Uploaded August 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Who actually gets to talk, and who's stuck listening? I call it "gabbing rights" -- broader than bragging rights, it's the question of who holds the floor and why. It's one of the clearest windows into human behavior and communication skills I've found: why holding the floor is such a major source of self-confidence (what I call "mojonomics"), why we listen to public intellectuals and influencers partly to earn gabbing rights of our own elsewhere, why tribalism and echo chambers work like a repetitive confidence loop, and a couple of techniques I actually use -- "wevidence" and "buttering up vs. bittering down" -- for building the kind of rapport that lets a conversation go somewhere real.
CHAPTERS
0:00 Introducing "gabbing rights" and free expression
1:28 "Mojonomics" and self-confidence in monologues
3:47 Surviving small talk through an anthropological lens
5:53 Earning gabbing rights and public intellectuals
8:51 Echo chambers, confidence currencies, and repetition
11:22 Expanding the room with "wevidence"
13:14 "Buttering up" vs. "bittering down"
16:48 Conclusion and call to engage
#Psychology #Communication #SelfConfidence
I'm Jeremy Sherman, PhD, a strategic consultant since 1997, specializing in dealing with jerks and doubts.
For a free trial session, email me at js@jeremysherman.com
𝐅𝐚𝐜𝐞𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤: facebook.com/jeremysherm
DEALING WITH JERKS
jerkology.net
BLOG: psychologytoday.com/us/blog/jerkology
BOOK: What's Up With A**holes? How to spot and stop them without becoming one.
https://a.co/d/6QDQwrY
AUDIOBOOK: youtube.com/watch?v=iLerthdU4Jw&t
DEALING WITH DOUBTS
adaptivestrategies.net
BLOG: psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ambigamy
BOOK: Negotiate with Yourself and Win: Doubt Management Skills for People Who Can Hear Themselves Think: https://a.co/d/brJpNli
Though informal, I'll argue that my approach is more scientific than a lot of what passes for big picture science. It is really abstract engineering researchers claiming we've got this or that add-on feature without explaining how we got it. That makes for excellent engineering, but it's no more rigorous than supernatural explanations.
For 30 years, I've worked closely with Harvard/Berkeley biologist/neuroscientist Terrence Deacon on developing fully scientific explanations for phenomena assumed by other researchers.
Some examples:
LIFE'S STRUGGLE FOR EXISTENCE: DNA and natural selection don't explain it. We have an entirely natural explanation for how self-regenerating beings (like us) could emerge from chemistry and evolve (by natural selection) the capacity to use DNA molecules.
MOTIVATION: Psychologists just assume it. When they see effort, they assume a motivation, which is like assuming a "soul." We have an explanation for what effort and motivation physically are: Not something added to chemistry but the way chemistry can limit itself by channeling energy into work to regenerate itself.
NARCISSISM: Psychologists say that if you've got these symptoms, you have a thing called Narcissism. I explain how humans, having evolved language, can imagine the ideal, see where we fall short, and self-idealize to compensate. It's something we all do. I study how it gets out of hand and becomes addictive.
My book on our research: Neither Ghost Nor Machine: The Emergence and Nature of Selves (Columbia University Press, 2017) https://a.co/d/9ZNyT7E
My PhD is in decision science. I'm a soulnerd with a deeply connected heart and head. This stuff is my non-spiritual path. I live and breathe my work. It's not some abstract intellectual exercise.
Nor is it art. Science is a campaign to find natural explanations for all natural phenomena – natural, not supernatural - about which you can believe anything.
Still, I try to make this stuff fun, intuitive, and useful. I've written over 1,100 blog articles for Psychology Today on practical decision-making and everything we all go through (11 million views). Their editor-in-chief calls it, "Mind candy for people who aren't afraid to think."
Who actually gets to talk, and who's stuck listening? I call it "gabbing rights" -- broader than bragging rights, it's the question of who holds the floor and why. It's one of the clearest windows into human behavior and communication skills I've found: why holding the floor is such a major source of self-confidence (what I call "mojonomics"), why we listen to public intellectuals and influencers partly to earn gabbing rights of our own elsewhere, why tribalism and echo chambers work like a repetitive confidence loop, and a couple of techniques I actually use -- "wevidence" and "buttering up vs. bittering down" -- for building the kind of rapport that lets a conversation go somewhere real.
CHAPTERS
0:00 Introducing "gabbing rights" and free expression
1:28 "Mojonomics" and self-confidence in monologues
3:47 Surviving small talk through an anthropological lens
5:53 Earning gabbing rights and public intellectuals
8:51 Echo chambers, confidence currencies, and repetition
11:22 Expanding the room with "wevidence"
13:14 "Buttering up" vs. "bittering down"
16:48 Conclusion and call to engage
#Psychology #Communication #SelfConfidence
I'm Jeremy Sherman, PhD, a strategic consultant since 1997, specializing in dealing with jerks and doubts.
For a free trial session, email me at js@jeremysherman.com
𝐅𝐚𝐜𝐞𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤: facebook.com/jeremysherm
DEALING WITH JERKS
jerkology.net
BLOG: psychologytoday.com/us/blog/jerkology
BOOK: What's Up With A**holes? How to spot and stop them without becoming one.
https://a.co/d/6QDQwrY
AUDIOBOOK: youtube.com/watch?v=iLerthdU4Jw&t
DEALING WITH DOUBTS
adaptivestrategies.net
BLOG: psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ambigamy
BOOK: Negotiate with Yourself and Win: Doubt Management Skills for People Who Can Hear Themselves Think: https://a.co/d/brJpNli
Though informal, I'll argue that my approach is more scientific than a lot of what passes for big picture science. It is really abstract engineering researchers claiming we've got this or that add-on feature without explaining how we got it. That makes for excellent engineering, but it's no more rigorous than supernatural explanations.
For 30 years, I've worked closely with Harvard/Berkeley biologist/neuroscientist Terrence Deacon on developing fully scientific explanations for phenomena assumed by other researchers.
Some examples:
LIFE'S STRUGGLE FOR EXISTENCE: DNA and natural selection don't explain it. We have an entirely natural explanation for how self-regenerating beings (like us) could emerge from chemistry and evolve (by natural selection) the capacity to use DNA molecules.
MOTIVATION: Psychologists just assume it. When they see effort, they assume a motivation, which is like assuming a "soul." We have an explanation for what effort and motivation physically are: Not something added to chemistry but the way chemistry can limit itself by channeling energy into work to regenerate itself.
NARCISSISM: Psychologists say that if you've got these symptoms, you have a thing called Narcissism. I explain how humans, having evolved language, can imagine the ideal, see where we fall short, and self-idealize to compensate. It's something we all do. I study how it gets out of hand and becomes addictive.
My book on our research: Neither Ghost Nor Machine: The Emergence and Nature of Selves (Columbia University Press, 2017) https://a.co/d/9ZNyT7E
My PhD is in decision science. I'm a soulnerd with a deeply connected heart and head. This stuff is my non-spiritual path. I live and breathe my work. It's not some abstract intellectual exercise.
Nor is it art. Science is a campaign to find natural explanations for all natural phenomena – natural, not supernatural - about which you can believe anything.
Still, I try to make this stuff fun, intuitive, and useful. I've written over 1,100 blog articles for Psychology Today on practical decision-making and everything we all go through (11 million views). Their editor-in-chief calls it, "Mind candy for people who aren't afraid to think."
