<p>This may seem strange at first, but one way I've found to understand an area better is to <i>write</i> in it.</p>

<p>Every area of any discipline has its own mini-language. It consists most obviously of specialized terminology---but there is also a certain structure and order to how people in that area prefer to give and receive information. There are also particular ways of understanding certain difficult concepts, especially abstract or nonobvious concepts.</p>

<p>Reading is obviously key, and it will help you understand the terminology. But to really climb into the heads of those who present in your area, you have to write. You'll then be forced to learn good ways to structure information and ways to understand difficult concepts---and discover how and why the other researchers in your area think and talk the way they do.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-03-16T20:05:08.733Z
**Teaching** something from the area also helps a lot.
Jeffε
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-03-21T04:10:04.200Z
Teaching definitely helps, especially with the basics of an area. Are you planning to expand this to an answer? :)
Neil Toronto
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-03-16T17:11:51.473Z
2013-03-16T17:11:51.473Z
Neil Toronto
<p>I am a graduate student from India. I am very much interested in attending the Workshops, conferences, and invited lecturers given by prominent professors.</p>

<p>At the end of the talk as usual some people will ask questions and speaker will answer them. But my problem is I am not understanding most of the questions and answers. Even if I ask any question I am unable to understand the answer which given by speaker.</p>

<p>Can somebody share their experience and suggestions to my problem. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-03-15T12:01:57.520Z
"Unable to understand" in what sense? Are you not that familiar with the subjects of the talks, or is it an acoustic or language problem?
Klaus Draeger
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-03-15T12:36:49.070Z
Not in the sense of language. But Mainly In terms of subject. Especially the way speaker answers to the audience questions.
Kumar
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-03-15T12:48:34.247Z
@Reddy This is pretty normal, especially at the beginning of one's academic career. It gets better with time. But really understanding a whole talk remains an elusive experience: a talk should be seen as an invitation for further study. A common rule of thumb for talks is: 1/3 of the talk should be for the whole audience to understand, 1/3 for the one expert in the audience to understand, while the remaining 1/3 will be accessible only to the speaker.
Martin Berger
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-03-15T14:09:03.720Z
Is this a joke or not? I am often bothered by the amount of information the speakers try to press in 15-minute talks. It seems to me that often, they lose 95% of their audience after the third slide. Personally, I feel like this is a pity, since you want to make your work appealing to as many people as possible out there; but apparently most presenters just don't care (or don't know better).
HdM
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-03-15T16:39:10.637Z
Losing the majority of the audience is almost inevitable, in particular with such short talks (15 minutes? Yikes.) Typically, the speaker has some substantial new research to present, and unless the event is quite narrowly focused, there will only be a few people who know enough to understand the talk fully. As for the others, the goal can only be to get those for who the results are relevant interested enough to read the paper.
Klaus Draeger
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-03-15T16:47:48.530Z
One suggestion to Reddy: if you don't understand an answer, particularly to a question you asked, do try to get hold of the speaker later and discuss the matter offline. Most people I've met are quite happy to give more detailed explanations once they are aware of the problem.
Klaus Draeger
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-03-16T18:21:04.770Z
Although @MartinBerger states a common rule of thumb, I have been to talks that were fully understandable by anyone with a general background yet that still covered the key details of the new contribution.  Awe-inspiring, but alas this seems more common in pure mathematics than in TCS.  I personally believe we should all aspire to reduce the fraction of our talks that only we or close colleagues can understand, and increase the fraction of general interest.  We probably would need a move away from bullet-point style presentations to achieve this...
András Salamon
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-03-20T11:08:11.903Z
I agree with @AndrásSalamon: it is a pleasure to the senses when people manage to push the  $\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{3}$ "golden rule" closer to $\frac{1+2\epsilon}{3},\frac{1-\epsilon}{3},\frac{1-\epsilon}{3}$ and still transmit their main messages; however, it is tough to get the constant $\epsilon>0$ arbitrarily close to 1 and requires the speaker's will to do hard work. The minilanguage problem is definitely an issue (see Neil Toronto's answer).
Juan Bermejo Vega
<co.combinatorics><soft-question>
Understanding the talks in Conferences and Workshops
Kumar
# Understanding the talks in Conferences and Workshops

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-03-15)

I am a graduate student from India. I am very much interested in attending the Workshops, conferences, and invited lecturers given by prominent professors.

At the end of the talk as usual some people will ask questions and speaker will answer them. But my problem is I am not understanding most of the questions and answers. Even if I ask any question I am unable to understand the answer which given by speaker.

Can somebody share their experience and suggestions to my problem.

**Tags:** co.combinatorics, soft-question

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: "Unable to understand" in what sense? Are you not that familiar with the subjects of the talks, or is it an acoustic or language problem?  
> **username_0**: Not in the sense of language. But Mainly In terms of subject. Especially the way speaker answers to the audience questions.  
> **username_2**: @Reddy This is pretty normal, especially at the beginning of one's academic career. It gets better with time. But really understanding a whole talk remains an elusive experience: a talk should be seen as an invitation for further study. A common rule of thumb for talks is: 1/3 of the talk should be for the whole audience to understand, 1/3 for the one expert in the audience to understand, while the remaining 1/3 will be accessible only to the speaker.  
> **username_3**: Is this a joke or not? I am often bothered by the amount of information the speakers try to press in 15-minute talks. It seems to me that often, they lose 95% of their audience after the third slide. Personally, I feel like this is a pity, since you want to make your work appealing to as many people as possible out there; but apparently most presenters just don't care (or don't know better).  
> **username_1**: Losing the majority of the audience is almost inevitable, in particular with such short talks (15 minutes? Yikes.) Typically, the speaker has some substantial new research to present, and unless the event is quite narrowly focused, there will only be a few people who know enough to understand the talk fully. As for the others, the goal can only be to get those for who the results are relevant interested enough to read the paper.  
> **username_1**: One suggestion to Reddy: if you don't understand an answer, particularly to a question you asked, do try to get hold of the speaker later and discuss the matter offline. Most people I've met are quite happy to give more detailed explanations once they are aware of the problem.  
> **username_4**: Although @MartinBerger states a common rule of thumb, I have been to talks that were fully understandable by anyone with a general background yet that still covered the key details of the new contribution.  Awe-inspiring, but alas this seems more common in pure mathematics than in TCS.  I personally believe we should all aspire to reduce the fraction of our talks that only we or close colleagues can understand, and increase the fraction of general interest.  We probably would need a move away from bullet-point style presentations to achieve this...  
> **username_5**: I agree with @AndrásSalamon: it is a pleasure to the senses when people manage to push the  $\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{3}$ "golden rule" closer to $\frac{1+2\epsilon}{3},\frac{1-\epsilon}{3},\frac{1-\epsilon}{3}$ and still transmit their main messages; however, it is tough to get the constant $\epsilon>0$ arbitrarily close to 1 and requires the speaker's will to do hard work. The minilanguage problem is definitely an issue (see username_6's answer).  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_6 on 2013-03-16. Score: 8 | Accepted answer

This may seem strange at first, but one way I've found to understand an area better is to *write* in it.

Every area of any discipline has its own mini-language. It consists most obviously of specialized terminology---but there is also a certain structure and order to how people in that area prefer to give and receive information. There are also particular ways of understanding certain difficult concepts, especially abstract or nonobvious concepts.

Reading is obviously key, and it will help you understand the terminology. But to really climb into the heads of those who present in your area, you have to write. You'll then be forced to learn good ways to structure information and ways to understand difficult concepts---and discover how and why the other researchers in your area think and talk the way they do.

> **Comments:**
> **username_7**: **Teaching** something from the area also helps a lot.  
> **username_6**: Teaching definitely helps, especially with the basics of an area. Are you planning to expand this to an answer? :)  

---

