-
@cjwich My guiding principle on discussions: It is (mainly) for the audience, not the author. If you have suggestions for the author—that aren’t useful for the audience—offer them in a separate conversation and/or in writing. @lukestein/1064560873383981056Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 4 Retweets
❤️ 24 Favorites
Mood +2 🙂
-
@cjwich Also: Plenty of bad summaries out there but I find even a mediocre one/slight reframing among most valuable parts of a discussion. (As an audience member. Which is whom the discussion is for.) And not just because presenters often skip conclusion slide! @JaminSpeer/1151914002341142528On twitter.com
♻️ 3 Retweets
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood -3 🙁
-
@cjwich Caveat: Finance has a strong culture of single-track “boutique” conferences without a tighter topical focus. Many in audience are interested but not narrow topic experts, and discussants are the norm. High quality discussants are common and high quality discussants are valued.Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 3 Retweets
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood +8 🙂
-
@cjwich And the best get rid of the hard parts in order to extract (for the audience) what makes the paper interesting/important (e.g., contribution, place in lit, empirical approach, theoretical intuition, technical details, possible extensions, implications) @MachinePix/1151922584344076288Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 4 Retweets
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood +6 🙂