are in essence true of virtually everyone. The whole point is to bring attention to a person, idea, product, etc. Flinging “attention seeker” as an insult is often just a cheap attempt to shut someone up, and it’s the pot calling the kettle black.
Regarding attention-seeking in the church, I think President Nelson is the king of attention-seeking behavior, and he’s been that way for decades. We can see it pretty clearly in the recently-published Kimball Diaries where Kimball wrote about RMN asking him in 1979 to write the foreword for a book about Nelson’s life. It turned out that Nelson had already written the foreword and wanted Kimball to put his name on it. It spoke of RMN’s surgical prowess, his “perfect family,” “sweet spirituality,” and that “long will his children and their posterity honor this great man.”
Finding ways to counter claims of being called an attention seeker can be tricky. I think maybe the first step is a bit of introspection – was I actually seeking attention, or was I sharing something in earnest? It could also be a bit of both. It’s not necessarily a problem to write a post that will garner attention, but knowing the intention behind it can shape how to deal with detractors.
Also, understanding your intended audience can make a big difference in knowing how to respond:
–If a post was meant to poke the bear and the bear responded, then the post was a success – in this case, getting called an attention seeker, etc. is probably a sign that it worked. The choice becomes whether to continue poking the bear or just move on with your day.
–If the goal is to shed light on an important topic, then maybe the right response is to engage in earnest to find the people who might be genuinely open for a discussion.
–If the intention was to answer someone’s request for crazy mission rule stories, then the whole point is to get some attention for a crazy story…which is completely fine. Who cares if some people don’t like it? I think choosing to engage and reinforce the story was completely valid. It would be equally valid to ignore detractors and engage with others about their own crazy stories.
In general though, I think avoiding kneejerk negative responses while trying to constructively engage with people who seem open to discuss in earnest. But staying confident while being open for discussion can lead to interesting interactions…but when you find that someone is intent on being belligerent, the best response is usually just refusing to engage further and move on.
Detractors often use the claim of “attention-seeking behavior” to dismiss the validity of public demonstrations, whether peaceful or not. MLK wisely once said “A riot is the language of the unheard”, not to excuse riot behavior but to help understand why a marginalized group of people, when sufficiently frustrated, can be driven to doing things they would not normally do, like mass property destruction and confrontations with the police. I don’t count January 6th in this vein, since the “oppression” and “marginalization” felt by those rioters was imaginary and manipulated; in that case, there definitely was a petulant attention-seeking component to those actions.
But other than those situations, I’m trying to be a little more charitable toward people who exhibit attention-seeking tendencies, especially in Church settings. We all know the type, since every ward has at least a few; they get up to testify every F&T meeting without fail, and seem to overshare and vomit their feelings in public, take up all the time, and never let an open mic go to waste. I have a brother-in-law who is like this too–thankfully I do not live in his ward. In knowing him and people like him for years, I’ve come to realize that there are often legitimate mental health/emotional imbalance reasons underlying these attention-seeking behaviors. It can be quite complicated, as all people are. But the real problem I have with it is that F&T meetings seem to validate these maladaptive behaviors, even encourage them, by adding a spiritual/religious component, rather than encouraging the suffering members to get appropriate professional help. And bishops aren’t helping the situation any. It’s quite possible that the “deeply spiritual” Brother So-and-so who hijacks every testimony meeting is actually suffering from an undiagnosed personality disorder. Maybe the rest of us, the ones quietly groaning and rolling our eyes at their testimony, should be doing more to help.
Valid examples of attention seeking: well, there’s a pathologically insecure guy running for president because he needs the attention and validation. I think he justifies himself with the positive list you shared here, and lacks the self-reflective capability to see all the ways he’s doing the things on the negative list.
In the very unlikely event that said presidential candidate asked my (or anyone’s) opinion on how to counter charges of attention seeking, the best advice would be to suspend the campaign and leave social media forever. One can dream.
My sources for this are vague, but somewhere I absorbed the news that pediatricians and child psychologists are switching the label for “attention-seeking behavior” to “connection-seeking behavior.” The idea is what Amy said, and lws329 added to. If a child is acting out, rather than condemning them for seeking attention, you meet their need for connection.
I don’t know how applicable that is to Twitter and social media. However, when sharing difficult experiences, the person is likely hoping for some positive connections. Someone will say “that happened to me too” or “I felt the same way” or something else that connects with that person’s experiences.
We’re seeking connections, not just attention.
Love this post. More. Please.
I always think of Wife with a Purpose when this topic comes up. At the same time it is kind of a pejorative for “people I don’t like” much of the time.
Narcissistic people aren’t necessarily attention seeking, but it is easy to lump them into the descriptive as well.
I did like the reframing that came in the comments that it is a symptom of other things that call for kindness as a response.
Janey,
I keep that quote in my back pocket for parenting work. “Attention seeking is connection seeking.” I have provided parenting support for a kid who needed a safe place to stay… providing connection has drastically improved his behavior.
This idea that “attention seeking behavior” is really connection seeking is good. Too often people write off the genuine distress in others as “just seeking attention” when in reality the person is screaming for help. Years ago the common poor advice for threats of suicide was that the person was just seeking attention and that it was best to just ignore them. I worked at a suicide prevention hot line once as a volunteer and in our training it was stressed that, yes, threats of suicide were attention seeking of the most desperate kind, and that person really really needs attention. Even if they were not seriously suicidal, they still needed attention to what is seriously wrong in their life. Sometimes they need more than just connection. They may need help changing a situation or healing from past trauma, and it may be far more than you can give them just by connecting. If it is a real life friend of family member, try to get them connected to the help they need, and if is an anonymous on line person, at least try to give them a connection to know they aren’t alone and aren’t just as crazy as they are feeling.
FWIW Angela there was a ward in my mission (which is on the other side of the world from your mission) that wouldn’t let the missionaries attend church without investigators which led to quite the cast of characters being invited to attend our services. It’s a thing. I validate your experience.
I love the idea that attention seeking is really connection seeking. I can’t think of a single example of this not being true. What a great re-framing.
I think it’s easy to say when I act out it’s because I need love but when you act out it’s because you are bad (connection seeking for me, attention seeking for thee). We can all do better in giving others more grace in these moments.
The idea of child misbehavior being viewed as a desperate attempt to be seen is put forward in the work of Dr Daniel J Siegel and Dr Tina Payne Bryson. They have written “No Drama Discipline” and “The Power of Showing Up” among other works. Their work is highly respected and recommended among professionals who work with children and adolescents.
“How do you counter the charge of attention seeking?”
I could tick off a long list of changes to policy and practice in the last ten years. People have been attention seeking, okay…but did it connect? Did the church hear? I think you can’t maintain that it didn’t.