attention

A friend talked about an acqaintance of ours: "well, she is sensitive to the reactions of others. She is perhaps too sensitive in the sense that she knows all too well how others will respond." I wanted to object somehow, but couldn't find words to articulate what was on my mind. So, we talked about a person who takes pleasure in provoking others to react. (That is my description.) She is very clever. She has full control over the social situation that her provocation gives rise to. I tried to point out that this might be "sensitivity" in one sense but not in another. I would say that the provocateur's sensitivity is based on knowledge, whereas the other type is not.

I might be fully aware of the fact that you are mad at me for having said something. This doesn't necessarily mean that I take your being angry as anything else than a certain social fact. OK, so you are mad, that is the situation. "I better not mess with you right now." But this doesn't mean that I am moved by your reaction.

Social sensitivity sometimes means that I know how to tread carefully (or navigate the minefield, if that is the purpose), I know what is appropriate and what is not. We talk about "reading people" and I guess that is a quite good way of putting it. "I read you like an open book" - now, I might go ahead and stab you in the back for all that. (Isn't it always a bit creepy if a person is described as somebody who can "read" people? I come to think of a slick guy who interviews peope for jobs, scanning their potentially employable souls with a single glance)

The person who masterfully knows how to push your buttons knows how to get at you (your weak points, what makes you break off with social amiability). In that sense, she is sensitive to something. The movies Borat & Brüno (which I saw recently) depend completely upon this kind of sensitivity. I like S. Baron Cohen, I think what he is doing reveals some abhorrent reactions. But what kind of attention does he direct at the people he subjects to silly questions?

It is not the case that the provocateur possesses some neutral skill that is foundational for every form of attention. (My problem with "empathy", a concept that is often used in this way - or even worse, "emotional intelligence", I guess that concept is out of fashion - which is a blessing of sorts.)

But there is also another form of attention, or sensitivity. This has nothing to do with scanning the facts of the situation, reading signals or interpreting double meanings. The distinction I am interested in is a distinction between two senses of "beeing seen". "I felt she saw right through all of my bullshit". 1) You see through my bullshit - 1-0 to you - you are ready to attack my weak points. 2) You pay attention to what I mean, and, thus, you care about me enough to look beyond the bullshit that is on the surface. In case 2) "social facts" are things that are brushed aside but in case 1) what concerns you is above all to put me in a specific light, to make me appear as something. In the other case, you don't give a damn about what I appear to be. The person who intentionally attempts to elicit a particular response from another does not "see" or "pay attention" to a person in the second sense. But I still think that the concept of "attention" (and sensitivity, too) can be used in both ways (after all, it's not about defining concepts, rather - coming to grips with what a situation is about).

ps: n.b.: here's a website indexing trollish battle-thirsty behaviour...funny!