> ...as a defence mechanism, people embbed complex (almost impossible to understand during the talk) information in their slides...
Yes, this happens a lot, and it has the effect of alienating those who actually need to hear the talk and coming off as pandering or cloying to those that already know the material.One thing I suggest to folks, if there is some insecurity about not covering "everything", is to make some slides on detailed sub-topics that aren't included in the main talk but are intended to be used when/if there's a follow-up question.
If the speaker is careful, they can even "bait" their talk to implicitly suggest follow-up questions for which a detailed auxiliary slide has been prepared.
Not before we're all offended to death.
Generally in life I tend to overestimate people's technical level -- maybe not of computers, which change a lot, but basic statistics and finance, general knowledge, etc. This is why: "brains" only get you so far in life, but being an intellectual-type person one wants to believe that those more succesful than you are even brainier than you.
Some people work out their arms so much their legs are comparatively small. These people are not about to become star athletes. I wonder if they look at olympic sprinters or soccer players and think "what great arms this guys must have, I wouldn't want to wrestle with them".