It would be lovely if this were true, but I think it's actually a fairly poisonous mindset. What the author's post seems actually to be saying, with which I heartily agree, is “obviousness is only in hindsight”; deep things become trivial only because of the time you've put into understanding them.
On the other hand, I think the things that become obvious once you've understood them tend to be (though are not always) the things that have already been fairly well digested by others, and so are presented to you in a smooth, flowing way to which you just have to accustom yourself.
My experience with (mathematical) research is that understanding has a roughly equal possibility of meaning that you find it trivial, or that you finally understand all the (apparently) irreducibly complex difficulties. Indeed, my feeling if anyone tells me that, say, Deligne–Lusztig representations are obvious is that he or she hasn't probably fully understood them (disclaimer: neither have I, not even close, which may mean that I'm just illustrating the author's point).
I don't mean at all by this that you shouldn't go on searching for the 'obvious' simplification—that way lies great insight. (As someone said much more elegantly, if things aren't already obvious in mathematics, we tend to make them obvious by changing the definitions.) What I mean is that you shouldn't drag yourself down by saying “I thought I understood that, but it's hard, not obvious!”
On the other hand, I think the things that become obvious once you've understood them tend to be (though are not always) the things that have already been fairly well digested by others, and so are presented to you in a smooth, flowing way to which you just have to accustom yourself.
My experience with (mathematical) research is that understanding has a roughly equal possibility of meaning that you find it trivial, or that you finally understand all the (apparently) irreducibly complex difficulties. Indeed, my feeling if anyone tells me that, say, Deligne–Lusztig representations are obvious is that he or she hasn't probably fully understood them (disclaimer: neither have I, not even close, which may mean that I'm just illustrating the author's point).
I don't mean at all by this that you shouldn't go on searching for the 'obvious' simplification—that way lies great insight. (As someone said much more elegantly, if things aren't already obvious in mathematics, we tend to make them obvious by changing the definitions.) What I mean is that you shouldn't drag yourself down by saying “I thought I understood that, but it's hard, not obvious!”