Likeability Expert: Stop Doing This, It’s Why People Quietly Avoid You! | Vanessa Van Edwards
The Diary Of A CEO
Signs You Talk Too Much 0:00
Vanessa Van Edwards opens by explaining how to tell if you talk too much, starting with a nonverbal cue she calls the open fish, where someone opens their mouth as if to speak because they are trying to get a word in. She notes a recent study found that 95 percent of people have worked with someone who talks too much, and she has built a five question test where answering yes more than three times likely means you are an overtalker.
Why Conversation Matters Now 0:30
Van Edwards has spent 20 years studying master conversationalists and describes herself as a recovering awkward person who struggled with bad conversation for a long time. She warns that future generations will talk to technology more than to humans, and that one in six people worldwide are affected by loneliness, even as she herself now sends nine minute voice notes to friends, which she calls the most selfish form of conversation since it does not allow real back and forth. She argues that as technology changes society, people who are masterful at conversation will have a real advantage, and that there is a learnable blueprint behind good conversation.
The Case for This Book Now 2:31
Van Edwards explains that her new book, Conversations, was written because we are in a connection crisis, with conversations getting harder, more awkward, and less satisfying. She says people who invest in conversation skills right now are creating career insurance, since we like to work with, be with, and date people who are good at conversation. She believes this is the last generation that will learn conversation mainly from other humans, since younger generations will increasingly talk to technology instead.
Conversation as a Vehicle 4:01
She describes conversation as the vehicle to get what you want: it helps you get noticed for a promotion, connect deeply enough to find a soulmate, or build the kind of friendships that give a longevity boost if you are lonely. She argues people mistakenly treat conversation as extra, something secondary to ideas, technology, or business, when really social health belongs alongside physical health. She compares good conversation to going to the gym, something you build through repeated reps, and insists it is a skill anyone can learn rather than a trait you are born with.
Symptoms of Bad Conversation 5:00
Van Edwards lists the ways people can tell they are bad at conversation, starting with feeling dread before social interactions, since good conversation should give energy rather than drain it. Master conversationalists, she says, are more joyous, more confident, more authentically assertive, and gain energy from talking whether they are introverts or extroverts. Bad conversation instead brings overwhelm and constant overthinking about what to say next, and it often ends with the person feeling misunderstood or like they weren't able to show their best self, whereas a great conversation leaves someone feeling they understand themselves better.
Origins of the Research 7:00
Her research began accidentally through 20 years of personal struggle with conversation, then sharpened eight years ago when she noticed skilled conversationalists seemed to follow some hidden plan. This led to a formal speed networking experiment involving 500 participants across three separate trials, using cameras in every corner of the room to capture nonverbal signs like gestures, leaning, vocal energy, and volume that distinguish a good conversation from a flat, low energy one.
Ranking Six Conversation Starters 8:32
Participants were given six conversation starters and asked to rate each exchange from one, the worst and most awkward, to five, the best conversation where you would want to marry the person or connect on LinkedIn. The worst starter by far was what do you do, with how are you close behind, because both are socially scripted questions that put the brain on autopilot and trap people in dead end facts like where they are from or whether they have kids.
The Best Opening Question 9:30
The top performing starter was what was the highlight of your day, because it is casual enough not to feel too deep, breaks the autopilot response of typical small talk, and invites the other person's brain to search for something optimistic. The second best was asking if they have anything exciting they're working on, a subtle replacement for what do you do that lets people reframe their work in a positive light. The third was asking about any fun plans coming up, which also nudges the brain toward searching for good things.
The Risky Fourth Question 11:00
A fourth question, what's your story, produced sharply divided results, either a top rating of five or an off the chart zero, because it is actually a much deeper level three question. Asking it too early can push people, especially introverts or those who have never framed their own story, into a stress response, putting them into what she describes as conversational fight or flight.
The Three Levels of Conversation 12:02
Drawing on research by Dr. Dan McAdams, Van Edwards explains that conversation moves through three distinct levels rather than flowing freely. Level one involves general traits and fact based questions, like where someone is from or what they do, because the brain processes social information from least intimate to most intimate, and people need basic facts before they can move toward deeper dreams or worries. She argues a fact is a stop sign, while a story is a doorway, and the goal at level one is to swap fact hunting questions for ones that hunt for story instead.
Better Level One Questions 13:31
Instead of asking what do you do, she suggests asking about someone's personal passion project or whether they're working on anything exciting, since these questions invite stories and hint at underlying values while still being safe enough for an early conversation. She acknowledges this takes a bit of conversational courage, since the safer scripted questions feel more comfortable even though they are far less memorable and less likely to spark real connection.
Competing With the Feed 14:30
Van Edwards describes attending a PTA meeting where every parent was scrolling on their phone instead of talking, which made her realize conversation must now compete directly with people's feeds. To win that competition, questions and answers need to feel dopamine worthy, producing what she calls conversational confetti, a small burst of excitement that pulls attention away from a phone.
Learning From Howard Stern 16:00
After analyzing thousands of transcripts, she found that Howard Stern excels at creating information gaps, using phrases like the weirdest thing or the most surprising thing that happened to me, which make the brain want to know more and pulls people fully into the conversation, even putting phones down at a dinner table.
Conversation at Work 20:01
She pushes back on the belief among founders and CEOs that conversation is unproductive or a waste of time, arguing that connected, engaged employees collaborate better and that communication friction actually costs companies money by breeding self doubt, weak psychological safety, poor brainstorming, and information silos. Teams do not need deep level three conversations with everyone, but easy, frictionless level one exchanges, like knowing a colleague's passion project, make meetings more pleasurable and productive, and she recommends starting weekly meetings with a quick round of tell me something good to build this safely and quickly.
Searching for Real Emotion 23:00
Van Edwards clarifies that level one questions are not about forcing toxic positivity but about provoking a positive search and genuine emotional response. If someone says they don't have a passion project or are going through a hard time, that is actually an opening to connect more deeply by asking if they want to talk about it or if there's anything you can do to help, since the real goal is authentic emotion and story rather than relentless positivity.
Numbers-Based Questions Ease Awkwardness 24:30
For people who find small talk awkward, especially introverts and CEOs, asking a numbers-based question works well as an opener. Instead of asking how someone is or where they live, you might ask how long a couple has been together. If the answer is thirty-eight years, you can follow up by asking what the highlight of those years has been. If it is a short time, you can note they are in the honeymoon phase. The number gives you a fact to build on, and that fact becomes a jumping-off point into a real story rather than staying stuck on a positive-or-negative script.
A Quick Question After Speaking 25:30
When meeting people quickly, such as during a book signing or after a talk, a useful question is asking what someone's favorite part was or what they learned most. This immediately gives the person something to take home and starts to move the conversation toward a deeper level, since asking what someone has always wanted to learn edges into more personal territory.
The No-Work-Talk Party 26:03
At an unusual party where guests had to remove their shoes and were told they could not talk about what they do for work, the rule forced a shift in how conversations unfolded. Because so many people, including the speaker, are used to defining themselves by their work, the ban created panic at first and forced more creative questions. Out of that came the question of what people talk about when they are not talking about work, which opened up freedom in conversation and showed that good conversation does not need to stick to familiar topics like jobs.
Level One as a Treasure Hunt 27:00
The lowest level of conversation, covering general traits and basic facts, works best when approached like a treasure hunt rather than a checklist. Going in with curiosity rather than autopilot changes the intention behind your questions and makes the exchange feel less rote. Skipping this level and jumping straight to something deeper can make people feel like they are being interrogated, so the basics need to come first, just done with more attention than usual.
Level Two Means Personal Concerns 28:00
Level two involves personal concerns such as someone's motivations, goals, values, and worries. You know you have reached this level when you understand both what gets someone up in the morning and what keeps them up at night. A useful exercise is to think of the five people you interact with most and place each one on a level, from only knowing basic facts about them to knowing their deeper motivations, which often reveals patterns in your relationships.
Dream Building as a Skill 29:31
The central skill of level two conversation is called dream building, which means helping someone uncover a secret desire, dream, or side hustle. An example given is pitching a new TV show as a personal, quietly-held goal that would come up naturally over lunch with a friend. Another way to think about it is the idea of a pet project, something someone dreams about and feels proud of, versus a pest project, something that worries them and carries shame, which they may want help with but are afraid to ask for.
Questions That Trigger Growth Mindset 31:00
Asking what someone has always wanted to learn works well because it triggers a growth mindset, the belief that a person can change or learn something new, and it signals a willingness to grow together. Another effective question is asking what someone's biggest goal is right now, which can be tied to moments like birthdays, New Year's, or a new work quarter. Talking about goals activates dopamine and connects people to their own motivation, and level two conversation gives them permission to bring private goals, often kept for journaling or social media reflection, into conversation with another person.
Respecting Silence and Non-Response 33:00
When someone does not want to talk, even after a level one or level two question, the right response is to back off and respect that, since not everyone is ready or willing to connect in that moment. Asking these questions is described as offering a bid, and if the other person does not take it, that is fine and not worth extra energy. Questions can also be adapted to context, such as a taxi driver asking if the passenger is headed somewhere exciting instead of using a scripted line, since these frameworks are guidelines rather than fixed rules.
Origins in Academic Research 34:30
The three-level framework comes from Dan McAdams's research, which the speaker found valuable but difficult to apply directly because academic papers can be dense, sometimes thirty pages long with a single usable insight. The goal of translating this research is to make it practical: level one is about putting someone at ease and harvesting a story, level two is about giving someone permission to share a dream or a worry, and level three is described as coming up next.
Whether You Need to Actually Care 35:30
On the question of whether you must genuinely care about someone's answer to a deep question, the response is that you may not know yet whether you care, since you have just met someone and cannot predict who will become important to you. Many pivotal moments in the speaker's business came from random conversations and unexpected advice. Asking the question at all, even without full certainty of interest, shows enough intent, since simply caring enough to try counts as real effort in conversation.
Fixing the Boring Been Busy Question 36:30
The question been busy is criticized as one of the worst in conversation because it is generic and shuts things down. Boring questions asked of you are actually an opportunity to surprise someone by breaking the script, especially when it comes to answering what do you do, which people often use to size up who you are and even what you might be worth.
How to Answer What Do You Do 38:00
An overheard coffee shop conversation offers a cautionary example: a man described himself as having a system for maximizing achievement in young learners rather than simply saying he was a fifth grade teacher, which confused his listener and gave her brain too many conversational calories to process. The fix is to lead with the simple what before the impressive how, saying something like being a fifth grade teacher who developed a system to speed up reading after ten years of work. A helpful formula is to say what you do, for whom, and how, since this gives people an easy label while still offering a hook of curiosity, and it works even for people with multiple hyphenated roles, who can describe themselves as daylighting in one job and moonlighting in another, or as being mid-pivot between careers.
The Right Length for a Conversational Turn 41:30
Drawing on a large study of conversation called the Cander Corpus, the ideal length for a single turn in conversation is fifteen to thirty seconds, with forty-five seconds being the outer limit before it starts to feel like a monologue. Talking under fifteen seconds can create a kind of conversational scarcity by not offering enough to build on. Recording and reviewing your own Zoom calls can help you learn whether you tend to talk too much or too little in conversation.
Podcasts and Voice Notes Are Not Real Conversation 42:30
Podcast interviews are described as performative rather than natural conversation, since normal turn-taking rules do not apply and one person is often reading notes. Voice notes are called the most selfish form of conversation because they remove all back-and-forth, allowing the sender to talk as long as they want without receiving live reactions, and habits like sending nine-minute voice notes are reshaping how people expect to communicate. This growing reliance on asynchronous exchanges is described as weakening the conversational muscle people need for real, in-person dialogue.
Loneliness and Talking to Technology 44:31
Only three in ten Americans socialize on a daily basis, and one in six people worldwide are affected by loneliness, which is linked to less frequent and more asynchronous conversation. A newer shift is that people are now talking to technology itself, not just through it, and the tone used with an AI assistant, such as bluntly telling it to do better, differs sharply from how one would speak to another person, even though the brain does not always separate the two ways of speaking.
Spotting the Co-Worker Who Talks Too Much 45:00
A study of over a thousand Americans found that ninety-five percent had worked with someone who talks too much, with these chatty coworkers spending an average of ninety minutes of the workday talking, and seventy-one percent of respondents saying this talkativeness kept them from getting their own work done. To check whether you might be that person, you can time your own turns in recorded calls against the fifteen-to-forty-five-second guideline, and watch for a nonverbal cue called the open fish, where someone opens their mouth as if to speak, signaling they want a turn even if they do not interrupt.
Reading Cues Like Eyebrow Raises 46:30
Good conversationalists treat conversation as continual feedback rather than a one-way broadcast, paying close attention to small reactions like eyebrow raises to know when to go deeper or offer another example. This mirrors a habit attributed to Neil deGrasse Tyson, who is said to base material in his books on moments when people's eyebrows rose during casual conversations on planes. Watching for these signals, rather than delivering a fixed script, is what makes an exchange feel like a real conversation instead of a performance, and it is often those unscripted, reactive moments that end up being the most memorable or widely shared.
Reading The Room For Interruptions 48:00
The eyebrow raise signals genuine engagement in conversation, and its absence is a warning sign. If you are going back and forth with someone and there are no eyebrow raises, no little sounds of surprise, and the other person keeps looking away or sitting with an open mouth rather than responding, that tells you the conversation is not landing. This same cue can also be used deliberately. If you want to interrupt someone politely, you can use a small vocal or physical signal, the same kind of cue that would normally show engagement, to break into the exchange without seeming rude.
Entertainers And Appreciators 50:32
There are two types of people in conversation: entertainers and appreciators. Entertainers get their energy from being listened to, admired, and laughed at. They want to share their stories and give advice, and they naturally talk more, which puts them at greater risk of overtalking. Appreciators, by contrast, get their energy from listening. They love to laugh at other people's stories and hear something surprising, awe-inspiring, or embarrassing, but they are far more hesitant to open up about themselves. Knowing which type you are dealing with matters especially when talking to a boss or a VIP, because entertainers want to be asked questions, while appreciators want to be told stories rather than interrogated.
The Green Room Story 51:01
Vanessa discovered this framework while sitting in a green room before a speaking event, watching a very famous person arrive. One person after another tried the same two approaches on him: a compliment or a question, things like "I've been watching you since I was a kid" or "what's your best advice for a young person." None of it worked; he stayed polite but disengaged, offering quick handshakes and photos. Then an AV technician who was about to mic him up asked if he could tell him the funniest story he had, and launched into hilarious personal stories. The famous man lit up, laughed, and started asking the technician questions himself. That moment revealed that some people don't want to entertain you, they want to be entertained.
Appreciators In Practice 53:00
Vanessa describes herself, and identifies Steven, as appreciators, even though this can be surprising given that they both talk for a living. Vanessa explains that because she talks all day for work, the last thing she wants to do at dinner is talk more, and when people ask her deep questions she sometimes asks to go back to lighter, "level one" territory first. Appreciators are much more guarded about revealing themselves, and Vanessa points out that even after a long conversation together, she and Steven have stayed largely at a surface level personally, holding back rather than volunteering their own depth.
What A Conversational Narcissist Looks Like 54:01
Steven raises the case of someone who talks as though no one else is in the room, finishing only when they run out of things to say. Vanessa names this a conversational narcissist. These are people who move through all three conversational levels by themselves, answering their own small-talk questions, describing their goals, and even revealing very personal things without being asked, producing what she calls verbal vomit. The listener is left with a choice: try to teach the person how conversation should work, including directly asking "is it my turn yet?", or decide whether the relationship is worth that investment.
Insecurity And Fear Of Silence 55:00
Asked where this behavior comes from, Vanessa answers plainly: insecurity. She suspects these talkers are trying to impress the listener and searching for a reaction, without realizing that the more they talk, the more the other person wants to leave. Steven notes that some people know they talk too much, have been told so repeatedly, and still can't stop because the pattern is deeply rooted from childhood. Vanessa explains that many overtalkers are terrified of awkward silence. In research asking a few thousand people about their greatest conversational fear, the top answer was not rejection or judgment but the fear of running out of things to say.
Curiosity As The Fix 57:00
The remedy for conversational narcissism, in Vanessa's view, is curiosity, specifically what she calls assertive curiosity. This means not just offering a generic "tell me more" but actively asking what, how, why, and when, really digging into the other person's dream or idea rather than letting the exchange drift back to yourself. When Steven presses on whether the overtalker will actually change, Vanessa suggests testing whether the listener has been giving the talker enough genuine curiosity in return, since a lack of curiosity from others can itself feed the compulsion to keep talking and filling space.
Being Interested Rather Than Interesting 59:01
Vanessa credits Dale Carnegie with the idea that shifted her own approach: it is better to be interested than interesting. Going into a conversation focused on being impressive, smart, or funny is a selfish and pressured way to operate. Instead, she tries to put the other person at ease and help them feel interesting, which tends to have the side effect of making her seem interesting in return. This selfless approach is what she calls conversational generosity, meaning that if someone is overtalking, you can respond generously either by asking for a turn, by letting them entertain you if that's their nature, or by asking them even more questions.
The Study On Popularity And Liking 1:00:02
Vanessa cites a study finding that the most popular kids were not the ones who were most liked by others, but the ones who had the longest list of people they themselves liked. The lesson is that being likable is less about trying to be liked and more about actively, assertively liking other people. Going into a conversation asking yourself "how could I like you" leads naturally to questions that set the other person up to feel likable, shifting the focus away from your own performance.
Dream Killing And The Bad Driver 1:02:00
Steven observes that some overtalkers escalate specifically around certain people, such as becoming far more excessive around someone they find attractive, driven by a deep wish to be understood, chosen, and loved. Vanessa suggests this can sometimes be defused by deliberately answering those needs for them and putting them at ease. She also introduces the idea of dream killing as the opposite of dream building: shutting down someone's idea makes them feel unliked and not understood. She compares an overtalker to a driver who is told they're bad at driving, causing them to tense up and drive worse. Very smart people often dream kill by accident through pure logic, fact-checking a person's still-forming idea rather than nurturing it, which creates a defensive scarcity that pushes the other person to talk even more to prove themselves.
Competence Needs Warmth 1:04:30
Steven recalls interviewing an extremely intelligent candidate whose credentials were outstanding but who received neutral or negative feedback from everyone who met them, because they seemed to prioritize truth over being liked. Vanessa ties this back to why conversation matters: you can be the smartest person in the room, but if people don't feel connected to you, they won't fully trust your intelligence. Competence without warmth tends to trigger suspicion, which is a finding that comes directly from research. This is why the earlier, lighter levels of conversation cannot be skipped, since they build the ease and warmth needed for someone to feel understood, chosen, and ultimately valued.
Building Your Own Signature Question 1:05:30
Vanessa introduces the sixth of her nine conversation questions, built around reverse engineering what you personally love to talk about. When Steven answers that he loves talking about psychology and behavior, she explains that this means he should lean toward asking people about their choices and motivations, the how and why behind what they do. She gives examples of other people's signature questions: Amy Poehler closes her podcast asking what's making people laugh recently, and Ginny Yurich, known for her thousand hours outside challenge, always asks about people's favorite outdoor childhood memory. Vanessa's own signature question has shifted with her research focus, from asking about the most charismatic person someone knows, to favorite body language cues, to now asking about people's favorite conversation starters.
Better Interview Questions 1:06:30
Vanessa extends the idea into behavioral interviewing, arguing that a question like "what's your greatest weakness" invites a rehearsed, unrevealing answer. A better version is asking what your last manager would say your greatest weakness is, since this forces the person to step outside their own perspective and gives you something you can actually verify with a phone call. Similarly, rather than asking someone to describe a time they managed a project, which lets them cherry-pick their best example, she recommends asking for the most recent time, within the last two or three months, so the answer reflects real, current behavior rather than a polished, distant memory.
The Do You Talk Too Much Test 1:10:00
Vanessa walks through a five-question self-test from her book designed to reveal overtalking, all secretly measuring curiosity: whether you leave conversations not knowing much about the other person, whether people nod politely without really responding after you speak, whether you enjoy telling long stories even when people seem too polite to interrupt, whether you've been told you talk a lot, and whether people glance around the room while you're mid-story. Answering yes to three or more suggests you're an overtalker. Steven answers each question and passes the test. Vanessa stresses that the fix is the same muscle throughout: ask more, talk less, since even at work this kind of overtalking creates friction.
The Yap Challenge 1:11:30
Steven introduces a practical exercise called the yap challenge, in which you open your phone camera, pick a topic to teach or share an opinion on, and record yourself speaking without notes. If you naturally stop within fifteen to thirty seconds, that's a good sign, and forty-five seconds is treated as the reasonable upper limit; running on for a full minute or two suggests a tendency to overtalk.
The Yap Challenge 1:12:00
Vanessa and the host try a quick game called the yap challenge, where someone has to answer a question in about fifteen seconds without rambling. She explains that people who talk too much often turn every idea into a long story, while introverts tend to swing the other way and answer too briefly. The point of the exercise is to notice your own default answer length and see whether it fits the moment, since both over-talking and under-talking can throw off a conversation.
Instagram Handle Versus Phone Number 1:13:02
The two debate a real scenario where a man asked a woman for her Instagram handle instead of her phone number after approaching her. Vanessa argues this is a mistake because social media is a curated highlight reel, not real access to a person, and swapping handles lets someone skip the natural back and forth of getting to know someone in conversation. She says giving out a number instead protects the joy of discovery, like asking about a pet's name rather than already knowing everything from a profile.
Why First Dates Feel Awkward 1:14:00
Vanessa connects this to why first dates have gotten harder lately. When people already know a date's friends, hobbies, and family from social media before meeting, they skip what she calls level one conversation, the easy small talk that normally builds a foundation. That forces the date straight into deeper territory it isn't ready for, making the in-person meeting feel stilted even though, on paper, the two people already know a lot about each other.
Making the Case for Dating Apps 1:17:00
The host pushes back, noting most people meet through dating apps now anyway. Vanessa says she is actually pro dating app, since with AirPods in at the gym and busy modern life, apps may be the only realistic way people connect. She distinguishes apps from open-ended social feeds because apps show a limited, pre-selected set of photos and prompts rather than years of unlimited scrollable history, so they preserve more mystery for the actual conversation.
The Risk of Level Three Vulnerability 1:18:01
Vanessa introduces the idea that people often avoid deep conversation because vulnerability feels risky, and she says they are right to be cautious. Sharing something very personal too early, especially at work, can make you seem strange and create what she calls vulnerability regret, the painful feeling of having overshared into a space that wasn't safe or ready to receive it. The host shares an example of interviewing someone who revealed intense childhood details in the first twenty five minutes, which forced him to shift from interviewer into an unplanned listening role.
What Level Three Really Means 1:19:31
Vanessa defines level three as your self-narrative, the story you tell yourself about your own journey and purpose. She stresses that this story is self-creating, meaning the narrative you carry tends to produce more of the same kind of life experiences, so it should be reserved for your most trusted relationships rather than shared casually.
Contamination Versus Redemption Narratives 1:20:01
She describes two broad narrative types researchers have identified. People with a redemption narrative frame their life as one where hard work, grit, and resilience let them overcome whatever comes their way, and this pattern repeats across their work, love, and parenting. People with a contamination narrative feel that hardship has simply happened to them, that they are victims of circumstance no matter how hard they try, and they tend to feel unlucky and out of control. Vanessa notes these narratives are not fixed personality traits, and conversation, especially in safe relationships, can help someone shift from contamination toward redemption.
Narrative Hints in Everyday Talk 1:22:00
Vanessa explains that people leak clues about their narrative type without realizing it, through phrases like everyone always zigs and I zag or everything bad always happens to me. Frequent use of absolute words like always and never tends to signal a contamination narrative and a more black and white view of events, while phrases like there's always a silver lining signal a redemption narrative and a sense of luck.
Redemption Narratives and Health 1:22:30
Asked who ends up more successful, happy, and healthy, Vanessa says people with redemption narratives clearly do. Research shows they live longer, have stronger immune systems, form better connections, and report more happiness, largely because they carry a strong internal locus of control, the sense that they can handle whatever life throws at them. She adds that this outlook is teachable, so parents and partners can help build it in each other over time.
Internal Versus External Locus of Control 1:23:32
Vanessa defines internal locus of control as feeling you have agency over your decisions and reactions, even if you can't control everything that happens to you. People with an external locus of control instead look outward for validation, tracking likes, follows, invitations, and compliments to feel good about themselves. The host offers his own comparison, describing internal locus of control as feeling like a bird able to fly anywhere, versus an external one as feeling like being strapped to a fixed roller coaster track.
A Sponsor Break About Conversation Cards 1:25:00
The host describes a product from his other show, conversation cards drawn from questions asked by guests on the Diary of a CEO, each card printed with the guest's name. He describes using them with his fiancée, colleagues, and friends as a way to spark meaningful connection away from screens, calling them useful for romantic relationships, work teams, and families alike.
The Question Are You Lucky 1:26:30
Vanessa says asking someone whether they consider themselves lucky is a deceptively simple but powerful way to surface their narrative. A quick, confident yes tends to reveal gratitude, a sense of agency, and confidence. Someone who says no should not be met with forced positivity, since telling an unlucky-feeling person to just be grateful usually backfires and makes them dig in further; instead, Vanessa says the better response is curiosity about what shaped that feeling.
When Someone Can't Answer 1:29:01
Vanessa describes a third common response to the luck question: hesitation, saying something like kind of or I'm not sure. This usually means one of two things, either the person has genuinely never thought about it and isn't especially introspective, which is itself useful information, or they don't yet feel safe with you and the question came too soon, perhaps touching on shame or a part of their past they aren't ready to share.
Richard Wiseman's Luck Research 1:30:30
The host references psychologist Richard Wiseman's research showing that people who call themselves lucky actually generate their own good fortune through specific behaviors, including lower anxiety, higher extraversion, a tendency to talk to many people and build many relationships, high openness to experience, and persistent optimism. Vanessa says she has considered running a luck workshop built entirely around helping people harvest a feeling of luck, arguing it is more empowering and less subtly shaming than standard gratitude practice.
Fact Versus Frame in Breakups 1:33:02
Vanessa says the clearest way to spot someone's narrative type is to ask about a past breakup. People with a contamination narrative describe the breakup as something that destroyed them and left permanent damage, like losing trust entirely and never fully recovering. People with a redemption narrative describe the same kind of pain but say it made them stronger and taught them who to choose next time, showing that the underlying facts can be identical while the frame placed around them differs completely.
Five Self-Narrative Archetypes 1:35:30
Vanessa introduces the idea of a self-narrative, the story a person tells about their own life, and explains that it is different from a fixed personality type like Myers-Briggs or an enneagram. Instead it is fluid, shifting depending on how someone is currently viewing their journey. Through pattern-spotting across many conversations, she has identified five recurring archetypes that shape how people behave at work, in relationships, and in conversation.
The Ambitious Hero 1:36:01
The first archetype is the ambitious hero, someone who has faced obstacles but believes grit and resilience let them overcome, and who struggles because they are never satisfied. Their internal monologue is I got this, hustle more, bigger, better, and they often show shiny object syndrome, jumping to new ideas before finishing old ones. Vanessa uses this label for both herself and her guest, who describes putting systems in place, echoing Jeff Bezos, to release ideas at a pace the company can tolerate rather than let them sink it. Ambitious heroes can burn out from chasing productivity and can unintentionally burn others out by pushing them to match their pace, and they get energized talking about goals and metrics rather than small talk.
Finding Your Own Archetype 1:39:00
Vanessa suggests a simple way to surface someone's self-narrative: ask what book, movie, or TV character they feel most like, then ask why, since the traits they name reveal how they see themselves, whether or not it is objectively true. The guest shares that he identifies with the lead character from Pursuit of Happyness, tying it to a period when he was shoplifting food, five months behind on rent, and dodging landlords before turning things around. Vanessa notes that if someone is stuck on this question, an AI can act as a brainstorming partner, offering example prompts to help pull out relevant character traits.
The Contented Pragmatist 1:42:01
The second archetype is the contented pragmatist, someone happy with life as it is who sees no need to change things that are not broken, loves habit, ritual, and tradition, and struggles when pushed to do more. Vanessa describes friends who make great granola or smoothies but resist her suggestion to sell them, illustrating how contentment can look like a lack of ambition when it is really groundedness. She notes this archetype can be a steadying influence on an ambitious hero, and can also be well suited to stable, regulated industries like banking, where an ambitious hero might feel crushed by the lack of fast-moving growth.
Talking With Different Archetypes 1:45:31
Vanessa explains that ambitious heroes get a dopamine hit from talking about goals and progress, and want to hear about others' growth too, which is why check-in texts from her focus on business metrics and traffic numbers. Contented pragmatists, by contrast, want to talk about ritual, savor life's pleasures, and appreciate being honored for what already works, making them the ones who host a slow three-hour Thanksgiving dinner without discussing next year's plans.
The Selfless Helper 1:46:30
The third and, in Vanessa's view, most misunderstood archetype is the selfless helper, whose entire self-worth is tied to giving and being of service, often drawing them into caregiving careers like teaching, coaching, or nursing. Because they cannot say no, they risk compassion fatigue from constantly giving, and many parents shift into this archetype the moment they have a child. They struggle with boundaries and put themselves last, and in relationships they often need permission to stand up for their own needs rather than always deferring to others.
Selfless Helpers and High Conflict People 1:48:00
Selfless helpers often attract takers, including what Bill Eddy calls high conflict people, roughly ten percent of the population, who thrive on drama, see things in black and white, weaponize emotions, and sometimes manipulate others into fighting their battles for them. Vanessa explains that these manipulators can plant an idea in a selfless helper's mind, prompting the helper to go fight on their behalf, which can pull the helper into conflicts that are not really theirs to carry.
How to Talk With a Selfless Helper 1:50:33
Selfless helpers often deflect questions about themselves because they view talking about their own needs as a form of taking rather than giving, so they redirect attention back to the other person. Vanessa says the greatest gift in conversation is telling them explicitly that hearing about their life is a gift to you, not a burden, which helps them feel permission to open up. She also notes that selfless helpers can make excellent managers because they are attuned to others and skilled at drawing out performance, though they can be conflict avoidant unless they learn to frame hard feedback as an act of caring, which builds trust.
The Creative Disruptor 1:51:30
The fourth archetype is the creative disruptor, whose entire ethos is breaking rules and challenging norms rather than following a blueprint. Vanessa admits this is her most personally challenging archetype to get along with, but notes disruptors are often the most original thinkers, willing to question how things have always been done. She points to litigators and disruptive entrepreneurs as common examples, and cites Edward Snowden as someone who wanted to both change and dismantle the system he was part of.
Living With a Creative Disruptor 1:54:01
Vanessa says creative disruptors can act as dream killers, poking holes in plans, which can be exhausting but also useful for refining your own thinking since they force you to defend your position. She shares an anecdote about a friend who constantly texts I hate everything, and how an Instagram algorithm served him a video about this exact archetype, prompting him to ask if it was about him.
The Unlucky Struggler 1:54:31
The fifth archetype is the unlucky struggler, someone who feels that no matter what they do, they remain unlucky, stuck, misunderstood, or overlooked, exemplified by a character like George Costanza from Seinfeld. Vanessa notes they can be very funny, often making self-deprecating jokes, with many great comedians fitting this archetype, but they are also tortured by low self-esteem, and it is tempting for an ambitious hero to try to convince them they are not actually unlucky, which rarely helps.
The Peak End Effect 1:55:30
Shifting to how to leave a conversation gracefully, Vanessa introduces the peak end effect, the idea that people remember the peak and the ending of an interaction most, even though we tend to over-focus on first impressions. Because the ending is what people are actually left with, she offers a formula for exiting a stalling conversation without causing offense.
The Graceful Exit Formula 1:56:00
The formula is a future cue plus a compliment or action. A future cue means mentioning something coming up, like asking about weekend plans, which shifts the conversation's focus away from the present moment. Vanessa then role-plays this with her guest, wishing him well at a wine bar he mentions, before closing with a compliment and a stated action, such as saying it was wonderful talking and then announcing she is going to get more coffee.
Using Tone and Body Language to Exit 1:58:01
Vanessa explains that pairing the verbal exit with nonverbal cues, like taking a step back or angling your body toward the door, signals disengagement clearly, and that tone of voice matters too, describing a distinct closing or exit voice. She warns that the worst kind of ending is a lingering, awkward one where both people repeat empty pleasantries without actually leaving, calling this kryptonite for charisma, and urges being assertive: if you feel a conversation is over, end it cleanly rather than letting it drag.
What Charisma Really Means 1:59:30
Vanessa explains that her eight year old daughter once asked her what charisma is, which pushed her to define it simply. Charisma, or aura, is being someone people want to be near, someone you want to talk to, sit next to, listen to, work with, and play with. When she asked her daughter if she knew anyone like that, her daughter named two kids in her class who Vanessa had independently already identified as the charismatic ones. That match convinced her the definition holds up, and she adds that part of the pull is verbal and physical, and possibly even hormonal.
Clearly Signaling That You Like Someone 2:00:30
The first basic building block of aura is being easy to talk to, which starts with putting people at ease. People are drawn to those who clearly and loudly signal that they like them, saying things like it's always so fun talking to you or you always make me laugh. Vanessa points to a concept called signal amplification bias, the mistaken belief that we are already being obvious about liking someone when we are not, which connects to the liking gap, our tendency to underestimate how much others actually like us.
The Dinner Date Story 2:01:30
Vanessa shares a story about screening a friend's potential partner over dinner, coming away thinking he was just okay. The next day her friend called to say the guy loved her, thought she was funny, and had already bought her audiobook, and hearing this made Vanessa suddenly like him more herself. She was embarrassed to realize how strongly being told someone likes you can shift your own liking toward them, reinforcing that clear signals of liking are a powerful charisma tool.
Warmth, Competence, and Trust 2:03:30
Vanessa notes that 82 percent of our impressions of people rest on warmth and competence, meaning people first read whether someone is open and friendly, then whether they are capable and effective. Every person meeting someone new is really asking two questions, can I trust you and can I rely on you. Charismatic people answer both by signaling warmth and by being assertive and prepared, speaking only when they know something and carrying the conversation with a clear intention or plan.
Trying to Impress Creates Distance 2:04:30
A common mistake that blocks aura is trying to sound impressive, which actually pushes people away rather than drawing them in.
The VIP Party in Austin 2:05:31
Vanessa tells a story from a VIP party in Austin where she was invited into a circle of accomplished people who introduced themselves with dramatic accolades, one claiming to have invented the internet and another claiming to have cured cancer. When it was her turn, she simply called herself a recovering awkward person who helps other awkward people, and the room laughed and relaxed, with several others following her lead into vulnerability. Afterward, during networking, most people gravitated toward her rather than the more impressive introductions, which she took as proof that being easy to talk to beats trying to sound remarkable.
Aura Without Pressure 2:08:00
Vanessa reflects that the most genuinely impressive people she has met, including a few billionaires, tend to be humble and downplay their success rather than broadcast it. The lesson she draws is that people don't need to put pressure on themselves to be impressive in conversation, and that simply aiming to connect is enough. The host agrees, noting that the people in his own life with real aura are not the most accomplished, just the ones he most wants to spend time with, regardless of whether they are introverted or extroverted.
Physically Taking Up Space 2:09:00
Vanessa describes how people with aura, citing examples like Michelle Obama and Tony Robbins, seem to claim more physical space when they enter a room, both between their ears and shoulders and between their torso and arms. This isn't a big dramatic gesture but a subtle, micro adjustment, a slight drop of the shoulders or lift of the head, and it changes everything about how a person comes across, including their vocal tone.
Finding Your Maximum Resonance Point 2:10:32
Vanessa introduces the idea of a maximum resonance point, the lowest, calmest part of a person's natural vocal range, which signals pride and calm rather than the higher, tighter tone that comes with anxiety. She demonstrates by having the host say hello at the top of an inhaled breath, which sounds strained and unpleasant, versus saying hello while breathing out, which sounds far more natural and confident. She notes that people who default to their maximum resonance point, rather than holding their breath before speaking as many do on video calls, are listened to more and come across as easier to talk to.
Eye Contact and Cognitive Load 2:13:30
Vanessa explains that eye contact triggers oxytocin, which builds connection, but it also limits how much complex thinking a person can do at the same time, so total or near total eye contact is not actually ideal. Around 60 to 70 percent eye contact works well in Western cultures, and looking away is expected and useful when someone is thinking hard or retrieving a memory, since full eye contact only suits pure connection, not problem solving.
Looking Away Then Coming Back 2:15:00
When the host observes that he looks away while formulating a thought but returns his gaze when delivering the point, Vanessa explains this pattern serves two purposes at once, connecting emotionally through oxytocin while also watching the other person's face for signs of belief, such as raised eyebrows or a hardened lower lid that signals disbelief. She advises making the strongest eye contact in the first few seconds of a greeting to deliver that oxytocin burst, then feeling free to look away while processing, saving focused eye contact for moments of gauging how someone is receiving what's being said.
Reading Listening Cues 2:16:31
Vanessa runs through nonverbal listening signals, noting that nodding customs vary in places like India, Bulgaria, and Pakistan, and that a head tilt is a near universal warmth signal because it exposes the ear. A lean forward can show both warmth and competence, since it reflects a literal effort to get closer and understand more deeply, while a lower lid flex is a competence cue tied to intense focus rather than judgment, since it mimics the biological act of hooding the eyes to see more clearly, and noticing it lets a speaker choose to pause and unpack whatever just triggered that reaction.
Being Dynamic With Your Plan 2:18:30
Vanessa stresses that having a conversational plan should not turn into mechanically asking a question and immediately checking it off before moving to the next one. If a question like asking about someone's personal passion project sparks real engagement, the plan should be set aside to let that conversation run long and go deep, since being responsive to what actually lights the other person up is what makes someone dynamic and easy to talk to.
Turning Boring Questions Into Gifts 2:19:32
Vanessa suggests writing down the questions you get asked most often, since people tend to face similar questions depending on their job or situation, and then crafting answers that are generous rather than just interesting to yourself. She gives the example of her friend Jason, who cannot smell or taste and turns the routine restaurant question of what are you ordering into a memorable exchange by asking others what he should imagine tasting, a story so effective that another mutual friend remembered him vividly from it. The aim is to avoid dead end answers and instead give the other person something worth remembering and repeating.
Who the Book Is For 2:22:31
Asked who her new book is for, Vanessa says it's for anyone who dreads small talk, networking events, first dates, or the awkward opening minutes of a team call. She frames the deeper stakes as a loneliness epidemic, arguing that if people forget how good real conversation feels, they stop attempting it, so the book aims to strip away dread and replace it with a plan that makes people feel less lonely, a purpose the host agrees applies to everyone.
Kids and the future of conversation 2:23:32
Vanessa worries that children today are increasingly struggling with basic conversation skills, and she notes that teachers have told her they see this directly in the classroom, with kids not knowing how to relate to one another through talk. This concern connects to her new book, which took twenty years to write and is titled Conversation: How to Connect with Anyone and Make Every Interaction Count.
A closing question about sacrifice 2:24:31
At the end of the conversation, Vanessa is asked the show's closing tradition question, left by a previous guest without knowing who would answer it, about whether she sacrificed anything in her personal life to build her success that she now regrets. She answers yes, explaining that she and her family moved to Austin for work, and that the move pulled her away from her own family and friends during the hustle of building her career.
Feeling alone as a new mother 2:25:00
Vanessa says she does not regret Austin itself, since she experienced real growth there, but she regrets being far from her mother and sister when her children were very small. She describes feeling very alone as a new mom without family nearby, and says she wishes she could get back that lost sense of community around such an important time. She notes she has since moved back near the beach in LA, close to her sister again.