None of my papers ever end.

Argh. I’m putting together what was originally supposed to be a very simple paper (“Here’s this disturbing empirical result, and people are saying it throws a massive monkeywrench in democratic theory. What is to be done?”) that needs to be done by (god help me) Monday morning to be distributed to the participants in a workshop on Thursday, and for which I had a fairly defined approach until I actually started drafting a while back. Now it has turned into an unholy morass that includes discussions of the difference between ideal and non-ideal theory, bayesian updating, cognitive psychology, political debate in Israel, the Pruneyard doctrine, and the empirical problems with the work to which I’m trying to produce a normative response. But all these things are necessary to establish premises in the central argument! Really! I’m sure of it (right now)!


This happens to every paper I ever write. It has got to be evidence of some psychological disorder. Digressophilia. Is there a lobotomist in the house?


Leave a Comment