Gauss would ''conceal'' his intuition:
he would only publish very polished results: elegant and sterile.
No "scaffolding" of intuition,
and no help in extending the results.
This is terrible mathematics.
Yes, Gauss did great mathematics, but his way of presenting was harmful
and wrong-headed.
Ramanujan was similar:
he had these great conjectures and proofs,
but frequently didn't give his intuition.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Gauss also wouldn't publish preliminary results or thoughts;
thus many discoveries were deflated by Gauss saying that he'd
been thinking about it for decade (e.g., negative curvature).
Today there is some criticism (Quinn and Jaffee sp?) of too much announcement
of preliminary results
(their point being that there's no credit given to actually proving these
announced "theorems", which are often closer to conjectures),
but in both cases there are similar issues:
giving credit to those who actually do the spade-work
(and in Gauss's case, sharing things that he's working on, so others can contribute as well).