I think it&#x27;s probably because it&#x27;s very difficult to understand a pure math talk if you didn&#x27;t already have significant understanding of the subject before the talk.<p>I don&#x27;t work on pure mathematics, but I work in a field of computer science where there is both theoretical and empirical&#x2F;applied research, and I do, and enjoy doing, both.<p>However, when it comes to attending talks, I do go to a lot of talks on empirical subjects just for fun, but I hardly ever go to a highly theoretical talk for fun. I only do that if the talk is highly related to the specific work I do; if you see me in a theoretical talk otherwise, it&#x27;s probably just for social compromise.<p>The reason is that I can perfectly understand the gist of an empirical paper in 20 or 30 minutes, where there is no way I will understand a piece of theoretical research by listening to a talk if I haven&#x27;t gone through the paper carefully before (and if you have done that, there is often no point in going to the talk anyway). Honestly I think the talk format doesn&#x27;t lend itself too well to highly theoretical work. I have learned <i>a lot</i> about empirical research and obtained many useful ideas from talks, but in the theoretical field, the useful ideas and insights I got from talks are few and far between, and I would probably have obtained them more efficiently from reading papers anyway...