It occurs to me that different speakers transmit different imperatives while speaking, and that you can hear something of their personality in their speech and their voice. I will give a few examples of what I pick up on:
Osho: somewhat sleep-inducing, sometimes forceful, often very roundabout, hypnotic
Terence McKenna: free of boundaries and hierarchy, stimulating
Barack Obama: “i have important things to tell you”, an orators voice
Steve Jobs: very clear, direct, to the point
Have you ever tried to listen to people’s voices to hear the ‘subtext’?
I think it depends on how much "I" is listening.
But what use is it? What's gleaned has gone through so many adjustments and filters it is far from pure and usable information. From the speaker's mind all the way to my mind is a tricky game of telephone. It can be fun for building a story but I think being influenced by it can be problematic if the understanding is too skewed by conditioning.
That being said, I'd still prefer a speaker with a personality I enjoy over a speaker I don't even if the message is identical. Even knowing that's conditioned.
personally I am not interested in personalities …
… only the message.
Hence the Sangha that is conveying, irrespective of persona/ego/repute is my favoured personality … Come to think of it the other two jewels don't even need a personality … well I never …
Often the personality is a determining factor in whether we should believe in the message.
Personality and language, including non-verbal cues, can give you hints of how someone might interact with you and the world. This is important as first impressions count a lot, just like in a job interview, to decide whether you want to spend time with someone or get to know this person in depth. Though this can be misleading sometimes.
Following your example Jeroen...
George Carlin - Factual, direct, funny, smart.
Bertrand Russel - Wise, compassionate, intellectual
Pedro Sánchez, Pablo Iglesias, Feijoó (+most politicians worldwide) - Money my name, Bullshit my game
The subtlest of subtexts of any conversation becomes apparent when met by true equanimity.
This was the foundation of much of the Buddha's Dharmic success with others and was the primary source of his skillful means as a teacher,
a fostering of a predetermined intent to uncover the subtext of another's conversation more aptly belongs to the realm of the phycological than to what the Buddha called the path towards suffering's cessation.
Thus I heard Bertrand Russell once say...
"When you are studying any matter or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the facts, and what is the truth that the facts bear out? Never let yourself be diverted either by what you wished to believe or by what you think could have beneficial social effects if it were believed. But look only and solely at what are the facts."
This is very much the opposite of the famous, interesting, engaging, beguiling personalities that we flock to because we are easily enchanted.