Anti-glib: Knowing what you’re talking about
Glibness is a disease that's particularly virulent in Silicon Valley, politics, entertainment and the executive suite. Someone has an insight (or gets lucky) and then amasses power. Surrounded by more than they're willing to understand, they substitute the glib statement, the smirk, the cutting remark. They turn everything into a status-fueled professional wrestling match.
It's usually done out of fear, and, ironically, the fear-induced glib approach merely makes things worse, creating even more fear.
The alternative is to know what you're talking about.
To have done the reading. [I've seen this problem in boardrooms, examination rooms and classrooms across the planet].
To be able to hold conflicting ideas in your head as you consider options.
To know and respect the people who have earned a place at the table of ideas.
To have energetic engagements with people who are more experienced, wiser and more connected than you are.
To admit that you were wrong, because you didn't know what you know now, and then to chart a new path.
To ignore sunk costs when making new decisions.
The fans of professional wrestling (in all its forms) are entertained by the glib, because it releases them from the obligation to understand metaphor, to look more deeply, to engage with a logical argument.
Everyone else would rather work with people who know what they're talking about, who respect those they work with and most of all, who seek useful outcomes, not just the comfort of a short-term win.