It often seems that when you see a paper presentation followed by a discussant, the discussant’s two minute summary of the paper is clearer than the author’s twenty minute presentation. Somehow it just isn’t OK for the author to spell it out as simply as the discussant is allowed to. And as the post points out, written work is worse.
I don’t think it’s about what’s OK to do (though see CatDancer), but that the discussant is more like the audience than the presenter is. The originator had one way of getting to the idea and this has colored his sense of what the hard parts are. The discussant and the audience are trying to learn it quickly, knowing what conclusions the originator reached.
It often seems that when you see a paper presentation followed by a discussant, the discussant’s two minute summary of the paper is clearer than the author’s twenty minute presentation. Somehow it just isn’t OK for the author to spell it out as simply as the discussant is allowed to. And as the post points out, written work is worse.
I don’t think it’s about what’s OK to do (though see CatDancer), but that the discussant is more like the audience than the presenter is. The originator had one way of getting to the idea and this has colored his sense of what the hard parts are. The discussant and the audience are trying to learn it quickly, knowing what conclusions the originator reached.