I suppose if all you want to talk about is the statistical relevancy of scientific experiments, this might be possible.
IMHO (see, there I go, talking about myself), it's completely impossible to talk about anything without it being subject to your personal interpretation, memory, and bias, since the only knowledge you can have is... well... subject to your personal interpretation, memory, and bias.
Now... having a running monologue about oneself... I did this, I did that, I think this, yadda, yadda, yadda.
That is both unnecessary, and annoying.
Most of what you count as talking about ones self, however, seem to me to be where most of the interesting convesations take place. That's your opinion? Why? What formed that opinion? How does that mesh with my own understanding that's completely opposite?
Certainly, there are also a lot of inanities included, but, well, that's the way it goes. On the otherhand, how much of "talking about oneself" isn't about the person, but just a way of introducing a topic of convesation -- "Hey, I read in the paper..." The important thing isn't that I read something in the paper -- what I really want to talk about is the content of whatever article it was. With some personal bias thrown in the mix.
I once read somewhere that there are three classes of intelligence -- those who talk about things, those who talk about people, and those who talk about ideas. Personally, I think that's a bit of tripe, and I like a good mixture of the three. To get what you want seems, to me, to restrict one unnaturally to the first.