Why do some public figures feel “off”?

I spent time interrogating my unease with these 15 well-known voices and I hope my conclusions help you understand your own unease too.

They sound smart. They seem trustworthy. I like most of them. But something in my nervous system twitches when I hear them.

I think they are hiding a level of 'incoherence' or 'misalignment' behind their personas (like nearly all of us do!). This is not to cancel or tear down.

This is to bring clarity so you can finally trust what your gut is already telling you but can't quite say out loud.

1. Jordan Peterson

“He says what I’m thinking… but why does he sound like he’s about to snap?”

What’s really happening: His words are sharp but his energy is chaotic. His voice carries grief, fear, rage...all tightly packed into a box I'd label 'controlled'. I don’t feel safe. I feel pulled in.

Why it’s happening: He’s brilliant, but unintegrated. Still at war with chaos inside and out. His intellect got strong but his nervous system stayed fractured. So his message usually lands, but his body never does.

2. Sam Harris

“He sounds calm… but why do I feel emotionally dehydrated after listening to him?”

What’s really happening: Sam’s logic seems pristine, but his presence is cold. There’s no felt 'self' behind the words. Just control. His calm isn’t peace; it’s absence.

Why it’s happening: Sam built his identity on reason so emotion, ambiguity, and even awe must feel like threats to him. He didn’t conquer his ego, he just silenced it! And with it, the ability to feel.

3. Brené Brown

“She speaks so much about vulnerability… but why does it feel rehearsed and...invulnerable?”

What’s really happening: Her words invite me in. But her body doesn’t. There’s tension under the TED talk tone. Her nervous system is performing openness, not inhabiting it!

Why it’s happening: Brene built a brand on being 'real'. But the pressure to stay relatable must have made her package it. Her message says 'real' but the signal is braced and my body knows it. It doesn't believe her.

4. Oprah Winfrey

“She feels warm and wise… but something in her always pulls back at the edge of real truth.” 

What’s really happening: Oprah radiates presence until things get too raw. Then she pivots, comforts, reframes. The warmth is real. But it’s filtered.

Why it’s happening: She became America’s emotional anchor and couldn’t afford to fall apart. She learned to manage truth in a way that kept everyone safe, including herself. Her weight struggles became part of the public narrative, and I say this as someone who’s done the same (explored my weight struggles on camera). But you can feel it: the glow is part healing… and part performance.

Like many of us, she got trapped playing the person she hoped to become (and ultimately found resolution in semaglutides - Ozempic etc).

5. Russell Brand

“He sounds enlightened… but why does it feel like chaos dressed in poetry?”

What’s really happening: He speaks fluently about presence, ego death, higher self but his energy is frantic. There’s no still point. His words expand, but never, ever settle.

Why it’s happening: Russell replaced addiction with spiritual performance. I think he means it. But his nervous system is still sprinting. The mask now says “guru” instead of “comedian” but it’s still a mask!

6. Jay Shetty

“It all sounds right… but why does it feel like a TED Talk married a shampoo ad?”

What’s really happening: His content is smooth, polished, predictable. The advice lands but it never lingers. You forget it the moment it ends. 

Why it’s happening: Jay reverse-engineered wisdom into a content strategy. It’s all aesthetic, no weight. His brand isn’t false, it's just empty. Spiritual fast food: warm, digestible, forgettable!

7. Douglas Murray

“He’s making a brilliant point… but why does it feel like he’s holding back a breakdown he doesn’t even know he’s having?” 

What’s really happening: He speaks about grief, loss, and the madness of the modern world with surgical clarity but you don’t feel it land. His voice is calm. His face is calm. But my body tenses up. Like he’s walking me through the ruins of something he doesn't really care about anyway.

Why it’s happening: He was trained to debate, not feel. Probably from a young age (UK boarding school). So now he channels emotion through eloquence instead of presence.

It’s not fake, it’s just sealed with industrial grade sealer from Bunnings. His coherence is intellectual. His grief is managed. I hear the echo of someone who made himself too composed to collapse.

8. Simon Sinek

“It’s motivating… but why do I feel like I just got pitched a leadership cult?”

What’s really happening: Simon simplifies everything into digestible frameworks. Which works until you try to live it. The ideas are clear. But the depth isn’t there.

Why it’s happening: His gift is packaging insight into a frame, not embodying it. Wisdom turned into slogan. Sure, Start With fucking Why.

Brilliant. Valid. But does everything have to be a slogan or a framework?

9. James Lindsay

“He makes sense but why do I feel like I’m being shouted at even when he’s right?”

What’s really happening: James was once calmly brutal. Lately, he’s just brutal. The coherence is fraying. The signal feels more like a siren now.

Why it’s happening: He built himself as a watchdog for ideology. One of the most important voices I've ever heard. But now everything looks like a threat. Everything. And when that’s your frame, coherence collapses into combat. Even his nervous system seems tired of fighting.

---

10. Lex Fridman

 

“He’s calm. He’s kind. But why does it feel like he’s not quite in the room?”

 

What’s really happening: Lex speaks slowly, thinks deeply and yet something’s missing. It's like watching someone watch himself.

 

Why it’s happening: He’s not faking. But he’s not embodied either. I reckon he replaced social overwhelm when young with a curated stillness. His mind shows up. His body never does. I do love his show.

 

---

11. Steven Bartlett

 

“It all feels sincere. So why do I feel nothing?”

 

What’s really happening: Steven’s brand is smooth. Too smooth. The stories land and the guests shine. Which is why I keep coming back to his podcast every time. But his presence? It never fully arrives. It’s always slightly… lacquered.

 

Why it’s happening: He built a performance of vulnerability so clean it left no real mess. There’s probably pain behind the polish but he’s not bringing that part to set. Probably can't, considering his formidable CEO responsibilities.

 

---

12. Tucker Carlson

 

“He says he’s 'just asking questions'. But I feel like I’ve already been led to the answer.”

 

What’s really happening: Tucker frames the conversation with surgical control then claims neutrality. You agree with him before you know what you’re agreeing to. That’s not clarity. That’s choreography.

 

Why it’s happening: I think he learned early how to win rooms with charm and contempt. So now he sets the pins, knocks them all down but one, and shrugs like he has no idea why 1 pin is still standing. It feels like truth, but it’s rigged. I'd probably get along with him famously though in real life, off camera where he no longer has to perform.

 

---

13. David Goggins

 

“He’s impressive. But is he… free?”

 

What’s really happening: Goggins is at home in pain. That part’s real. But there's no softness, no stillness, no joy. The body is disciplined. But him? he's locked in a war.

 

Why it’s happening: He out-ran his demons but never sat with them. I tried to as well (but couldn't run as fast so had to face them). His coherence is forged in suffering, not integration. The mask says “toughness,” but underneath it’s still terror.

 

---

14. Dave Rubin

 

“He sounds confident. But why does it feel like he’s always trying to catch up to his own opinion?”

 

What’s really happening: Rubin mimics coherence. He mirrors his guests, restates big ideas, nods a lot. It looks aligned. But it feels hollow. Like he’s broadcasting stability he hasn’t actually built yet.

 

Why it’s happening: He lost faith in the old tribe but hasn’t fully rooted in anything new. So he borrows tone and conviction from whoever’s next to him (Go Trump!). It’s not deceit, it’s symbolic drift. I'm not watching a man at rest, I'm watching one still looking for where to land.

 

He taught me 'classical liberalism' but then I found the real thing (Adam Smith et al) and realised Dave doesn't really know what he wants. But I'm forever grateful he created https://discernable.locals.com

 

---

15. Ben Shapiro

 

“He’s fast, sure. But why does it feel like there’s only one lane and I'm being shoved down it?”

 

What’s really happening: Ben used to feel like a relentless truth engine: exhausting but grounded. Now the logic feels locked. No space. No nuance. Just a single pre-approved track, pushed hard.

 

Why it’s happening: He narrowed his field. Hard. What started as intellectual combat became tribal defense. I'm not being invited to think. I'm being enlisted.

 

And finally, 3 bonus figures that make me feel settled. They are internally aligned, cohered, and not hiding.

---

Keanu Reeves

 

“I don’t even follow his work that closely… but when I hear him speak, my body relaxes.”

What’s really happening: Keanu isn’t trying to win me over. He doesn’t sell insight. He doesn’t posture. His nervous system is slow, his tone is level. Nothing in him scrambles for my attention.

Why it works: He’s not performing peace. He IS at peace (unless you kill his dog!). I feel him not because he’s loud, but because he doesn’t leak. No twitch. No pretend. No spin. Just a man who’s not running from himself.

 

“He says wild stuff sometimes… but I never feel manipulated.” 

What’s really happening: Joe doesn’t flinch. He’s grounded, open, and not trying to impress anyone. I might roll my eyes sometimes but my body never tenses. There’s no trick in it. And he's real. 

Why it works: He built a life that matches his system. Sauna, elk, weirdos, DMT...it’s all real for him. He’s not pretending to be deep, and that honesty, even if shallow, is a clean, cohered signal that puts me at ease.

Brett Weinstein

“Even when he's wrong or ludicrous (remember the bandana masks?)…I never feel the need to armor up when he talks.”

What’s really happening: Brett brings steadiness. Even in tense territory. His thinking is complex but his tone is clear. No seduction. No scramble. Just a man doing the work out loud. The opposite of his brilliant brother Eric who makes me feel untethered.

Why it works: He’s coherent. Not because he’s always right, but because he’s not pretending to be more right than he is. You’re not being pulled into his orbit. You’re being invited to look where he’s looking and make up your own mind.

The debate on Rogan between and Douglas Murray and Dave Smith left everyone in a tangled mess. I don't think they - or the viewers now picking sides - realise what just happened. Or why so many arguments and debates unravel just like this one did.

Dave and Doug weren't really arguing about 'experts' or 'Israel'. They were clashing at a deeper level...in fact, I count 5 layers. Each layer is built on the previous, compounding the friction and disagreement. Those two were NEVER going to agree, and the people arguing now won't either. Here's what I see.

LVL 1: It starts with the surface clash, the part we are all arguing over. Murray defends Israel’s actions as a matter of survival, pointing to October 7th as proof of the stakes.

Smith pushes back hard, focusing on Gaza’s suffering—tens of thousands dead, entire neighborhoods flattened, kids crying, then dying under rubble.

They’re stuck on facts: dates of attacks, numbers of casualties, who’s to blame for what. It’s where most debates stall, spinning in circles over whose version of history is right. Arguing details while the real divide grows. This layer is the loudest, but it’s only the surface.

LVL 2: Dig deeper and it's clear that they have different ideas about the morality of war. Murray channels Augustine and Aquinas (Just War Theory) in presenting Israel's fight as righteous. The state's duty to protect its citizens is paramount and authorises heavy force. Almost any price is worth it to save the lives who are in 'the right' (not Palestinians) according to the jus in bello doctrine ('don't put rocket launchers in hospitals!').

Smith measures the cost differently. He questions the morality of any war that stacks up dead civilians and destroys homes and societies unendingly. Even IF Smith originally saw the war as just, it certainly isn't now that the bodies are piling up and potentially overshadowing the catalyst (Oct 7).

Murray measures wars as just by their virtue and Smith measures wars as unjust by their outcomes. But why? How can they see the same event so differently?

LVL 3: Murray and Smith seem to be operating from a different set of ethics (neither being more 'correct' than the other): Murray leans on deontology or, failing that, Aristotle's Virtue Ethics.

He often fails to answer Dave Smith's questions on collateral damage because that's not the main determinant in his mind of what is 'right'.

Instead, he champions virtues like duty, responsibility, and being anchored to what's 'right' even when it gets messy. For Murray, the moral imperative trumps the chaos. Principle > Fallout.

Smith on the other hand is a consequentialist (like most modern secular westerners) who relies on teleological arguments. Forget about why the war started, how is it going now? Who is suffering? What is being lost? When will Israel stop killing kids?

He is weighing good and evil based on results, regardless of intent or duty. For Smith, morality is determined by outcomes. Fallout > Principle.

Principled-focused people are more consistent. Outcomes-focused people are more adaptive.

Basically, you'd want a Murray writing your laws (legislative) and a Smith interpreting them (judiciary).

Unfortunately in the world today we mostly have the reverse: politicians passing laws all over the moral map and judges scrambling for some principled consistency. Society would be better if this was reversed.

Both are needed. Which are you?

And where do these moral roots grow from?

LVL 4: Deeper still, it’s about truth’s source. You can't make an ethical decision unless you know what is real, what is true. So who or what decides that? Where does truth come from?

Murray trusts those who’ve seen it - experts, people on the ground, those who’ve walked through Israel and felt the tension firsthand. He thinks that experience, credentials or proper training give you the right to define a narrative and set a truth, or at least name a truth when you find it.

For Murray, the truth is something valuable and worth searching for, like a diamond in the rough, and it's the disciplined and expert class who are better at identifying it.

It's an elegant path to truth.

Smith on the other hand wants everyone to question everything, no gatekeepers. He believes truth emerges from open debate and that after letting every voice challenge every narrative, the truth will remain because it is, well, the truth.

It's a messy path to truth.

They pull truth from opposite places, one from authority, the other from anarchy. Truth is more special but more fragile (susceptible to corruption/disinformation) for Murray. A diamond to be prized. Truth is more ugly but more uncorruptible for Smith. A lion to be unleashed.

They are talking past each other now, because at their core they see the world in different ways.

LVL 5: At the bottom, it’s core beliefs, the bedrock of how they see the world.

Murray thinks humans need order—clear lines to keep chaos out, structures like nations or institutions to guide us, to hold the darkness at bay.

He sees Israel as a necessary line, a bulwark against anarchy.

Murray expresses fear of disinformation and the damage it can do to society. With the unleashing of X post Elon, we've all had to learn how to filter out the noise for ourselves (censorship department gone) and sometimes it's impossible to determine.

We are entering into a world that Murray fears, and his fears have a logical basis.

Smith believes the opposite: that we need some chaos in the system because the 'order' imposed on us by 'experts' and the 'elite' is often itself disinformation.

We are leaving the world that Smith rails against, and entering into the experiment he craves - a world where both Noise and Signal are free to propagate. Hopefully we all learn to identify Signal and reject Noise.

Smith sees Gaza’s plight as a call to question those structures, to let chaos breathe.

They live in different worlds, one craving stability, the other craving liberty. But the world is trending toward openness, whether Murray, Smith and all of us like it or not.

This is the very reason why governments around the world are smashing the censorship button, because the world is becoming more free, not less. Their disinformation laws are a lagging indicator...a reaction to the tidal wave of decentralisation and rejection of the expert class.

That’s the Murray-Smith divide, from surface to core, five layers that show why they couldn’t connect—and why so many of us can’t either.

It’s not just about Israel or Gaza; it’s about how we think of war, what we base our ethics on, how we believe truth is derived, and ultimately how we see humanity.

I see layers like this in all debates, each side talking past one another. Fun to watch and moan about on X, but not very productive.

Now this is where I'm supposed to do a CTA. But I don't have one. You could take my ethics course but good luck finding a link. I'm not giving it to you.

I just want us to all look deeper than surface level debates and discern the drivers beneath the surface.

I really enjoyed the 'debate'!

Bitcoin ETFs were just approved by the USA SEC for the first time.

Along with generative AI (the rise of LLMs + Diffusion Models), I believe we are witnessing significant and historic inflexion points. The last time I felt this was 7th Feb 2018 (Sydney) when I witnessed the launch of Starman (pictured).

Today, my rural life is only possible because Starman became StarLink. I've had thousands of conversations with people predicting Tesla's 'imminent death' (I worked there in 2017) and many other conversations claiming that Bitcoin and generative AI is a fad.

Bitcoin, Machine Learning and electrified transport are not fads or second layer gambles (like NFTs or sh*tcoins can be). Though scams and fads layer on top, at their very core they contain first principles innovations and value that cannot be extinguished.

I also notice that the strongest opponents to these innovations do not understand what they criticise. 'Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme going to zero!' is case in point.

But it's not about Bitcoin. It's about the relentless momentum of humans seeking out independence, growth and self-actualisation that Bitcoin satisfies.

It's not about saving the planet through 'clean' (lol) electric cars. It's about the engineering reality that electrification of work output is far simpler, more efficient and enjoyable than fossil-fuel based designs.

As a farmer, there are many things that still require dead dinosaur juice but the most pleasurable and human-centric inventions are electric.

Honestly, who cares about 'carbon reduction offset blah blah'. Humans just want their devices, tools and vehicles to be freaking awesome at their job and pleasurable to live with. This often means electrification.

Who cares about Satoshi's 2024 planned halving of the block reward to ensure BTC is a deflationary asset. Humans just want a store (and medium of exchange) of wealth that is immune to the corruption of politicians and corporations that run our lives in 2024.

Who cares about the transformer architecture and the arms race due to the quadratic compute scaling limit. Humans just want the Star Trek Computer that makes our lives easier and supercharges our natural abilities.

Now...if you're under 50 years old, you've got a lot of decades remaining. You will reap a real return educating yourself on the 'weird' terms I've dropped above.

Start by googling 'inflation' and 'fiat currency' to begin building your defence against those who would rob you blind of the wealth you've worked so hard to accumulate.