Hang on I thought Ph.Ds were socially awkward people who were passive and silent in meetings only occasionally asking brief questions with no follow up, and seem like they would prefer to just do the whole meeting in 2 or 3 emails. I am not sure which stereotype to believe anymore.
If we really want to get specific, phds are generally trained to be comprehensive in their discussions, rather than concise, which is a slightly different flavor of annoyingly verbose from the typical incompetent communicator or individual who was trained to be rewarded for volume of "participation" more than anything (the latter of which tends to creep into org structures anyway)
> rewarded for volume of "participation" more than anything
I can see you are well versed in corporate life.
It turns out that PhD holders are a diverse group of people with many different personality types!
Not in my experience. At the last few companies I worked at, meetings were annoying for entirely different reasons, but not because of filibustering. People got in and out as quickly as possible. You occasionally met with someone who wouldn't answer a question straight, or make a statement in less than five paragraphs, but at this company it is the rule rather than the exception. The only difference I can point at to explain it is that I now work with mostly academics and scientists rather than software product people.