I saw the talk live and the nerdism, physicians humor and the transfered knowledge was really mind blowing. It's an awesome insight into the foundation and building of a really large human made machine. Watch!
He has a similar ability to very clearly explain the technology and what it is trying to accomplish. And an innate curiosity or interest that causes him to learn that -- beyond just his specific technical area.
In other words, some engineers are very effective networkers and communicators.
When I stop to think about it, they have to be, to ever succeed in building such a large and complex device -- in the company and at the behest of so many other disciplines, both practical and theoretical.
P.S. I should add that he does this with everything that really interests him and/or that he is doing. It's not confined to one topic or things he formally works on.
P.P.S. This may be a "Captain Obvious" comment; nonetheless, the presentation reminded me of him.
And of how some comment science stereotypes really are far from the mark.
Maybe something about having to deal with the physical world?
I'm an experimental physics Ph.D. student working on LIGO, and I have also found that experimental physicists are often very good at motivating engineering from top to bottom. I think having depth of knowledge is part of it. My advisor has told me that some of the best experimentalists have sufficient depth of expertise to be theorists. I can't comment on how this compares to other fields (since I haven't worked outside of academia) but I have been very satisfied with how eloquent and deeply informed experimental physicists usually are.
I didn't feel like the talk gave off an overtly political tone.
The New England Journal of Medicine on the other hand...cancelled my subscription due to how political it has become. Still has very good review articles, though.