Ten stupid simple behaviours that make people respect you more

Alex Mathers, 10/02/25

I’ve learned a lot about human behaviour through years of awkwardness.

People don’t need to know very much about you to make a snap judgement about the kind of person you are.

You can take advantage of this by making a few subtle shifts in your everyday behaviour.

These will improve the perception people have of you:

Stop always being available.

You don’t always need to respond to that text.

You don’t always need to smile, laugh or get back to people. You shouldn’t be always available, and your real-life can reflect this. It can’t be an act. It is a sense of scarcity that creates the perception of high value.

Create a life that makes you and your time scarce.

What impression does ALWAYS being available transmit?

That’s right.

You have little self-respect, you aren’t focused on your own stuff, you aren’t in high demand, and you probably don’t have a mission — people will sense this.

Talk less.

I was always ashamed that I spoke little at school. Much of this came out of my shyness, but even today, I often find it difficult to find the words.

This is ok, because speaking less demonstrates a comfort in one’s own skin if coupled with a relaxed demeanour. It gives the other person a chance to speak more, which most appreciate and pitches you as open, thoughtful, and generous with the space you give.

Speaking less also generates a mystery about you that keeps people interested, and wanting to know more about you.

Be relaxed and move slow.

Quick movements and fidgeting make you appear like a nervous woodland creature in the headlights.

You can encourage relaxation, and even a calmer mind, by moving a little slower. It’s a positive loop. Not rushing around like a headless chicken signals you are in control; you have time, and you go at your own pace.

This alone will shift the perspective others have of you as well as the one you have of yourself.

Sharpen up your physical appearance.

We can’t change how we came out of the womb, but we can maximise our appearance.

There’s a reason you feel better after a haircut or a manicure. What does it say about you? Looking at a body we like in the mirror makes a difference.

We might claim that caring about how we look is shallow, but deep down you know it’s key, and will alter the perception others have of you greatly.

That’s nature. It’s reality. Your resistance to this will keep you miserable.

Talk a fraction slower.

One of the major contributors to my overcoming social anxiety was adopting a thing called ‘slow talk.’

Talking slower helped tremendously. Why? Because it gives me time to think. It slowed me physically and slowed my thinking too. This is what an anxious me needed most. Space.

This works for anyone. Most of us are rushing through life and wondering why we’re anxious.

Talk slower and you will calm down, elevate your perceived status, and garner respect.

Know your boundaries and exert them.

People-pleasers have few boundaries.

They equate pleasing people with an increase in their self-worth and then wonder why they go to sleep at night depressed.

People who command respect don’t allow an invasion of their time and energy. They know when and how to say ‘no.’ This is how to stay sane and maintain the energy that the world needs from you.

Boundaries keep all this in check, and others will be inspired rather than offended by it.

Dress well.

The seemingly superficial can make a huge difference.

Dress well and you will feel better and create an entirely different impression versus looking scruffy. It makes a huge difference.

You knew this though. I’m just here to remind you ;).

Stop trying to impress everyone.

Many of us grew up picking up the idea that if we please other people (our parents), we’d be rewarded and we’d be seen as good (little boys and girls).

Pleasing people is not a life strategy that will lead to anything good for you (unless you prefer to see your soul gradually diminish and people slowly lose respect for you).

Instead, be valuable and serve people when it’s appropriate.

Oh, and confront the reality that you’re being insincere.

You don’t really believe what you’re saying when you’re overly nice to everyone, do you?

Hold people’s eye.

Nothing says ‘I’m confident and I am interested in other people’ than holding someone’s gaze, especially for a little longer than might feel comfortable.

This will stand out in a fidgety world where everyone is avoiding each other’s gaze, glued to the adult version of the baby’s dummy — their phones.

Take up more space.

Spread out a little when you sit down.

‘Man-spreading’ was a term coined by those jealous of those with confidence.

Gaslighting’s Lesser-Known Cousin Needs a Name—So I’m Giving It One

Because once it has a label, it’s easier to spot and harder to fall for.

Violet Abstract, 09/14/25

We have gaslighting. We have negging. We have weaponized incompetence. All names for manipulative dynamics people have long experienced but had difficulty putting into words. But once named, these tactics became easier to identify — and shut down.

This one’s been lurking just behind gaslighting for years. It’s time we called it out. It slips in under the guise of curiosity and faux intellectualism, when in reality, it’s neither. Like most forms of manipulation, it’s about control.

I’m dubbing it The False Judge or The Unqualified Judge.

Here’s what it is, how to identify it, and how to bow out of it before it hardens. Or, if you’re feeling sassy, how to flip the script.

The False Judge

The False Judge tries to assert dominance by creating a dynamic where the target’s position must be proven to them — while exempting themselves from having to prove anything in return.

The False Judge continually puts the “burden of proof” back on the target they aim to subordinate. This Unqualified Judge casts themselves as the arbitrator of the target’s supporting evidence and personal credibility. They have the final say on what is true, real, or relevant.

If successful, the target becomes the only person in the discussion with a “burden of proof” at all, as opposed to the back-and-forth that underpins any sincere engagement of intellectual discourse, even disagreements.

In doing so, they assume the dominant position like a teacher grading a student’s assignment, a boss reviewing an employee’s work, or a parent inspecting a child’s completed chore list.

In all of these dynamics, one party has power over the other.

Gaslighting and Sea Lions

False Judge manipulation has substantial overlap with both gaslighting and sea lioning. While gaslighting is well understood, sea lioning is lesser known.

Sea lioning is an online trolling and harassment tactic that “politely” baits the target with endless questioning, requests for evidence and sources, and asking relentless clarifications until the target gets frustrated. Then the troll moves to hit the target with ad hominem attacks, framing them as unreasonable.

Where the sea-lion weaponizes curiosity, the False Judge weaponizes authority — covertly and baselessly.

And the moment you engage from a subordinate position with an Unqualified Judge, you validate them. They manipulate the underlying psychological desire for external validation, similar to the mechanism negging relies on.

How to Spot a False Judge

*  You’re the only one offering real evidence to support your position in what should be a two-way discourse
*  They respond exclusively with valuations of what you’ve presented, usually negating, like “I don’t agree” or “No, it’s not,” without offering any substantive counterpoint or evidence
*  Oftentimes, Unqualified Judges don’t even have a stance of their own— just a presumed right to negate yours
*  They reject example after example you provide without presenting anything of their own for you to examine, consider, or challenge.
*  You’re the only one with a burden of proof.
*  They position themselves as the final arbitrator of what’s valid.
*  They keep nudging you to “prove it,” dragging you deeper into a subordinate role while never proving anything themselves.

Why They Do It

If someone instinctively feels threatened — because you seem more informed, confident, or convincing — they may try to rebalance the scales.

Not by learning more, but by forcing you to appeal to them. This could also be invoked if someone simply feels they are, by default, superior to the target. It’s about control.

A False Judge doesn’t engage in debate in good faith. They see themselves as quality control over your ideas, points, and ways of thinking — while completely relieving themselves of substantiating theirs.

If they can’t be dominant intellectually, they will try to artificially create superiority on a different plane: interpersonally.

Example of a False Judge Conversation in Action

To illustrate, let’s examine a very arbitrary example “debate”—and for the love of God people—this is an entirely made up example.

Instead, this is more about the power dynamic created by The Unqualified Judge’s positioning in this discussion—and where the target falls into it.

Person 1: “School buses are yellow.”
The Unqualified Judge: “No they’re not.” (The UJ offers nothing of substance in their “counter.” They simply negate.)

Person 1: Takes out phone, Googles “school buses,” opens the images tab, and shows the Unqualified Judge an entire feed of yellow school buses as Exhibit A of supportive evidence for their position.
The False Judge: “That’s just a couple of examples,” or “That doesn’t mean all buses are yellow.” (Again, no supporting evidence. In fact, the UJ hasn’t even expressed a position—they’ve simply negated the target’s stance.)

If the Unqualified Judge actually meant to engage in this debate in good faith, they would attempt to show counter evidence.

*  If Person 1 moves to present Exhibit B (e.g., statistics show that 97% of school buses are yellow) before the False Judge has offered their own Exhibit A of counter-evidence in support of their position, the target has unwittingly fallen into the trap of a subordinated power dynamic with an Unqualified Judge.

By presenting Exhibit B before the Unqualified Judge has offered their own counter Exhibit A, the target implicitly exempted the UJ from their duty to provide any counter-evidence and handed them the power to evaluate the validity of theirs.

Most of the time, those who attempt the False Judge manipulation tactic cannot be convinced. It is rarely about the topic at hand—its about superiority. No matter how thorough your evidence, research, data, reasoning, or relevant examples, it will seldom make a difference.

How to Handle A False Judge

If you find yourself in the crosshairs of someone who gets their sense of self-worth by feeling superior to others—even in areas they’re not—here’s how to handle it.

*  Present one part of your position’s supporting evidence or facts (i.e., Exhibit A only).
*  Don’t engage further until they provide their own evidence — doing so reveals whether they’re engaging or playing dominance mind games.
*  Only engage further if they offer a sincere counter.
*  Their personal opinion (“I don’t think so.”) of your position is not a counter.
*  Most the time, a False Judge expects you to keep offering more evidence. Don’t do it. One Exhibit at a time: Ping pong style.
*  If they don’t offer evidence to support their own position, “rest your case” in victory.

Meet them on the level they are trying to covertly operate in: the interpersonal. Some examples of what you might say, with varying degrees of clap-back strength for your comfort:

*  “You haven’t added anything of substance to this discussion.”
*  Directly ask them what their position is. (e.g., what color do you think school buses are?)
*  “I’m not particularly invested in your buy-in on this.”
*  “I’ve presented an example/fact/image; you’ve presented nothing. I can only conclude you have nothing to back your stance.”
*  “Oh, I’m not your personal researcher. If you have further doubts, well, Google exists.”

If they egg you on — and they often will, because the more you engage, the more empowered they feel— either 1.) match or one-up their dismissiveness or 2.) ignore them altogether.

While most people might lean into ignoring them, I suggest naming the dynamic first. But if you’re a little fiestier, like yours truly, I typically give the warning shot.

Then, if they continue trying to create a false sense of superiority, I like to one-up the dismissiveness with close-outs like “if you say so” or my personal favorite, “okay big guy.”

That’ll be my last engagement.

Naturally, proceed at your own comfort level. I happen to find the implosions hilarious, but I’m not exactly a benchmark for emotional restraint. Know thyself.

Of note, Unqualified Judges relish in the power dynamic. If they see you getting worn out and losing interest in continuing, they might concede one trivial point to renew your hope in the potential to convince them to keep the dynamic going. Don’t take the bait.

Counter Arguments, Even Weak Ones, Are *Not* Manipulation

I write long, detailed theories sometimes. Some people disagree with them. Sometimes, someone will offer a solid enough counterpoint to change my mind or adjust my position. But that’s pretty rare.

Best case scenario, a good faith counter will present something I didn’t know when I formed my hypothesis, perspective, or interpretation. In that case—even in disagreements and debate—both parties learn a little something they didn’t know about the topic before, whether or not they change their mind about it. I welcome those. That’s productive, mutual discourse.

Other times, people offer what I assess as weak, irrelevant, or low-credibility evidence or counterpoints. But even then, I’ll usually consider it — and sometimes engage.

I recently had a guy commenting on one of my stories—I don’t even recall which one—about how women are evil, everything is their fault, even the transgressions of men, yada yada, you know the type. He was sourcing low-quality YouTube clips of grifters making good money, riling people like him up.

Obviously, he did not alter my position whatsoever, and we very much disagree wholeheartedly about literally everything. However, despite my critiques of his position and sourcing, I would not consider him to be a False Judge. He was still assuming his “burden of proof” by providing what he considered to be sources and evidence, even if I disagree with the credibility and relevance of those sources.