In what ways does Brian D Smith address audience confusion in his work?

I do it in a few key ways:

• I name the confusion out loud. If people are wrestling with purpose, the afterlife, or “am I crazy for thinking this?”, I say that directly. That normalizes it and lowers defenses.
• I use simple metaphors and stories from my own life and from guests (like Natalie Sudman talking about curiosity as purpose) instead of abstract theory.
• I contrast old frameworks with new ones: for example, moving from “purpose as a checklist from God” to “purpose as exploration and learning.” I show how both views developed and why one felt too small.
• I repeat core ideas in different language—engineer brain and father’s heart—so both logic and emotion are engaged.

Is there a particular kind of confusion you’re noticing or wanting to unpack more?