But while he may be genuinely curious the sum of his questions and his guest choices express a thesis and for avid listeners seems to become a program of study that leads somewhere.
It seems like it's always freshman year of college at the JRE and you're learning all this fascinating stuff that shows you the world is larger and more mysterious than you imagined, but he never quite gets to sophomore year when those mundane details are filled in and you see why all the quirky, obscure things remain quirky and obscure.
I guess on some level it's not his job but since he has had this success I do wish he would take it on, to give the listeners more protein with their sugar.
And it affects us too, not just celebrities.
I'm fine with dilettantes (I am a proud one) and recognize that there are some real polymaths in the world, but it creates a tricky situation for the show. A lot of people who lose a specialized debate try making their case directly to the public and the ones who survive become quite good at it and know what they need to do to get on the right podcasts.
The ones who won, who might have the better ideas, are bisy working in the field and if they communicate to the public at all it is without the polish of someone who makes their living that way.
That is, of course, a well known problem in science communication.
If you think that's impressive, listen to Terry Gross's interview with Hugh Heffner.
https://freshairarchive.org/segments/playboy-hugh-hefner
I think Rogan is just barely smart enough to know to never step into Gross's studio.
What's interesting about Rogan is you can often find theses talking head types getting easily flummoxed by normal questions that are outside of the ritualized interactions they're used to. Watch Rogan talk to Shapiro about his criticism of Colin Kaepernick, or him asking Bari Weiss why she calls Tulsi Gabbard an "Assad toady." He seems to like both of them (perhaps even to the poitn where both are friends), but his simple questions end up making both of them look completely foolish. And because he's genuinely curious and doing it in a non-aggressive manner, it doesn't get lost in the furor of a antagonistic debate format.
Again, I agree with your criticisms of him and could add several more myself. I think it's one of those situations where in the valley of the blind, the one eyed man is king. The traditional forms of public debate are so shallow that a curious guy just asking random questions can short circuit most of the folks there.