One worry I have about my identity as a scholar: I am too captured and engaged with problematics and not enough with the problems themselves.
What's the difference? To be engaged with problematics is to be a puzzle-seeker-who-writes-papers. To be engaged with problems is to be alive and alert to opportunities to follow genuine questions wherever they may lead, whether they lead to papers or not.
Professional academia leads to conclusion-first reasoning: first the paper, then the conclusion, then the premises, then the problems. We might call this "pseudo-inquiry."