I think that lectures and presentations are ‘friendlier’ for at least the following reasons:
fewer assumptions are made about the background of the audience in lectures (lectures are often the 1st exposure, aimed at students; papers/textbooks assume more background)
the paper/text is expected to be authoritative in a way that a lecture isn’t (books/papers contribute to academic reputation, lectures do not)
the [primary] purpose of a lecture is to teach, while the [primary] purpose of a paper is to expand human knowledge (and to improve the author’s reputation); so the lecturer seeks to maximize understanding in the audience, while the academic author seeks to maximize his future reputation
A possible addition to your list: maybe scientists don’t know their texts are impenetrable. I know I often skip important but “obvious” steps without noticing when explaining stuff. Lectures get repeated and can plausibly evolve to be understandable, while texts stay set in stone.
There are many texts origining from lectures and they are generally no more penetrable than texts written from scratch.
I am a bit skeptical about evolution of understandability. It seems to me that lecturers able to take a feedback and improve the structure of their explanations are rather rare.
Also, the audience in a lecture can (at least sometimes) give immediate feedback if they don’t understand something, compelling the lecturer to explain in more detail.
Good point. It’s certainly easier to quickly get feedback during a lecture. If academic writers really wanted to communicate understanding as much as [great] lecturers do, for this and other reasons it would certainly be more difficult to do so than it would during repeated lectures. I’m just skeptical that the desire is actually there to anywhere near the same degree though.
And it’s not just a matter of different media. Consider a brilliant young researcher giving a seminar (i.e., spoken medium) on her research. Does she optimize for understanding or for making the strongest impression and convincing her peers that her research is important and original?
I agree and it depends on the lecturer, of course. Experienced lecturers seem to be more auditory oriented than aspiring ones.
There’s also the pace of the learning to be considered: one sets his/her own pace when learning by text as opposed to speed and tempo chosen and changed by lecturer.
I think that a combination of both is the most effective way.
True, but if you ask any scientist about the primary purpose of papers, the reply will more likely mention communicating ideas (i.e. teaching—whether the information being taught is already known or is expanding human knowledge is hardly relevant for the style) than building author’s reputation. So it’s a kind of hypocrisy: authors say (think?) that his/her paper is written in order to inform, while in fact it is made to signal status.
It’s not an attempt to ‘signal status’ but rather an attempt to signal brilliance and mastery of the subject, creativity, etc., and thereby tangentially to improve status (and reap the rewards of status, which might include non-status perks such as being able to research almost anything you want with large budgets, collaborate with the greatest minds in your field, etc).
I should add that I don’t think this sort of dishonesty is conscious or intentional—at least not in most cases.
Yes, you’re right, I was simplifying too much (status and brilliance are strongly correlated, so I didn’t pay attention to the distinction). However, this doesn’t change much—still it’s a hypocrisy.
Why do you think that the dishonesty isn’t intentional? The journal reviewers demand a specific style and people generally know it. For most papers, the style matters if you want to get it published. If your status is enough high you are more able to choose your style, but a lower-status researcher should first maximise the number of his publications, and the most effective way is to imitate the approved style (which signals brilliance). The authors know it, they are not stupid.
The core of the problem is, in my opinion, that people really buy this signalling. If I don’t understand what someone else is saying, I think (more or less automatically) that he’s too smart rather that he’s a poor teacher. Conversely, if I understand everything, I tend to think that the subject is trivial and the speaker is not much better than me.
I think that lectures and presentations are ‘friendlier’ for at least the following reasons:
fewer assumptions are made about the background of the audience in lectures (lectures are often the 1st exposure, aimed at students; papers/textbooks assume more background)
the paper/text is expected to be authoritative in a way that a lecture isn’t (books/papers contribute to academic reputation, lectures do not)
the [primary] purpose of a lecture is to teach, while the [primary] purpose of a paper is to expand human knowledge (and to improve the author’s reputation); so the lecturer seeks to maximize understanding in the audience, while the academic author seeks to maximize his future reputation
A possible addition to your list: maybe scientists don’t know their texts are impenetrable. I know I often skip important but “obvious” steps without noticing when explaining stuff. Lectures get repeated and can plausibly evolve to be understandable, while texts stay set in stone.
There are many texts origining from lectures and they are generally no more penetrable than texts written from scratch.
I am a bit skeptical about evolution of understandability. It seems to me that lecturers able to take a feedback and improve the structure of their explanations are rather rare.
Also, the audience in a lecture can (at least sometimes) give immediate feedback if they don’t understand something, compelling the lecturer to explain in more detail.
Good point. It’s certainly easier to quickly get feedback during a lecture. If academic writers really wanted to communicate understanding as much as [great] lecturers do, for this and other reasons it would certainly be more difficult to do so than it would during repeated lectures. I’m just skeptical that the desire is actually there to anywhere near the same degree though.
And it’s not just a matter of different media. Consider a brilliant young researcher giving a seminar (i.e., spoken medium) on her research. Does she optimize for understanding or for making the strongest impression and convincing her peers that her research is important and original?
I agree and it depends on the lecturer, of course. Experienced lecturers seem to be more auditory oriented than aspiring ones.
There’s also the pace of the learning to be considered: one sets his/her own pace when learning by text as opposed to speed and tempo chosen and changed by lecturer.
I think that a combination of both is the most effective way.
True, but if you ask any scientist about the primary purpose of papers, the reply will more likely mention communicating ideas (i.e. teaching—whether the information being taught is already known or is expanding human knowledge is hardly relevant for the style) than building author’s reputation. So it’s a kind of hypocrisy: authors say (think?) that his/her paper is written in order to inform, while in fact it is made to signal status.
It’s not an attempt to ‘signal status’ but rather an attempt to signal brilliance and mastery of the subject, creativity, etc., and thereby tangentially to improve status (and reap the rewards of status, which might include non-status perks such as being able to research almost anything you want with large budgets, collaborate with the greatest minds in your field, etc).
I should add that I don’t think this sort of dishonesty is conscious or intentional—at least not in most cases.
Yes, you’re right, I was simplifying too much (status and brilliance are strongly correlated, so I didn’t pay attention to the distinction). However, this doesn’t change much—still it’s a hypocrisy.
Why do you think that the dishonesty isn’t intentional? The journal reviewers demand a specific style and people generally know it. For most papers, the style matters if you want to get it published. If your status is enough high you are more able to choose your style, but a lower-status researcher should first maximise the number of his publications, and the most effective way is to imitate the approved style (which signals brilliance). The authors know it, they are not stupid.
The core of the problem is, in my opinion, that people really buy this signalling. If I don’t understand what someone else is saying, I think (more or less automatically) that he’s too smart rather that he’s a poor teacher. Conversely, if I understand everything, I tend to think that the subject is trivial and the speaker is not much better than me.