Though harsh and (of course) generalized, I think the word "empty" is a useful description here. Think of these meanings of empty:
- "containing nothing; not filled or occupied"
- "lacking meaning or sincerity"
- "having no value or purpose"
In the context of academia, there is an expectation of a certain fundamental motivation; namely, to pursue knowledge in a particular field and share it back via writing and/or teaching.
If one lacks that primary motivation, they certainly "lack" it and are "not filled" with the academic ethos. So "empty" is a fair term.
Now, I understand the realities as well -- seeking publications, recognition, tenure, and funding are also political activities. But this does not contradict the underlying community norm that I mention above. In fact, it supports it -- it explains why so many people endure a tough, grueling, political process despite it not being their wheelhouse.
Indeed, I should have expanded a bit, it was a bit disingenuous from me. But I don't think that academia's ethos is the primary motivation. It wasn't for me. The primary motivation for my phd was to get the doctor title and money afterward. It was a transaction between academia and me where they get a qualified engineer for a low price, and I get educated about research. No one ever talked to me about academia ethos. The closest thing about educating and sharing others my supervisor told me was "We might have a job opening for teaching and research after your phd if you are interested to further expand in Academia, but don't count on it. Such openings are rare".
So basically your conclusion doesn't go well with my experience. I only saw a contract with low salary and a lot of work on my end. It was worth it for me (I think?), so I accepted.
Thanks for telling us your story -- you make good points.
To what degree did you enjoy the process of learning, collaborating, teaching, writing, experimenting, and so on?
I'd wager you did enjoy some or many of these... otherwise, it might have been a long slog. :/
Maybe the following story can convey part of my message. You might have seen movies about a wily protagonist villain (or a flawed, tenuous partnership between several) who meticulously plan to steal some priceless artifact from some nearly-impregnable facility. What drives such people? I don't think it is purely money -- there would be alternatives that would, rationally speaking, generate more income, on a risk-adjusted basis. In the case of the ninja-suit wearing infiltrator(s), I'd argue they fundamentally enjoy the process (the preparation, the planning, the deferred gratification, the meaning). Perhaps the same is true for people that pursue and complete a Ph.D. -- some get a decent financial payout, but on average, I don't think the degree made them better off financially compared to other alternatives (e.g. holding together some rotting infrastructure with bailing wire). They value the title, the activities, the identity, the community, the kind of work they do.
Seeking a job only for money doesn't really endow much meaning -- (Please, don't take this as an endorsement to go off and work for some harebrained startup when you have better options. :P) -- though I think there is plenty of meaning even in the mundane (e.g. rearranging JSON) to be found if you open yourself to experience (e.g. books with dragons about parsers).
If one lacks that primary motivation, they certainly "lack" it and are "not filled" with the academic ethos. So "empty" is a fair term.
Now, I understand the realities as well -- seeking publications, recognition, tenure, and funding are also political activities. But this does not contradict the underlying community norm that I mention above. In fact, it supports it -- it explains why so many people endure a tough, grueling, political process despite it not being their wheelhouse.