SAT Pastpaper with Solutions

This passage is adapted from George Eliot, Silas Marner.Originally published in 1861. Silas was a weaver and anotorious miser, but then the gold he had hoarded wasstolen. Shortly after, Silas adopted a young child, Eppie, thedaughter of an impoverished woman who had diedsuddenly.Unlike the gold which needed nothing, and mustbe worshipped in close-locked solitude—which washidden away from the daylight, was deaf to the songof birds, and started to no human tones—Eppie was acreature of endless claims and ever-growing desires,seeking and loving sunshine, and living sounds, andliving movements; making trial of everything, withtrust in new joy, and stirring the human kindness inall eyes that looked on her. The gold had kept histhoughts in an ever-repeated circle, leading tonothing beyond itself; but Eppie was an objectcompacted of changes and hopes that forced histhoughts onward, and carried them far away fromtheir old eager pacing towards the same blanklimit—carried them away to the new things thatwould come with the coming years, when Eppiewould have learned to understand how her fatherSilas cared for her; and made him look for images ofthat time in the ties and charities that bound togetherthe families of his neighbors. The gold had asked thathe should sit weaving longer and longer, deafenedand blinded more and more to all things except themonotony of his loom and the repetition of his web;but Eppie called him away from his weaving, andmade him think all its pauses a holiday, reawakeninghis senses with her fresh life, even to the oldwinter-flies that came crawling forth in the earlyspring sunshine, and warming him into joy becauseshe had joy.And when the sunshine grew strong and lasting,so that the buttercups were thick in the meadows,Silas might be seen in the sunny mid-day, or in thelate afternoon when the shadows were lengtheningunder the hedgerows, strolling out with uncoveredhead to carry Eppie beyond the Stone-pits to wherethe flowers grew, till they reached some favorite bankwhere he could sit down, while Eppie toddled topluck the flowers, and make remarks to the wingedthings that murmured happily above the brightpetals, calling “Dad-dad’s” attention continually bybringing him the flowers. Then she would turn herear to some sudden bird-note, and Silas learned toplease her by making signs of hushed stillness, thatthey might listen for the note to come again: so thatwhen it came, she set up her small back and laughedwith gurgling triumph. Sitting on the banks in thisway, Silas began to look for the once familiar herbsagain; and as the leaves, with their unchanged outlineand markings, lay on his palm, there was a sense ofcrowding remembrances from which he turned awaytimidly, taking refuge in Eppie’s little world, that laylightly on his enfeebled spirit.As the child’s mind was growing into knowledge,his mind was growing into memory: as her lifeunfolded, his soul, long stupefied in a cold narrowprison, was unfolding too, and trembling graduallyinto full consciousness.It was an influence which must gather force withevery new year: the tones that stirred Silas’ heartgrew articulate, and called for more distinct answers;shapes and sounds grew clearer for Eppie’s eyes andears, and there was more that “Dad-dad” wasimperatively required to notice and account for.Also, by the time Eppie was three years old, shedeveloped a fine capacity for mischief, and fordevising ingenious ways of being troublesome, whichfound much exercise, not only for Silas’ patience, butfor his watchfulness and penetration. Sorely was poorSilas puzzled on such occasions by the incompatibledemands of love.

This passage is adapted from George Eliot, Silas Marner.Originally published in 1861. Silas was a weaver and anotorious miser, but then the gold he had hoarded wasstolen. Shortly after, Silas adopted a young child, Eppie, thedaughter of an impoverished woman who had diedsuddenly.Unlike the gold which needed nothing, and mustbe worshipped in close-locked solitude—which washidden away from the daylight, was deaf to the songof birds, and started to no human tones—Eppie was acreature of endless claims and ever-growing desires,seeking and loving sunshine, and living sounds, andliving movements; making trial of everything, withtrust in new joy, and stirring the human kindness inall eyes that looked on her. The gold had kept histhoughts in an ever-repeated circle, leading tonothing beyond itself; but Eppie was an objectcompacted of changes and hopes that forced histhoughts onward, and carried them far away fromtheir old eager pacing towards the same blanklimit—carried them away to the new things thatwould come with the coming years, when Eppiewould have learned to understand how her fatherSilas cared for her; and made him look for images ofthat time in the ties and charities that bound togetherthe families of his neighbors. The gold had asked thathe should sit weaving longer and longer, deafenedand blinded more and more to all things except themonotony of his loom and the repetition of his web;but Eppie called him away from his weaving, andmade him think all its pauses a holiday, reawakeninghis senses with her fresh life, even to the oldwinter-flies that came crawling forth in the earlyspring sunshine, and warming him into joy becauseshe had joy.And when the sunshine grew strong and lasting,so that the buttercups were thick in the meadows,Silas might be seen in the sunny mid-day, or in thelate afternoon when the shadows were lengtheningunder the hedgerows, strolling out with uncoveredhead to carry Eppie beyond the Stone-pits to wherethe flowers grew, till they reached some favorite bankwhere he could sit down, while Eppie toddled topluck the flowers, and make remarks to the wingedthings that murmured happily above the brightpetals, calling “Dad-dad’s” attention continually bybringing him the flowers. Then she would turn herear to some sudden bird-note, and Silas learned toplease her by making signs of hushed stillness, thatthey might listen for the note to come again: so thatwhen it came, she set up her small back and laughedwith gurgling triumph. Sitting on the banks in thisway, Silas began to look for the once familiar herbsagain; and as the leaves, with their unchanged outlineand markings, lay on his palm, there was a sense ofcrowding remembrances from which he turned awaytimidly, taking refuge in Eppie’s little world, that laylightly on his enfeebled spirit.As the child’s mind was growing into knowledge,his mind was growing into memory: as her lifeunfolded, his soul, long stupefied in a cold narrowprison, was unfolding too, and trembling graduallyinto full consciousness.It was an influence which must gather force withevery new year: the tones that stirred Silas’ heartgrew articulate, and called for more distinct answers;shapes and sounds grew clearer for Eppie’s eyes andears, and there was more that “Dad-dad” wasimperatively required to notice and account for.Also, by the time Eppie was three years old, shedeveloped a fine capacity for mischief, and fordevising ingenious ways of being troublesome, whichfound much exercise, not only for Silas’ patience, butfor his watchfulness and penetration. Sorely was poorSilas puzzled on such occasions by the incompatibledemands of love.

This passage is adapted from George Eliot, Silas Marner.Originally published in 1861. Silas was a weaver and anotorious miser, but then the gold he had hoarded wasstolen. Shortly after, Silas adopted a young child, Eppie, thedaughter of an impoverished woman who had diedsuddenly.Unlike the gold which needed nothing, and mustbe worshipped in close-locked solitude—which washidden away from the daylight, was deaf to the songof birds, and started to no human tones—Eppie was acreature of endless claims and ever-growing desires,seeking and loving sunshine, and living sounds, andliving movements; making trial of everything, withtrust in new joy, and stirring the human kindness inall eyes that looked on her. The gold had kept histhoughts in an ever-repeated circle, leading tonothing beyond itself; but Eppie was an objectcompacted of changes and hopes that forced histhoughts onward, and carried them far away fromtheir old eager pacing towards the same blanklimit—carried them away to the new things thatwould come with the coming years, when Eppiewould have learned to understand how her fatherSilas cared for her; and made him look for images ofthat time in the ties and charities that bound togetherthe families of his neighbors. The gold had asked thathe should sit weaving longer and longer, deafenedand blinded more and more to all things except themonotony of his loom and the repetition of his web;but Eppie called him away from his weaving, andmade him think all its pauses a holiday, reawakeninghis senses with her fresh life, even to the oldwinter-flies that came crawling forth in the earlyspring sunshine, and warming him into joy becauseshe had joy.And when the sunshine grew strong and lasting,so that the buttercups were thick in the meadows,Silas might be seen in the sunny mid-day, or in thelate afternoon when the shadows were lengtheningunder the hedgerows, strolling out with uncoveredhead to carry Eppie beyond the Stone-pits to wherethe flowers grew, till they reached some favorite bankwhere he could sit down, while Eppie toddled topluck the flowers, and make remarks to the wingedthings that murmured happily above the brightpetals, calling “Dad-dad’s” attention continually bybringing him the flowers. Then she would turn herear to some sudden bird-note, and Silas learned toplease her by making signs of hushed stillness, thatthey might listen for the note to come again: so thatwhen it came, she set up her small back and laughedwith gurgling triumph. Sitting on the banks in thisway, Silas began to look for the once familiar herbsagain; and as the leaves, with their unchanged outlineand markings, lay on his palm, there was a sense ofcrowding remembrances from which he turned awaytimidly, taking refuge in Eppie’s little world, that laylightly on his enfeebled spirit.As the child’s mind was growing into knowledge,his mind was growing into memory: as her lifeunfolded, his soul, long stupefied in a cold narrowprison, was unfolding too, and trembling graduallyinto full consciousness.It was an influence which must gather force withevery new year: the tones that stirred Silas’ heartgrew articulate, and called for more distinct answers;shapes and sounds grew clearer for Eppie’s eyes andears, and there was more that “Dad-dad” wasimperatively required to notice and account for.Also, by the time Eppie was three years old, shedeveloped a fine capacity for mischief, and fordevising ingenious ways of being troublesome, whichfound much exercise, not only for Silas’ patience, butfor his watchfulness and penetration. Sorely was poorSilas puzzled on such occasions by the incompatibledemands of love.

This passage is adapted from George Eliot, Silas Marner.Originally published in 1861. Silas was a weaver and anotorious miser, but then the gold he had hoarded wasstolen. Shortly after, Silas adopted a young child, Eppie, thedaughter of an impoverished woman who had diedsuddenly.Unlike the gold which needed nothing, and mustbe worshipped in close-locked solitude—which washidden away from the daylight, was deaf to the songof birds, and started to no human tones—Eppie was acreature of endless claims and ever-growing desires,seeking and loving sunshine, and living sounds, andliving movements; making trial of everything, withtrust in new joy, and stirring the human kindness inall eyes that looked on her. The gold had kept histhoughts in an ever-repeated circle, leading tonothing beyond itself; but Eppie was an objectcompacted of changes and hopes that forced histhoughts onward, and carried them far away fromtheir old eager pacing towards the same blanklimit—carried them away to the new things thatwould come with the coming years, when Eppiewould have learned to understand how her fatherSilas cared for her; and made him look for images ofthat time in the ties and charities that bound togetherthe families of his neighbors. The gold had asked thathe should sit weaving longer and longer, deafenedand blinded more and more to all things except themonotony of his loom and the repetition of his web;but Eppie called him away from his weaving, andmade him think all its pauses a holiday, reawakeninghis senses with her fresh life, even to the oldwinter-flies that came crawling forth in the earlyspring sunshine, and warming him into joy becauseshe had joy.And when the sunshine grew strong and lasting,so that the buttercups were thick in the meadows,Silas might be seen in the sunny mid-day, or in thelate afternoon when the shadows were lengtheningunder the hedgerows, strolling out with uncoveredhead to carry Eppie beyond the Stone-pits to wherethe flowers grew, till they reached some favorite bankwhere he could sit down, while Eppie toddled topluck the flowers, and make remarks to the wingedthings that murmured happily above the brightpetals, calling “Dad-dad’s” attention continually bybringing him the flowers. Then she would turn herear to some sudden bird-note, and Silas learned toplease her by making signs of hushed stillness, thatthey might listen for the note to come again: so thatwhen it came, she set up her small back and laughedwith gurgling triumph. Sitting on the banks in thisway, Silas began to look for the once familiar herbsagain; and as the leaves, with their unchanged outlineand markings, lay on his palm, there was a sense ofcrowding remembrances from which he turned awaytimidly, taking refuge in Eppie’s little world, that laylightly on his enfeebled spirit.As the child’s mind was growing into knowledge,his mind was growing into memory: as her lifeunfolded, his soul, long stupefied in a cold narrowprison, was unfolding too, and trembling graduallyinto full consciousness.It was an influence which must gather force withevery new year: the tones that stirred Silas’ heartgrew articulate, and called for more distinct answers;shapes and sounds grew clearer for Eppie’s eyes andears, and there was more that “Dad-dad” wasimperatively required to notice and account for.Also, by the time Eppie was three years old, shedeveloped a fine capacity for mischief, and fordevising ingenious ways of being troublesome, whichfound much exercise, not only for Silas’ patience, butfor his watchfulness and penetration. Sorely was poorSilas puzzled on such occasions by the incompatibledemands of love.

This passage is adapted from George Eliot, Silas Marner.Originally published in 1861. Silas was a weaver and anotorious miser, but then the gold he had hoarded wasstolen. Shortly after, Silas adopted a young child, Eppie, thedaughter of an impoverished woman who had diedsuddenly.Unlike the gold which needed nothing, and mustbe worshipped in close-locked solitude—which washidden away from the daylight, was deaf to the songof birds, and started to no human tones—Eppie was acreature of endless claims and ever-growing desires,seeking and loving sunshine, and living sounds, andliving movements; making trial of everything, withtrust in new joy, and stirring the human kindness inall eyes that looked on her. The gold had kept histhoughts in an ever-repeated circle, leading tonothing beyond itself; but Eppie was an objectcompacted of changes and hopes that forced histhoughts onward, and carried them far away fromtheir old eager pacing towards the same blanklimit—carried them away to the new things thatwould come with the coming years, when Eppiewould have learned to understand how her fatherSilas cared for her; and made him look for images ofthat time in the ties and charities that bound togetherthe families of his neighbors. The gold had asked thathe should sit weaving longer and longer, deafenedand blinded more and more to all things except themonotony of his loom and the repetition of his web;but Eppie called him away from his weaving, andmade him think all its pauses a holiday, reawakeninghis senses with her fresh life, even to the oldwinter-flies that came crawling forth in the earlyspring sunshine, and warming him into joy becauseshe had joy.And when the sunshine grew strong and lasting,so that the buttercups were thick in the meadows,Silas might be seen in the sunny mid-day, or in thelate afternoon when the shadows were lengtheningunder the hedgerows, strolling out with uncoveredhead to carry Eppie beyond the Stone-pits to wherethe flowers grew, till they reached some favorite bankwhere he could sit down, while Eppie toddled topluck the flowers, and make remarks to the wingedthings that murmured happily above the brightpetals, calling “Dad-dad’s” attention continually bybringing him the flowers. Then she would turn herear to some sudden bird-note, and Silas learned toplease her by making signs of hushed stillness, thatthey might listen for the note to come again: so thatwhen it came, she set up her small back and laughedwith gurgling triumph. Sitting on the banks in thisway, Silas began to look for the once familiar herbsagain; and as the leaves, with their unchanged outlineand markings, lay on his palm, there was a sense ofcrowding remembrances from which he turned awaytimidly, taking refuge in Eppie’s little world, that laylightly on his enfeebled spirit.As the child’s mind was growing into knowledge,his mind was growing into memory: as her lifeunfolded, his soul, long stupefied in a cold narrowprison, was unfolding too, and trembling graduallyinto full consciousness.It was an influence which must gather force withevery new year: the tones that stirred Silas’ heartgrew articulate, and called for more distinct answers;shapes and sounds grew clearer for Eppie’s eyes andears, and there was more that “Dad-dad” wasimperatively required to notice and account for.Also, by the time Eppie was three years old, shedeveloped a fine capacity for mischief, and fordevising ingenious ways of being troublesome, whichfound much exercise, not only for Silas’ patience, butfor his watchfulness and penetration. Sorely was poorSilas puzzled on such occasions by the incompatibledemands of love.

This passage is adapted from George Eliot, Silas Marner.Originally published in 1861. Silas was a weaver and anotorious miser, but then the gold he had hoarded wasstolen. Shortly after, Silas adopted a young child, Eppie, thedaughter of an impoverished woman who had diedsuddenly.Unlike the gold which needed nothing, and mustbe worshipped in close-locked solitude—which washidden away from the daylight, was deaf to the songof birds, and started to no human tones—Eppie was acreature of endless claims and ever-growing desires,seeking and loving sunshine, and living sounds, andliving movements; making trial of everything, withtrust in new joy, and stirring the human kindness inall eyes that looked on her. The gold had kept histhoughts in an ever-repeated circle, leading tonothing beyond itself; but Eppie was an objectcompacted of changes and hopes that forced histhoughts onward, and carried them far away fromtheir old eager pacing towards the same blanklimit—carried them away to the new things thatwould come with the coming years, when Eppiewould have learned to understand how her fatherSilas cared for her; and made him look for images ofthat time in the ties and charities that bound togetherthe families of his neighbors. The gold had asked thathe should sit weaving longer and longer, deafenedand blinded more and more to all things except themonotony of his loom and the repetition of his web;but Eppie called him away from his weaving, andmade him think all its pauses a holiday, reawakeninghis senses with her fresh life, even to the oldwinter-flies that came crawling forth in the earlyspring sunshine, and warming him into joy becauseshe had joy.And when the sunshine grew strong and lasting,so that the buttercups were thick in the meadows,Silas might be seen in the sunny mid-day, or in thelate afternoon when the shadows were lengtheningunder the hedgerows, strolling out with uncoveredhead to carry Eppie beyond the Stone-pits to wherethe flowers grew, till they reached some favorite bankwhere he could sit down, while Eppie toddled topluck the flowers, and make remarks to the wingedthings that murmured happily above the brightpetals, calling “Dad-dad’s” attention continually bybringing him the flowers. Then she would turn herear to some sudden bird-note, and Silas learned toplease her by making signs of hushed stillness, thatthey might listen for the note to come again: so thatwhen it came, she set up her small back and laughedwith gurgling triumph. Sitting on the banks in thisway, Silas began to look for the once familiar herbsagain; and as the leaves, with their unchanged outlineand markings, lay on his palm, there was a sense ofcrowding remembrances from which he turned awaytimidly, taking refuge in Eppie’s little world, that laylightly on his enfeebled spirit.As the child’s mind was growing into knowledge,his mind was growing into memory: as her lifeunfolded, his soul, long stupefied in a cold narrowprison, was unfolding too, and trembling graduallyinto full consciousness.It was an influence which must gather force withevery new year: the tones that stirred Silas’ heartgrew articulate, and called for more distinct answers;shapes and sounds grew clearer for Eppie’s eyes andears, and there was more that “Dad-dad” wasimperatively required to notice and account for.Also, by the time Eppie was three years old, shedeveloped a fine capacity for mischief, and fordevising ingenious ways of being troublesome, whichfound much exercise, not only for Silas’ patience, butfor his watchfulness and penetration. Sorely was poorSilas puzzled on such occasions by the incompatibledemands of love.

This passage is adapted from George Eliot, Silas Marner.Originally published in 1861. Silas was a weaver and anotorious miser, but then the gold he had hoarded wasstolen. Shortly after, Silas adopted a young child, Eppie, thedaughter of an impoverished woman who had diedsuddenly.Unlike the gold which needed nothing, and mustbe worshipped in close-locked solitude—which washidden away from the daylight, was deaf to the songof birds, and started to no human tones—Eppie was acreature of endless claims and ever-growing desires,seeking and loving sunshine, and living sounds, andliving movements; making trial of everything, withtrust in new joy, and stirring the human kindness inall eyes that looked on her. The gold had kept histhoughts in an ever-repeated circle, leading tonothing beyond itself; but Eppie was an objectcompacted of changes and hopes that forced histhoughts onward, and carried them far away fromtheir old eager pacing towards the same blanklimit—carried them away to the new things thatwould come with the coming years, when Eppiewould have learned to understand how her fatherSilas cared for her; and made him look for images ofthat time in the ties and charities that bound togetherthe families of his neighbors. The gold had asked thathe should sit weaving longer and longer, deafenedand blinded more and more to all things except themonotony of his loom and the repetition of his web;but Eppie called him away from his weaving, andmade him think all its pauses a holiday, reawakeninghis senses with her fresh life, even to the oldwinter-flies that came crawling forth in the earlyspring sunshine, and warming him into joy becauseshe had joy.And when the sunshine grew strong and lasting,so that the buttercups were thick in the meadows,Silas might be seen in the sunny mid-day, or in thelate afternoon when the shadows were lengtheningunder the hedgerows, strolling out with uncoveredhead to carry Eppie beyond the Stone-pits to wherethe flowers grew, till they reached some favorite bankwhere he could sit down, while Eppie toddled topluck the flowers, and make remarks to the wingedthings that murmured happily above the brightpetals, calling “Dad-dad’s” attention continually bybringing him the flowers. Then she would turn herear to some sudden bird-note, and Silas learned toplease her by making signs of hushed stillness, thatthey might listen for the note to come again: so thatwhen it came, she set up her small back and laughedwith gurgling triumph. Sitting on the banks in thisway, Silas began to look for the once familiar herbsagain; and as the leaves, with their unchanged outlineand markings, lay on his palm, there was a sense ofcrowding remembrances from which he turned awaytimidly, taking refuge in Eppie’s little world, that laylightly on his enfeebled spirit.As the child’s mind was growing into knowledge,his mind was growing into memory: as her lifeunfolded, his soul, long stupefied in a cold narrowprison, was unfolding too, and trembling graduallyinto full consciousness.It was an influence which must gather force withevery new year: the tones that stirred Silas’ heartgrew articulate, and called for more distinct answers;shapes and sounds grew clearer for Eppie’s eyes andears, and there was more that “Dad-dad” wasimperatively required to notice and account for.Also, by the time Eppie was three years old, shedeveloped a fine capacity for mischief, and fordevising ingenious ways of being troublesome, whichfound much exercise, not only for Silas’ patience, butfor his watchfulness and penetration. Sorely was poorSilas puzzled on such occasions by the incompatibledemands of love.

This passage is adapted from George Eliot, Silas Marner.Originally published in 1861. Silas was a weaver and anotorious miser, but then the gold he had hoarded wasstolen. Shortly after, Silas adopted a young child, Eppie, thedaughter of an impoverished woman who had diedsuddenly.Unlike the gold which needed nothing, and mustbe worshipped in close-locked solitude—which washidden away from the daylight, was deaf to the songof birds, and started to no human tones—Eppie was acreature of endless claims and ever-growing desires,seeking and loving sunshine, and living sounds, andliving movements; making trial of everything, withtrust in new joy, and stirring the human kindness inall eyes that looked on her. The gold had kept histhoughts in an ever-repeated circle, leading tonothing beyond itself; but Eppie was an objectcompacted of changes and hopes that forced histhoughts onward, and carried them far away fromtheir old eager pacing towards the same blanklimit—carried them away to the new things thatwould come with the coming years, when Eppiewould have learned to understand how her fatherSilas cared for her; and made him look for images ofthat time in the ties and charities that bound togetherthe families of his neighbors. The gold had asked thathe should sit weaving longer and longer, deafenedand blinded more and more to all things except themonotony of his loom and the repetition of his web;but Eppie called him away from his weaving, andmade him think all its pauses a holiday, reawakeninghis senses with her fresh life, even to the oldwinter-flies that came crawling forth in the earlyspring sunshine, and warming him into joy becauseshe had joy.And when the sunshine grew strong and lasting,so that the buttercups were thick in the meadows,Silas might be seen in the sunny mid-day, or in thelate afternoon when the shadows were lengtheningunder the hedgerows, strolling out with uncoveredhead to carry Eppie beyond the Stone-pits to wherethe flowers grew, till they reached some favorite bankwhere he could sit down, while Eppie toddled topluck the flowers, and make remarks to the wingedthings that murmured happily above the brightpetals, calling “Dad-dad’s” attention continually bybringing him the flowers. Then she would turn herear to some sudden bird-note, and Silas learned toplease her by making signs of hushed stillness, thatthey might listen for the note to come again: so thatwhen it came, she set up her small back and laughedwith gurgling triumph. Sitting on the banks in thisway, Silas began to look for the once familiar herbsagain; and as the leaves, with their unchanged outlineand markings, lay on his palm, there was a sense ofcrowding remembrances from which he turned awaytimidly, taking refuge in Eppie’s little world, that laylightly on his enfeebled spirit.As the child’s mind was growing into knowledge,his mind was growing into memory: as her lifeunfolded, his soul, long stupefied in a cold narrowprison, was unfolding too, and trembling graduallyinto full consciousness.It was an influence which must gather force withevery new year: the tones that stirred Silas’ heartgrew articulate, and called for more distinct answers;shapes and sounds grew clearer for Eppie’s eyes andears, and there was more that “Dad-dad” wasimperatively required to notice and account for.Also, by the time Eppie was three years old, shedeveloped a fine capacity for mischief, and fordevising ingenious ways of being troublesome, whichfound much exercise, not only for Silas’ patience, butfor his watchfulness and penetration. Sorely was poorSilas puzzled on such occasions by the incompatibledemands of love.

This passage is adapted from George Eliot, Silas Marner.Originally published in 1861. Silas was a weaver and anotorious miser, but then the gold he had hoarded wasstolen. Shortly after, Silas adopted a young child, Eppie, thedaughter of an impoverished woman who had diedsuddenly.Unlike the gold which needed nothing, and mustbe worshipped in close-locked solitude—which washidden away from the daylight, was deaf to the songof birds, and started to no human tones—Eppie was acreature of endless claims and ever-growing desires,seeking and loving sunshine, and living sounds, andliving movements; making trial of everything, withtrust in new joy, and stirring the human kindness inall eyes that looked on her. The gold had kept histhoughts in an ever-repeated circle, leading tonothing beyond itself; but Eppie was an objectcompacted of changes and hopes that forced histhoughts onward, and carried them far away fromtheir old eager pacing towards the same blanklimit—carried them away to the new things thatwould come with the coming years, when Eppiewould have learned to understand how her fatherSilas cared for her; and made him look for images ofthat time in the ties and charities that bound togetherthe families of his neighbors. The gold had asked thathe should sit weaving longer and longer, deafenedand blinded more and more to all things except themonotony of his loom and the repetition of his web;but Eppie called him away from his weaving, andmade him think all its pauses a holiday, reawakeninghis senses with her fresh life, even to the oldwinter-flies that came crawling forth in the earlyspring sunshine, and warming him into joy becauseshe had joy.And when the sunshine grew strong and lasting,so that the buttercups were thick in the meadows,Silas might be seen in the sunny mid-day, or in thelate afternoon when the shadows were lengtheningunder the hedgerows, strolling out with uncoveredhead to carry Eppie beyond the Stone-pits to wherethe flowers grew, till they reached some favorite bankwhere he could sit down, while Eppie toddled topluck the flowers, and make remarks to the wingedthings that murmured happily above the brightpetals, calling “Dad-dad’s” attention continually bybringing him the flowers. Then she would turn herear to some sudden bird-note, and Silas learned toplease her by making signs of hushed stillness, thatthey might listen for the note to come again: so thatwhen it came, she set up her small back and laughedwith gurgling triumph. Sitting on the banks in thisway, Silas began to look for the once familiar herbsagain; and as the leaves, with their unchanged outlineand markings, lay on his palm, there was a sense ofcrowding remembrances from which he turned awaytimidly, taking refuge in Eppie’s little world, that laylightly on his enfeebled spirit.As the child’s mind was growing into knowledge,his mind was growing into memory: as her lifeunfolded, his soul, long stupefied in a cold narrowprison, was unfolding too, and trembling graduallyinto full consciousness.It was an influence which must gather force withevery new year: the tones that stirred Silas’ heartgrew articulate, and called for more distinct answers;shapes and sounds grew clearer for Eppie’s eyes andears, and there was more that “Dad-dad” wasimperatively required to notice and account for.Also, by the time Eppie was three years old, shedeveloped a fine capacity for mischief, and fordevising ingenious ways of being troublesome, whichfound much exercise, not only for Silas’ patience, butfor his watchfulness and penetration. Sorely was poorSilas puzzled on such occasions by the incompatibledemands of love.

This passage is adapted from David Rotman, “HowTechnology Is Destroying Jobs.” ©2013 by MIT TechnologyReview.MIT business scholars Erik Brynjolfsson andAndrew McAfee have argued that impressiveadvances in computer technology—from improvedindustrial robotics to automated translationservices—are largely behind the sluggishemployment growth of the last 10 to 15 years. Evenmore ominous for workers, they foresee dismalprospects for many types of jobs as these powerfulnew technologies are increasingly adopted not onlyin manufacturing, clerical, and retail work but inprofessions such as law, financial services, education,and medicine.That robots, automation, and software can replacepeople might seem obvious to anyone who’s workedin automotive manufacturing or as a travel agent. ButBrynjolfsson and McAfee’s claim is more troublingand controversial. They believe that rapidtechnological change has been destroying jobs fasterthan it is creating them, contributing to thestagnation of median income and the growth ofinequality in the United States. And, they suspect,something similar is happening in othertechnologically advanced countries.As evidence, Brynjolfsson and McAfee point to achart that only an economist could love. Ineconomics, productivity—the amount of economicvalue created for a given unit of input, such as anhour of labor—is a crucial indicator of growth andwealth creation. It is a measure of progress. On thechart Brynjolfsson likes to show, separate linesrepresent productivity and total employment in theUnited States. For years after World War II, thetwo lines closely tracked each other, with increases injobs corresponding to increases in productivity. Thepattern is clear: as businesses generated more valuefrom their workers, the country as a whole becamericher, which fueled more economic activity andcreated even more jobs. Then, beginning in 2000, thelines diverge; productivity continues to rise robustly,but employment suddenly wilts. By 2011, asignificant gap appears between the two lines,showing economic growth with no parallel increasein job creation. Brynjolfsson and McAfee call it the“great decoupling.” And Brynjolfsson says he isconfident that technology is behind both the healthygrowth in productivity and the weak growth in jobs.It’s a startling assertion because it threatens thefaith that many economists place in technologicalprogress. Brynjolfsson and McAfee still believe thattechnology boosts productivity and makes societieswealthier, but they think that it can also have a darkside: technological progress is eliminating the needfor many types of jobs and leaving the typical workerworse off than before. Brynjolfsson can point to asecond chart indicating that median income is failingto rise even as the gross domestic product soars. “It’sthe great paradox of our era,” he says. “Productivityis at record levels, innovation has never been faster,and yet at the same time, we have a falling medianincome and we have fewer jobs. People are fallingbehind because technology is advancing so fast andour skills and organizations aren’t keeping up.”While technological changes can be painful forworkers whose skills no longer match the needs ofemployers, Lawrence Katz, a Harvard economist,says that no historical pattern shows these shiftsleading to a net decrease in jobs over an extendedperiod. Katz has done extensive research on howtechnological advances have affected jobs over thelast few centuries—describing, for example, howhighly skilled artisans in the mid-19th century weredisplaced by lower-skilled workers in factories.While it can take decades for workers to acquire theexpertise needed for new types of employment, hesays, “we never have run out of jobs. There is nolong-term trend of eliminating work for people. Overthe long term, employment rates are fairlystable. People have always been able to create newjobs. People come up with new things to do.”Still, Katz doesn’t dismiss the notion that there issomething different about today’s digitaltechnologies—something that could affect an evenbroader range of work. The question, he says, iswhether economic history will serve as a usefulguide. Will the job disruptions caused by technologybe temporary as the workforce adapts, or will we seea science-fiction scenario in which automatedprocesses and robots with superhuman skills takeover a broad swath of human tasks? Though Katzexpects the historical pattern to hold, it is “genuinelya question,” he says. “If technology disrupts enough,who knows what will happen?”

This passage is adapted from David Rotman, “HowTechnology Is Destroying Jobs.” ©2013 by MIT TechnologyReview.MIT business scholars Erik Brynjolfsson andAndrew McAfee have argued that impressiveadvances in computer technology—from improvedindustrial robotics to automated translationservices—are largely behind the sluggishemployment growth of the last 10 to 15 years. Evenmore ominous for workers, they foresee dismalprospects for many types of jobs as these powerfulnew technologies are increasingly adopted not onlyin manufacturing, clerical, and retail work but inprofessions such as law, financial services, education,and medicine.That robots, automation, and software can replacepeople might seem obvious to anyone who’s workedin automotive manufacturing or as a travel agent. ButBrynjolfsson and McAfee’s claim is more troublingand controversial. They believe that rapidtechnological change has been destroying jobs fasterthan it is creating them, contributing to thestagnation of median income and the growth ofinequality in the United States. And, they suspect,something similar is happening in othertechnologically advanced countries.As evidence, Brynjolfsson and McAfee point to achart that only an economist could love. Ineconomics, productivity—the amount of economicvalue created for a given unit of input, such as anhour of labor—is a crucial indicator of growth andwealth creation. It is a measure of progress. On thechart Brynjolfsson likes to show, separate linesrepresent productivity and total employment in theUnited States. For years after World War II, thetwo lines closely tracked each other, with increases injobs corresponding to increases in productivity. Thepattern is clear: as businesses generated more valuefrom their workers, the country as a whole becamericher, which fueled more economic activity andcreated even more jobs. Then, beginning in 2000, thelines diverge; productivity continues to rise robustly,but employment suddenly wilts. By 2011, asignificant gap appears between the two lines,showing economic growth with no parallel increasein job creation. Brynjolfsson and McAfee call it the“great decoupling.” And Brynjolfsson says he isconfident that technology is behind both the healthygrowth in productivity and the weak growth in jobs.It’s a startling assertion because it threatens thefaith that many economists place in technologicalprogress. Brynjolfsson and McAfee still believe thattechnology boosts productivity and makes societieswealthier, but they think that it can also have a darkside: technological progress is eliminating the needfor many types of jobs and leaving the typical workerworse off than before. Brynjolfsson can point to asecond chart indicating that median income is failingto rise even as the gross domestic product soars. “It’sthe great paradox of our era,” he says. “Productivityis at record levels, innovation has never been faster,and yet at the same time, we have a falling medianincome and we have fewer jobs. People are fallingbehind because technology is advancing so fast andour skills and organizations aren’t keeping up.”While technological changes can be painful forworkers whose skills no longer match the needs ofemployers, Lawrence Katz, a Harvard economist,says that no historical pattern shows these shiftsleading to a net decrease in jobs over an extendedperiod. Katz has done extensive research on howtechnological advances have affected jobs over thelast few centuries—describing, for example, howhighly skilled artisans in the mid-19th century weredisplaced by lower-skilled workers in factories.While it can take decades for workers to acquire theexpertise needed for new types of employment, hesays, “we never have run out of jobs. There is nolong-term trend of eliminating work for people. Overthe long term, employment rates are fairlystable. People have always been able to create newjobs. People come up with new things to do.”Still, Katz doesn’t dismiss the notion that there issomething different about today’s digitaltechnologies—something that could affect an evenbroader range of work. The question, he says, iswhether economic history will serve as a usefulguide. Will the job disruptions caused by technologybe temporary as the workforce adapts, or will we seea science-fiction scenario in which automatedprocesses and robots with superhuman skills takeover a broad swath of human tasks? Though Katzexpects the historical pattern to hold, it is “genuinelya question,” he says. “If technology disrupts enough,who knows what will happen?”

This passage is adapted from David Rotman, “HowTechnology Is Destroying Jobs.” ©2013 by MIT TechnologyReview.MIT business scholars Erik Brynjolfsson andAndrew McAfee have argued that impressiveadvances in computer technology—from improvedindustrial robotics to automated translationservices—are largely behind the sluggishemployment growth of the last 10 to 15 years. Evenmore ominous for workers, they foresee dismalprospects for many types of jobs as these powerfulnew technologies are increasingly adopted not onlyin manufacturing, clerical, and retail work but inprofessions such as law, financial services, education,and medicine.That robots, automation, and software can replacepeople might seem obvious to anyone who’s workedin automotive manufacturing or as a travel agent. ButBrynjolfsson and McAfee’s claim is more troublingand controversial. They believe that rapidtechnological change has been destroying jobs fasterthan it is creating them, contributing to thestagnation of median income and the growth ofinequality in the United States. And, they suspect,something similar is happening in othertechnologically advanced countries.As evidence, Brynjolfsson and McAfee point to achart that only an economist could love. Ineconomics, productivity—the amount of economicvalue created for a given unit of input, such as anhour of labor—is a crucial indicator of growth andwealth creation. It is a measure of progress. On thechart Brynjolfsson likes to show, separate linesrepresent productivity and total employment in theUnited States. For years after World War II, thetwo lines closely tracked each other, with increases injobs corresponding to increases in productivity. Thepattern is clear: as businesses generated more valuefrom their workers, the country as a whole becamericher, which fueled more economic activity andcreated even more jobs. Then, beginning in 2000, thelines diverge; productivity continues to rise robustly,but employment suddenly wilts. By 2011, asignificant gap appears between the two lines,showing economic growth with no parallel increasein job creation. Brynjolfsson and McAfee call it the“great decoupling.” And Brynjolfsson says he isconfident that technology is behind both the healthygrowth in productivity and the weak growth in jobs.It’s a startling assertion because it threatens thefaith that many economists place in technologicalprogress. Brynjolfsson and McAfee still believe thattechnology boosts productivity and makes societieswealthier, but they think that it can also have a darkside: technological progress is eliminating the needfor many types of jobs and leaving the typical workerworse off than before. Brynjolfsson can point to asecond chart indicating that median income is failingto rise even as the gross domestic product soars. “It’sthe great paradox of our era,” he says. “Productivityis at record levels, innovation has never been faster,and yet at the same time, we have a falling medianincome and we have fewer jobs. People are fallingbehind because technology is advancing so fast andour skills and organizations aren’t keeping up.”While technological changes can be painful forworkers whose skills no longer match the needs ofemployers, Lawrence Katz, a Harvard economist,says that no historical pattern shows these shiftsleading to a net decrease in jobs over an extendedperiod. Katz has done extensive research on howtechnological advances have affected jobs over thelast few centuries—describing, for example, howhighly skilled artisans in the mid-19th century weredisplaced by lower-skilled workers in factories.While it can take decades for workers to acquire theexpertise needed for new types of employment, hesays, “we never have run out of jobs. There is nolong-term trend of eliminating work for people. Overthe long term, employment rates are fairlystable. People have always been able to create newjobs. People come up with new things to do.”Still, Katz doesn’t dismiss the notion that there issomething different about today’s digitaltechnologies—something that could affect an evenbroader range of work. The question, he says, iswhether economic history will serve as a usefulguide. Will the job disruptions caused by technologybe temporary as the workforce adapts, or will we seea science-fiction scenario in which automatedprocesses and robots with superhuman skills takeover a broad swath of human tasks? Though Katzexpects the historical pattern to hold, it is “genuinelya question,” he says. “If technology disrupts enough,who knows what will happen?”

This passage is adapted from David Rotman, “HowTechnology Is Destroying Jobs.” ©2013 by MIT TechnologyReview.MIT business scholars Erik Brynjolfsson andAndrew McAfee have argued that impressiveadvances in computer technology—from improvedindustrial robotics to automated translationservices—are largely behind the sluggishemployment growth of the last 10 to 15 years. Evenmore ominous for workers, they foresee dismalprospects for many types of jobs as these powerfulnew technologies are increasingly adopted not onlyin manufacturing, clerical, and retail work but inprofessions such as law, financial services, education,and medicine.That robots, automation, and software can replacepeople might seem obvious to anyone who’s workedin automotive manufacturing or as a travel agent. ButBrynjolfsson and McAfee’s claim is more troublingand controversial. They believe that rapidtechnological change has been destroying jobs fasterthan it is creating them, contributing to thestagnation of median income and the growth ofinequality in the United States. And, they suspect,something similar is happening in othertechnologically advanced countries.As evidence, Brynjolfsson and McAfee point to achart that only an economist could love. Ineconomics, productivity—the amount of economicvalue created for a given unit of input, such as anhour of labor—is a crucial indicator of growth andwealth creation. It is a measure of progress. On thechart Brynjolfsson likes to show, separate linesrepresent productivity and total employment in theUnited States. For years after World War II, thetwo lines closely tracked each other, with increases injobs corresponding to increases in productivity. Thepattern is clear: as businesses generated more valuefrom their workers, the country as a whole becamericher, which fueled more economic activity andcreated even more jobs. Then, beginning in 2000, thelines diverge; productivity continues to rise robustly,but employment suddenly wilts. By 2011, asignificant gap appears between the two lines,showing economic growth with no parallel increasein job creation. Brynjolfsson and McAfee call it the“great decoupling.” And Brynjolfsson says he isconfident that technology is behind both the healthygrowth in productivity and the weak growth in jobs.It’s a startling assertion because it threatens thefaith that many economists place in technologicalprogress. Brynjolfsson and McAfee still believe thattechnology boosts productivity and makes societieswealthier, but they think that it can also have a darkside: technological progress is eliminating the needfor many types of jobs and leaving the typical workerworse off than before. Brynjolfsson can point to asecond chart indicating that median income is failingto rise even as the gross domestic product soars. “It’sthe great paradox of our era,” he says. “Productivityis at record levels, innovation has never been faster,and yet at the same time, we have a falling medianincome and we have fewer jobs. People are fallingbehind because technology is advancing so fast andour skills and organizations aren’t keeping up.”While technological changes can be painful forworkers whose skills no longer match the needs ofemployers, Lawrence Katz, a Harvard economist,says that no historical pattern shows these shiftsleading to a net decrease in jobs over an extendedperiod. Katz has done extensive research on howtechnological advances have affected jobs over thelast few centuries—describing, for example, howhighly skilled artisans in the mid-19th century weredisplaced by lower-skilled workers in factories.While it can take decades for workers to acquire theexpertise needed for new types of employment, hesays, “we never have run out of jobs. There is nolong-term trend of eliminating work for people. Overthe long term, employment rates are fairlystable. People have always been able to create newjobs. People come up with new things to do.”Still, Katz doesn’t dismiss the notion that there issomething different about today’s digitaltechnologies—something that could affect an evenbroader range of work. The question, he says, iswhether economic history will serve as a usefulguide. Will the job disruptions caused by technologybe temporary as the workforce adapts, or will we seea science-fiction scenario in which automatedprocesses and robots with superhuman skills takeover a broad swath of human tasks? Though Katzexpects the historical pattern to hold, it is “genuinelya question,” he says. “If technology disrupts enough,who knows what will happen?”

This passage is adapted from David Rotman, “HowTechnology Is Destroying Jobs.” ©2013 by MIT TechnologyReview.MIT business scholars Erik Brynjolfsson andAndrew McAfee have argued that impressiveadvances in computer technology—from improvedindustrial robotics to automated translationservices—are largely behind the sluggishemployment growth of the last 10 to 15 years. Evenmore ominous for workers, they foresee dismalprospects for many types of jobs as these powerfulnew technologies are increasingly adopted not onlyin manufacturing, clerical, and retail work but inprofessions such as law, financial services, education,and medicine.That robots, automation, and software can replacepeople might seem obvious to anyone who’s workedin automotive manufacturing or as a travel agent. ButBrynjolfsson and McAfee’s claim is more troublingand controversial. They believe that rapidtechnological change has been destroying jobs fasterthan it is creating them, contributing to thestagnation of median income and the growth ofinequality in the United States. And, they suspect,something similar is happening in othertechnologically advanced countries.As evidence, Brynjolfsson and McAfee point to achart that only an economist could love. Ineconomics, productivity—the amount of economicvalue created for a given unit of input, such as anhour of labor—is a crucial indicator of growth andwealth creation. It is a measure of progress. On thechart Brynjolfsson likes to show, separate linesrepresent productivity and total employment in theUnited States. For years after World War II, thetwo lines closely tracked each other, with increases injobs corresponding to increases in productivity. Thepattern is clear: as businesses generated more valuefrom their workers, the country as a whole becamericher, which fueled more economic activity andcreated even more jobs. Then, beginning in 2000, thelines diverge; productivity continues to rise robustly,but employment suddenly wilts. By 2011, asignificant gap appears between the two lines,showing economic growth with no parallel increasein job creation. Brynjolfsson and McAfee call it the“great decoupling.” And Brynjolfsson says he isconfident that technology is behind both the healthygrowth in productivity and the weak growth in jobs.It’s a startling assertion because it threatens thefaith that many economists place in technologicalprogress. Brynjolfsson and McAfee still believe thattechnology boosts productivity and makes societieswealthier, but they think that it can also have a darkside: technological progress is eliminating the needfor many types of jobs and leaving the typical workerworse off than before. Brynjolfsson can point to asecond chart indicating that median income is failingto rise even as the gross domestic product soars. “It’sthe great paradox of our era,” he says. “Productivityis at record levels, innovation has never been faster,and yet at the same time, we have a falling medianincome and we have fewer jobs. People are fallingbehind because technology is advancing so fast andour skills and organizations aren’t keeping up.”While technological changes can be painful forworkers whose skills no longer match the needs ofemployers, Lawrence Katz, a Harvard economist,says that no historical pattern shows these shiftsleading to a net decrease in jobs over an extendedperiod. Katz has done extensive research on howtechnological advances have affected jobs over thelast few centuries—describing, for example, howhighly skilled artisans in the mid-19th century weredisplaced by lower-skilled workers in factories.While it can take decades for workers to acquire theexpertise needed for new types of employment, hesays, “we never have run out of jobs. There is nolong-term trend of eliminating work for people. Overthe long term, employment rates are fairlystable. People have always been able to create newjobs. People come up with new things to do.”Still, Katz doesn’t dismiss the notion that there issomething different about today’s digitaltechnologies—something that could affect an evenbroader range of work. The question, he says, iswhether economic history will serve as a usefulguide. Will the job disruptions caused by technologybe temporary as the workforce adapts, or will we seea science-fiction scenario in which automatedprocesses and robots with superhuman skills takeover a broad swath of human tasks? Though Katzexpects the historical pattern to hold, it is “genuinelya question,” he says. “If technology disrupts enough,who knows what will happen?”

This passage is adapted from David Rotman, “HowTechnology Is Destroying Jobs.” ©2013 by MIT TechnologyReview.MIT business scholars Erik Brynjolfsson andAndrew McAfee have argued that impressiveadvances in computer technology—from improvedindustrial robotics to automated translationservices—are largely behind the sluggishemployment growth of the last 10 to 15 years. Evenmore ominous for workers, they foresee dismalprospects for many types of jobs as these powerfulnew technologies are increasingly adopted not onlyin manufacturing, clerical, and retail work but inprofessions such as law, financial services, education,and medicine.That robots, automation, and software can replacepeople might seem obvious to anyone who’s workedin automotive manufacturing or as a travel agent. ButBrynjolfsson and McAfee’s claim is more troublingand controversial. They believe that rapidtechnological change has been destroying jobs fasterthan it is creating them, contributing to thestagnation of median income and the growth ofinequality in the United States. And, they suspect,something similar is happening in othertechnologically advanced countries.As evidence, Brynjolfsson and McAfee point to achart that only an economist could love. Ineconomics, productivity—the amount of economicvalue created for a given unit of input, such as anhour of labor—is a crucial indicator of growth andwealth creation. It is a measure of progress. On thechart Brynjolfsson likes to show, separate linesrepresent productivity and total employment in theUnited States. For years after World War II, thetwo lines closely tracked each other, with increases injobs corresponding to increases in productivity. Thepattern is clear: as businesses generated more valuefrom their workers, the country as a whole becamericher, which fueled more economic activity andcreated even more jobs. Then, beginning in 2000, thelines diverge; productivity continues to rise robustly,but employment suddenly wilts. By 2011, asignificant gap appears between the two lines,showing economic growth with no parallel increasein job creation. Brynjolfsson and McAfee call it the“great decoupling.” And Brynjolfsson says he isconfident that technology is behind both the healthygrowth in productivity and the weak growth in jobs.It’s a startling assertion because it threatens thefaith that many economists place in technologicalprogress. Brynjolfsson and McAfee still believe thattechnology boosts productivity and makes societieswealthier, but they think that it can also have a darkside: technological progress is eliminating the needfor many types of jobs and leaving the typical workerworse off than before. Brynjolfsson can point to asecond chart indicating that median income is failingto rise even as the gross domestic product soars. “It’sthe great paradox of our era,” he says. “Productivityis at record levels, innovation has never been faster,and yet at the same time, we have a falling medianincome and we have fewer jobs. People are fallingbehind because technology is advancing so fast andour skills and organizations aren’t keeping up.”While technological changes can be painful forworkers whose skills no longer match the needs ofemployers, Lawrence Katz, a Harvard economist,says that no historical pattern shows these shiftsleading to a net decrease in jobs over an extendedperiod. Katz has done extensive research on howtechnological advances have affected jobs over thelast few centuries—describing, for example, howhighly skilled artisans in the mid-19th century weredisplaced by lower-skilled workers in factories.While it can take decades for workers to acquire theexpertise needed for new types of employment, hesays, “we never have run out of jobs. There is nolong-term trend of eliminating work for people. Overthe long term, employment rates are fairlystable. People have always been able to create newjobs. People come up with new things to do.”Still, Katz doesn’t dismiss the notion that there issomething different about today’s digitaltechnologies—something that could affect an evenbroader range of work. The question, he says, iswhether economic history will serve as a usefulguide. Will the job disruptions caused by technologybe temporary as the workforce adapts, or will we seea science-fiction scenario in which automatedprocesses and robots with superhuman skills takeover a broad swath of human tasks? Though Katzexpects the historical pattern to hold, it is “genuinelya question,” he says. “If technology disrupts enough,who knows what will happen?”

This passage is adapted from David Rotman, “HowTechnology Is Destroying Jobs.” ©2013 by MIT TechnologyReview.MIT business scholars Erik Brynjolfsson andAndrew McAfee have argued that impressiveadvances in computer technology—from improvedindustrial robotics to automated translationservices—are largely behind the sluggishemployment growth of the last 10 to 15 years. Evenmore ominous for workers, they foresee dismalprospects for many types of jobs as these powerfulnew technologies are increasingly adopted not onlyin manufacturing, clerical, and retail work but inprofessions such as law, financial services, education,and medicine.That robots, automation, and software can replacepeople might seem obvious to anyone who’s workedin automotive manufacturing or as a travel agent. ButBrynjolfsson and McAfee’s claim is more troublingand controversial. They believe that rapidtechnological change has been destroying jobs fasterthan it is creating them, contributing to thestagnation of median income and the growth ofinequality in the United States. And, they suspect,something similar is happening in othertechnologically advanced countries.As evidence, Brynjolfsson and McAfee point to achart that only an economist could love. Ineconomics, productivity—the amount of economicvalue created for a given unit of input, such as anhour of labor—is a crucial indicator of growth andwealth creation. It is a measure of progress. On thechart Brynjolfsson likes to show, separate linesrepresent productivity and total employment in theUnited States. For years after World War II, thetwo lines closely tracked each other, with increases injobs corresponding to increases in productivity. Thepattern is clear: as businesses generated more valuefrom their workers, the country as a whole becamericher, which fueled more economic activity andcreated even more jobs. Then, beginning in 2000, thelines diverge; productivity continues to rise robustly,but employment suddenly wilts. By 2011, asignificant gap appears between the two lines,showing economic growth with no parallel increasein job creation. Brynjolfsson and McAfee call it the“great decoupling.” And Brynjolfsson says he isconfident that technology is behind both the healthygrowth in productivity and the weak growth in jobs.It’s a startling assertion because it threatens thefaith that many economists place in technologicalprogress. Brynjolfsson and McAfee still believe thattechnology boosts productivity and makes societieswealthier, but they think that it can also have a darkside: technological progress is eliminating the needfor many types of jobs and leaving the typical workerworse off than before. Brynjolfsson can point to asecond chart indicating that median income is failingto rise even as the gross domestic product soars. “It’sthe great paradox of our era,” he says. “Productivityis at record levels, innovation has never been faster,and yet at the same time, we have a falling medianincome and we have fewer jobs. People are fallingbehind because technology is advancing so fast andour skills and organizations aren’t keeping up.”While technological changes can be painful forworkers whose skills no longer match the needs ofemployers, Lawrence Katz, a Harvard economist,says that no historical pattern shows these shiftsleading to a net decrease in jobs over an extendedperiod. Katz has done extensive research on howtechnological advances have affected jobs over thelast few centuries—describing, for example, howhighly skilled artisans in the mid-19th century weredisplaced by lower-skilled workers in factories.While it can take decades for workers to acquire theexpertise needed for new types of employment, hesays, “we never have run out of jobs. There is nolong-term trend of eliminating work for people. Overthe long term, employment rates are fairlystable. People have always been able to create newjobs. People come up with new things to do.”Still, Katz doesn’t dismiss the notion that there issomething different about today’s digitaltechnologies—something that could affect an evenbroader range of work. The question, he says, iswhether economic history will serve as a usefulguide. Will the job disruptions caused by technologybe temporary as the workforce adapts, or will we seea science-fiction scenario in which automatedprocesses and robots with superhuman skills takeover a broad swath of human tasks? Though Katzexpects the historical pattern to hold, it is “genuinelya question,” he says. “If technology disrupts enough,who knows what will happen?”

This passage is adapted from David Rotman, “HowTechnology Is Destroying Jobs.” ©2013 by MIT TechnologyReview.MIT business scholars Erik Brynjolfsson andAndrew McAfee have argued that impressiveadvances in computer technology—from improvedindustrial robotics to automated translationservices—are largely behind the sluggishemployment growth of the last 10 to 15 years. Evenmore ominous for workers, they foresee dismalprospects for many types of jobs as these powerfulnew technologies are increasingly adopted not onlyin manufacturing, clerical, and retail work but inprofessions such as law, financial services, education,and medicine.That robots, automation, and software can replacepeople might seem obvious to anyone who’s workedin automotive manufacturing or as a travel agent. ButBrynjolfsson and McAfee’s claim is more troublingand controversial. They believe that rapidtechnological change has been destroying jobs fasterthan it is creating them, contributing to thestagnation of median income and the growth ofinequality in the United States. And, they suspect,something similar is happening in othertechnologically advanced countries.As evidence, Brynjolfsson and McAfee point to achart that only an economist could love. Ineconomics, productivity—the amount of economicvalue created for a given unit of input, such as anhour of labor—is a crucial indicator of growth andwealth creation. It is a measure of progress. On thechart Brynjolfsson likes to show, separate linesrepresent productivity and total employment in theUnited States. For years after World War II, thetwo lines closely tracked each other, with increases injobs corresponding to increases in productivity. Thepattern is clear: as businesses generated more valuefrom their workers, the country as a whole becamericher, which fueled more economic activity andcreated even more jobs. Then, beginning in 2000, thelines diverge; productivity continues to rise robustly,but employment suddenly wilts. By 2011, asignificant gap appears between the two lines,showing economic growth with no parallel increasein job creation. Brynjolfsson and McAfee call it the“great decoupling.” And Brynjolfsson says he isconfident that technology is behind both the healthygrowth in productivity and the weak growth in jobs.It’s a startling assertion because it threatens thefaith that many economists place in technologicalprogress. Brynjolfsson and McAfee still believe thattechnology boosts productivity and makes societieswealthier, but they think that it can also have a darkside: technological progress is eliminating the needfor many types of jobs and leaving the typical workerworse off than before. Brynjolfsson can point to asecond chart indicating that median income is failingto rise even as the gross domestic product soars. “It’sthe great paradox of our era,” he says. “Productivityis at record levels, innovation has never been faster,and yet at the same time, we have a falling medianincome and we have fewer jobs. People are fallingbehind because technology is advancing so fast andour skills and organizations aren’t keeping up.”While technological changes can be painful forworkers whose skills no longer match the needs ofemployers, Lawrence Katz, a Harvard economist,says that no historical pattern shows these shiftsleading to a net decrease in jobs over an extendedperiod. Katz has done extensive research on howtechnological advances have affected jobs over thelast few centuries—describing, for example, howhighly skilled artisans in the mid-19th century weredisplaced by lower-skilled workers in factories.While it can take decades for workers to acquire theexpertise needed for new types of employment, hesays, “we never have run out of jobs. There is nolong-term trend of eliminating work for people. Overthe long term, employment rates are fairlystable. People have always been able to create newjobs. People come up with new things to do.”Still, Katz doesn’t dismiss the notion that there issomething different about today’s digitaltechnologies—something that could affect an evenbroader range of work. The question, he says, iswhether economic history will serve as a usefulguide. Will the job disruptions caused by technologybe temporary as the workforce adapts, or will we seea science-fiction scenario in which automatedprocesses and robots with superhuman skills takeover a broad swath of human tasks? Though Katzexpects the historical pattern to hold, it is “genuinelya question,” he says. “If technology disrupts enough,who knows what will happen?”

This passage is adapted from David Rotman, “HowTechnology Is Destroying Jobs.” ©2013 by MIT TechnologyReview.MIT business scholars Erik Brynjolfsson andAndrew McAfee have argued that impressiveadvances in computer technology—from improvedindustrial robotics to automated translationservices—are largely behind the sluggishemployment growth of the last 10 to 15 years. Evenmore ominous for workers, they foresee dismalprospects for many types of jobs as these powerfulnew technologies are increasingly adopted not onlyin manufacturing, clerical, and retail work but inprofessions such as law, financial services, education,and medicine.That robots, automation, and software can replacepeople might seem obvious to anyone who’s workedin automotive manufacturing or as a travel agent. ButBrynjolfsson and McAfee’s claim is more troublingand controversial. They believe that rapidtechnological change has been destroying jobs fasterthan it is creating them, contributing to thestagnation of median income and the growth ofinequality in the United States. And, they suspect,something similar is happening in othertechnologically advanced countries.As evidence, Brynjolfsson and McAfee point to achart that only an economist could love. Ineconomics, productivity—the amount of economicvalue created for a given unit of input, such as anhour of labor—is a crucial indicator of growth andwealth creation. It is a measure of progress. On thechart Brynjolfsson likes to show, separate linesrepresent productivity and total employment in theUnited States. For years after World War II, thetwo lines closely tracked each other, with increases injobs corresponding to increases in productivity. Thepattern is clear: as businesses generated more valuefrom their workers, the country as a whole becamericher, which fueled more economic activity andcreated even more jobs. Then, beginning in 2000, thelines diverge; productivity continues to rise robustly,but employment suddenly wilts. By 2011, asignificant gap appears between the two lines,showing economic growth with no parallel increasein job creation. Brynjolfsson and McAfee call it the“great decoupling.” And Brynjolfsson says he isconfident that technology is behind both the healthygrowth in productivity and the weak growth in jobs.It’s a startling assertion because it threatens thefaith that many economists place in technologicalprogress. Brynjolfsson and McAfee still believe thattechnology boosts productivity and makes societieswealthier, but they think that it can also have a darkside: technological progress is eliminating the needfor many types of jobs and leaving the typical workerworse off than before. Brynjolfsson can point to asecond chart indicating that median income is failingto rise even as the gross domestic product soars. “It’sthe great paradox of our era,” he says. “Productivityis at record levels, innovation has never been faster,and yet at the same time, we have a falling medianincome and we have fewer jobs. People are fallingbehind because technology is advancing so fast andour skills and organizations aren’t keeping up.”While technological changes can be painful forworkers whose skills no longer match the needs ofemployers, Lawrence Katz, a Harvard economist,says that no historical pattern shows these shiftsleading to a net decrease in jobs over an extendedperiod. Katz has done extensive research on howtechnological advances have affected jobs over thelast few centuries—describing, for example, howhighly skilled artisans in the mid-19th century weredisplaced by lower-skilled workers in factories.While it can take decades for workers to acquire theexpertise needed for new types of employment, hesays, “we never have run out of jobs. There is nolong-term trend of eliminating work for people. Overthe long term, employment rates are fairlystable. People have always been able to create newjobs. People come up with new things to do.”Still, Katz doesn’t dismiss the notion that there issomething different about today’s digitaltechnologies—something that could affect an evenbroader range of work. The question, he says, iswhether economic history will serve as a usefulguide. Will the job disruptions caused by technologybe temporary as the workforce adapts, or will we seea science-fiction scenario in which automatedprocesses and robots with superhuman skills takeover a broad swath of human tasks? Though Katzexpects the historical pattern to hold, it is “genuinelya question,” he says. “If technology disrupts enough,who knows what will happen?”

This passage is adapted from David Rotman, “HowTechnology Is Destroying Jobs.” ©2013 by MIT TechnologyReview.MIT business scholars Erik Brynjolfsson andAndrew McAfee have argued that impressiveadvances in computer technology—from improvedindustrial robotics to automated translationservices—are largely behind the sluggishemployment growth of the last 10 to 15 years. Evenmore ominous for workers, they foresee dismalprospects for many types of jobs as these powerfulnew technologies are increasingly adopted not onlyin manufacturing, clerical, and retail work but inprofessions such as law, financial services, education,and medicine.That robots, automation, and software can replacepeople might seem obvious to anyone who’s workedin automotive manufacturing or as a travel agent. ButBrynjolfsson and McAfee’s claim is more troublingand controversial. They believe that rapidtechnological change has been destroying jobs fasterthan it is creating them, contributing to thestagnation of median income and the growth ofinequality in the United States. And, they suspect,something similar is happening in othertechnologically advanced countries.As evidence, Brynjolfsson and McAfee point to achart that only an economist could love. Ineconomics, productivity—the amount of economicvalue created for a given unit of input, such as anhour of labor—is a crucial indicator of growth andwealth creation. It is a measure of progress. On thechart Brynjolfsson likes to show, separate linesrepresent productivity and total employment in theUnited States. For years after World War II, thetwo lines closely tracked each other, with increases injobs corresponding to increases in productivity. Thepattern is clear: as businesses generated more valuefrom their workers, the country as a whole becamericher, which fueled more economic activity andcreated even more jobs. Then, beginning in 2000, thelines diverge; productivity continues to rise robustly,but employment suddenly wilts. By 2011, asignificant gap appears between the two lines,showing economic growth with no parallel increasein job creation. Brynjolfsson and McAfee call it the“great decoupling.” And Brynjolfsson says he isconfident that technology is behind both the healthygrowth in productivity and the weak growth in jobs.It’s a startling assertion because it threatens thefaith that many economists place in technologicalprogress. Brynjolfsson and McAfee still believe thattechnology boosts productivity and makes societieswealthier, but they think that it can also have a darkside: technological progress is eliminating the needfor many types of jobs and leaving the typical workerworse off than before. Brynjolfsson can point to asecond chart indicating that median income is failingto rise even as the gross domestic product soars. “It’sthe great paradox of our era,” he says. “Productivityis at record levels, innovation has never been faster,and yet at the same time, we have a falling medianincome and we have fewer jobs. People are fallingbehind because technology is advancing so fast andour skills and organizations aren’t keeping up.”While technological changes can be painful forworkers whose skills no longer match the needs ofemployers, Lawrence Katz, a Harvard economist,says that no historical pattern shows these shiftsleading to a net decrease in jobs over an extendedperiod. Katz has done extensive research on howtechnological advances have affected jobs over thelast few centuries—describing, for example, howhighly skilled artisans in the mid-19th century weredisplaced by lower-skilled workers in factories.While it can take decades for workers to acquire theexpertise needed for new types of employment, hesays, “we never have run out of jobs. There is nolong-term trend of eliminating work for people. Overthe long term, employment rates are fairlystable. People have always been able to create newjobs. People come up with new things to do.”Still, Katz doesn’t dismiss the notion that there issomething different about today’s digitaltechnologies—something that could affect an evenbroader range of work. The question, he says, iswhether economic history will serve as a usefulguide. Will the job disruptions caused by technologybe temporary as the workforce adapts, or will we seea science-fiction scenario in which automatedprocesses and robots with superhuman skills takeover a broad swath of human tasks? Though Katzexpects the historical pattern to hold, it is “genuinelya question,” he says. “If technology disrupts enough,who knows what will happen?”

This passage is adapted from David Rotman, “HowTechnology Is Destroying Jobs.” ©2013 by MIT TechnologyReview.MIT business scholars Erik Brynjolfsson andAndrew McAfee have argued that impressiveadvances in computer technology—from improvedindustrial robotics to automated translationservices—are largely behind the sluggishemployment growth of the last 10 to 15 years. Evenmore ominous for workers, they foresee dismalprospects for many types of jobs as these powerfulnew technologies are increasingly adopted not onlyin manufacturing, clerical, and retail work but inprofessions such as law, financial services, education,and medicine.That robots, automation, and software can replacepeople might seem obvious to anyone who’s workedin automotive manufacturing or as a travel agent. ButBrynjolfsson and McAfee’s claim is more troublingand controversial. They believe that rapidtechnological change has been destroying jobs fasterthan it is creating them, contributing to thestagnation of median income and the growth ofinequality in the United States. And, they suspect,something similar is happening in othertechnologically advanced countries.As evidence, Brynjolfsson and McAfee point to achart that only an economist could love. Ineconomics, productivity—the amount of economicvalue created for a given unit of input, such as anhour of labor—is a crucial indicator of growth andwealth creation. It is a measure of progress. On thechart Brynjolfsson likes to show, separate linesrepresent productivity and total employment in theUnited States. For years after World War II, thetwo lines closely tracked each other, with increases injobs corresponding to increases in productivity. Thepattern is clear: as businesses generated more valuefrom their workers, the country as a whole becamericher, which fueled more economic activity andcreated even more jobs. Then, beginning in 2000, thelines diverge; productivity continues to rise robustly,but employment suddenly wilts. By 2011, asignificant gap appears between the two lines,showing economic growth with no parallel increasein job creation. Brynjolfsson and McAfee call it the“great decoupling.” And Brynjolfsson says he isconfident that technology is behind both the healthygrowth in productivity and the weak growth in jobs.It’s a startling assertion because it threatens thefaith that many economists place in technologicalprogress. Brynjolfsson and McAfee still believe thattechnology boosts productivity and makes societieswealthier, but they think that it can also have a darkside: technological progress is eliminating the needfor many types of jobs and leaving the typical workerworse off than before. Brynjolfsson can point to asecond chart indicating that median income is failingto rise even as the gross domestic product soars. “It’sthe great paradox of our era,” he says. “Productivityis at record levels, innovation has never been faster,and yet at the same time, we have a falling medianincome and we have fewer jobs. People are fallingbehind because technology is advancing so fast andour skills and organizations aren’t keeping up.”While technological changes can be painful forworkers whose skills no longer match the needs ofemployers, Lawrence Katz, a Harvard economist,says that no historical pattern shows these shiftsleading to a net decrease in jobs over an extendedperiod. Katz has done extensive research on howtechnological advances have affected jobs over thelast few centuries—describing, for example, howhighly skilled artisans in the mid-19th century weredisplaced by lower-skilled workers in factories.While it can take decades for workers to acquire theexpertise needed for new types of employment, hesays, “we never have run out of jobs. There is nolong-term trend of eliminating work for people. Overthe long term, employment rates are fairlystable. People have always been able to create newjobs. People come up with new things to do.”Still, Katz doesn’t dismiss the notion that there issomething different about today’s digitaltechnologies—something that could affect an evenbroader range of work. The question, he says, iswhether economic history will serve as a usefulguide. Will the job disruptions caused by technologybe temporary as the workforce adapts, or will we seea science-fiction scenario in which automatedprocesses and robots with superhuman skills takeover a broad swath of human tasks? Though Katzexpects the historical pattern to hold, it is “genuinelya question,” he says. “If technology disrupts enough,who knows what will happen?”

Fly in a V Formation.” ©2014 by American Association forthe Advancement of Science.Anyone watching the autumn sky knows thatmigrating birds fly in a V formation, but scientistshave long debated why. A new study of ibises findsthat these big-winged birds carefully position theirwingtips and sync their flapping, presumably to catchthe preceding bird’s updraft—and save energyduring flight.There are two reasons birds might fly in aV formation: It may make flight easier, or they’resimply following the leader. Squadrons of planes cansave fuel by flying in a V formation, and manyscientists suspect that migrating birds do the same.Models that treated flapping birds like fixed-wingairplanes estimate that they save energy by draftingoff each other, but currents created by airplanes arefar more stable than the oscillating eddies coming offof a bird. “Air gets pretty unpredictable behind aflapping wing,” says James Usherwood, a locomotorbiomechanist at the Royal Veterinary College at theUniversity of London in Hatfield, where the researchtook place.The study, published in Nature, took advantage ofan existing project to reintroduce endangerednorthern bald ibises (Geronticus eremita) to Europe.Scientists used a microlight plane to showhand-raised birds their ancestral migration routefrom Austria to Italy. A flock of 14 juveniles carrieddata loggers specially built by Usherwood and his lab.The device’s GPS determined each bird’s flightposition to within 30 cm, and an accelerometershowed the timing of the wing flaps.Just as aerodynamic estimates would predict, thebirds positioned themselves to fly just behind and tothe side of the bird in front, timing their wing beatsto catch the uplifting eddies. When a bird flewdirectly behind another, the timing of the flappingreversed so that it could minimize the effects of thedowndraft coming off the back of the bird’s body.“We didn’t think this was possible,” Usherwoodsays, considering that the feat requires carefulflight and incredible awareness of one’s neighbors.“Perhaps these big V formation birds can be thoughtof quite like an airplane with wings that go up anddown.”The findings likely apply to other long-wingedbirds, such as pelicans, storks, and geese, Usherwoodsays. Smaller birds create more complex wakes thatwould make drafting too difficult. The researchersdid not attempt to calculate the bird’s energy savingsbecause the necessary physiological measurementswould be too invasive for an endangered species.Previous studies estimate that birds can use20 percent to 30 percent less energy whileflying in a V.“From a behavioral perspective it’s really abreakthrough,” says David Lentink, a mechanicalengineer at Stanford University in Palo Alto,California, who was not involved in the work.“Showing that birds care about syncing their wingbeats is definitely an important insight that we didn’thave before.”Scientists do not know how the birds findthat aerodynamic sweet spot, but they suspect thatthe animals align themselves either by sight orby sensing air currents through their feathers.Alternatively, they may move around until they findthe location with the least resistance. In futurestudies, the researchers will switch to more commonbirds, such as pigeons or geese. They plan toinvestigate how the animals decide who sets thecourse and the pace, and whether a mistake made bythe leader can ripple through the rest of the flock tocause traffic jams.“It’s a pretty impressive piece of work as it is, butit does suggest that there’s a lot more to learn,”says Ty Hedrick, a biologist at the University ofNorth Carolina, Chapel Hill, who studies flightaerodynamics in birds and insects. However they doit, he says, “birds are awfully good hang-gliderpilots.”

Fly in a V Formation.” ©2014 by American Association forthe Advancement of Science.Anyone watching the autumn sky knows thatmigrating birds fly in a V formation, but scientistshave long debated why. A new study of ibises findsthat these big-winged birds carefully position theirwingtips and sync their flapping, presumably to catchthe preceding bird’s updraft—and save energyduring flight.There are two reasons birds might fly in aV formation: It may make flight easier, or they’resimply following the leader. Squadrons of planes cansave fuel by flying in a V formation, and manyscientists suspect that migrating birds do the same.Models that treated flapping birds like fixed-wingairplanes estimate that they save energy by draftingoff each other, but currents created by airplanes arefar more stable than the oscillating eddies coming offof a bird. “Air gets pretty unpredictable behind aflapping wing,” says James Usherwood, a locomotorbiomechanist at the Royal Veterinary College at theUniversity of London in Hatfield, where the researchtook place.The study, published in Nature, took advantage ofan existing project to reintroduce endangerednorthern bald ibises (Geronticus eremita) to Europe.Scientists used a microlight plane to showhand-raised birds their ancestral migration routefrom Austria to Italy. A flock of 14 juveniles carrieddata loggers specially built by Usherwood and his lab.The device’s GPS determined each bird’s flightposition to within 30 cm, and an accelerometershowed the timing of the wing flaps.Just as aerodynamic estimates would predict, thebirds positioned themselves to fly just behind and tothe side of the bird in front, timing their wing beatsto catch the uplifting eddies. When a bird flewdirectly behind another, the timing of the flappingreversed so that it could minimize the effects of thedowndraft coming off the back of the bird’s body.“We didn’t think this was possible,” Usherwoodsays, considering that the feat requires carefulflight and incredible awareness of one’s neighbors.“Perhaps these big V formation birds can be thoughtof quite like an airplane with wings that go up anddown.”The findings likely apply to other long-wingedbirds, such as pelicans, storks, and geese, Usherwoodsays. Smaller birds create more complex wakes thatwould make drafting too difficult. The researchersdid not attempt to calculate the bird’s energy savingsbecause the necessary physiological measurementswould be too invasive for an endangered species.Previous studies estimate that birds can use20 percent to 30 percent less energy whileflying in a V.“From a behavioral perspective it’s really abreakthrough,” says David Lentink, a mechanicalengineer at Stanford University in Palo Alto,California, who was not involved in the work.“Showing that birds care about syncing their wingbeats is definitely an important insight that we didn’thave before.”Scientists do not know how the birds findthat aerodynamic sweet spot, but they suspect thatthe animals align themselves either by sight orby sensing air currents through their feathers.Alternatively, they may move around until they findthe location with the least resistance. In futurestudies, the researchers will switch to more commonbirds, such as pigeons or geese. They plan toinvestigate how the animals decide who sets thecourse and the pace, and whether a mistake made bythe leader can ripple through the rest of the flock tocause traffic jams.“It’s a pretty impressive piece of work as it is, butit does suggest that there’s a lot more to learn,”says Ty Hedrick, a biologist at the University ofNorth Carolina, Chapel Hill, who studies flightaerodynamics in birds and insects. However they doit, he says, “birds are awfully good hang-gliderpilots.”

Fly in a V Formation.” ©2014 by American Association forthe Advancement of Science.Anyone watching the autumn sky knows thatmigrating birds fly in a V formation, but scientistshave long debated why. A new study of ibises findsthat these big-winged birds carefully position theirwingtips and sync their flapping, presumably to catchthe preceding bird’s updraft—and save energyduring flight.There are two reasons birds might fly in aV formation: It may make flight easier, or they’resimply following the leader. Squadrons of planes cansave fuel by flying in a V formation, and manyscientists suspect that migrating birds do the same.Models that treated flapping birds like fixed-wingairplanes estimate that they save energy by draftingoff each other, but currents created by airplanes arefar more stable than the oscillating eddies coming offof a bird. “Air gets pretty unpredictable behind aflapping wing,” says James Usherwood, a locomotorbiomechanist at the Royal Veterinary College at theUniversity of London in Hatfield, where the researchtook place.The study, published in Nature, took advantage ofan existing project to reintroduce endangerednorthern bald ibises (Geronticus eremita) to Europe.Scientists used a microlight plane to showhand-raised birds their ancestral migration routefrom Austria to Italy. A flock of 14 juveniles carrieddata loggers specially built by Usherwood and his lab.The device’s GPS determined each bird’s flightposition to within 30 cm, and an accelerometershowed the timing of the wing flaps.Just as aerodynamic estimates would predict, thebirds positioned themselves to fly just behind and tothe side of the bird in front, timing their wing beatsto catch the uplifting eddies. When a bird flewdirectly behind another, the timing of the flappingreversed so that it could minimize the effects of thedowndraft coming off the back of the bird’s body.“We didn’t think this was possible,” Usherwoodsays, considering that the feat requires carefulflight and incredible awareness of one’s neighbors.“Perhaps these big V formation birds can be thoughtof quite like an airplane with wings that go up anddown.”The findings likely apply to other long-wingedbirds, such as pelicans, storks, and geese, Usherwoodsays. Smaller birds create more complex wakes thatwould make drafting too difficult. The researchersdid not attempt to calculate the bird’s energy savingsbecause the necessary physiological measurementswould be too invasive for an endangered species.Previous studies estimate that birds can use20 percent to 30 percent less energy whileflying in a V.“From a behavioral perspective it’s really abreakthrough,” says David Lentink, a mechanicalengineer at Stanford University in Palo Alto,California, who was not involved in the work.“Showing that birds care about syncing their wingbeats is definitely an important insight that we didn’thave before.”Scientists do not know how the birds findthat aerodynamic sweet spot, but they suspect thatthe animals align themselves either by sight orby sensing air currents through their feathers.Alternatively, they may move around until they findthe location with the least resistance. In futurestudies, the researchers will switch to more commonbirds, such as pigeons or geese. They plan toinvestigate how the animals decide who sets thecourse and the pace, and whether a mistake made bythe leader can ripple through the rest of the flock tocause traffic jams.“It’s a pretty impressive piece of work as it is, butit does suggest that there’s a lot more to learn,”says Ty Hedrick, a biologist at the University ofNorth Carolina, Chapel Hill, who studies flightaerodynamics in birds and insects. However they doit, he says, “birds are awfully good hang-gliderpilots.”

Fly in a V Formation.” ©2014 by American Association forthe Advancement of Science.Anyone watching the autumn sky knows thatmigrating birds fly in a V formation, but scientistshave long debated why. A new study of ibises findsthat these big-winged birds carefully position theirwingtips and sync their flapping, presumably to catchthe preceding bird’s updraft—and save energyduring flight.There are two reasons birds might fly in aV formation: It may make flight easier, or they’resimply following the leader. Squadrons of planes cansave fuel by flying in a V formation, and manyscientists suspect that migrating birds do the same.Models that treated flapping birds like fixed-wingairplanes estimate that they save energy by draftingoff each other, but currents created by airplanes arefar more stable than the oscillating eddies coming offof a bird. “Air gets pretty unpredictable behind aflapping wing,” says James Usherwood, a locomotorbiomechanist at the Royal Veterinary College at theUniversity of London in Hatfield, where the researchtook place.The study, published in Nature, took advantage ofan existing project to reintroduce endangerednorthern bald ibises (Geronticus eremita) to Europe.Scientists used a microlight plane to showhand-raised birds their ancestral migration routefrom Austria to Italy. A flock of 14 juveniles carrieddata loggers specially built by Usherwood and his lab.The device’s GPS determined each bird’s flightposition to within 30 cm, and an accelerometershowed the timing of the wing flaps.Just as aerodynamic estimates would predict, thebirds positioned themselves to fly just behind and tothe side of the bird in front, timing their wing beatsto catch the uplifting eddies. When a bird flewdirectly behind another, the timing of the flappingreversed so that it could minimize the effects of thedowndraft coming off the back of the bird’s body.“We didn’t think this was possible,” Usherwoodsays, considering that the feat requires carefulflight and incredible awareness of one’s neighbors.“Perhaps these big V formation birds can be thoughtof quite like an airplane with wings that go up anddown.”The findings likely apply to other long-wingedbirds, such as pelicans, storks, and geese, Usherwoodsays. Smaller birds create more complex wakes thatwould make drafting too difficult. The researchersdid not attempt to calculate the bird’s energy savingsbecause the necessary physiological measurementswould be too invasive for an endangered species.Previous studies estimate that birds can use20 percent to 30 percent less energy whileflying in a V.“From a behavioral perspective it’s really abreakthrough,” says David Lentink, a mechanicalengineer at Stanford University in Palo Alto,California, who was not involved in the work.“Showing that birds care about syncing their wingbeats is definitely an important insight that we didn’thave before.”Scientists do not know how the birds findthat aerodynamic sweet spot, but they suspect thatthe animals align themselves either by sight orby sensing air currents through their feathers.Alternatively, they may move around until they findthe location with the least resistance. In futurestudies, the researchers will switch to more commonbirds, such as pigeons or geese. They plan toinvestigate how the animals decide who sets thecourse and the pace, and whether a mistake made bythe leader can ripple through the rest of the flock tocause traffic jams.“It’s a pretty impressive piece of work as it is, butit does suggest that there’s a lot more to learn,”says Ty Hedrick, a biologist at the University ofNorth Carolina, Chapel Hill, who studies flightaerodynamics in birds and insects. However they doit, he says, “birds are awfully good hang-gliderpilots.”

Fly in a V Formation.” ©2014 by American Association forthe Advancement of Science.Anyone watching the autumn sky knows thatmigrating birds fly in a V formation, but scientistshave long debated why. A new study of ibises findsthat these big-winged birds carefully position theirwingtips and sync their flapping, presumably to catchthe preceding bird’s updraft—and save energyduring flight.There are two reasons birds might fly in aV formation: It may make flight easier, or they’resimply following the leader. Squadrons of planes cansave fuel by flying in a V formation, and manyscientists suspect that migrating birds do the same.Models that treated flapping birds like fixed-wingairplanes estimate that they save energy by draftingoff each other, but currents created by airplanes arefar more stable than the oscillating eddies coming offof a bird. “Air gets pretty unpredictable behind aflapping wing,” says James Usherwood, a locomotorbiomechanist at the Royal Veterinary College at theUniversity of London in Hatfield, where the researchtook place.The study, published in Nature, took advantage ofan existing project to reintroduce endangerednorthern bald ibises (Geronticus eremita) to Europe.Scientists used a microlight plane to showhand-raised birds their ancestral migration routefrom Austria to Italy. A flock of 14 juveniles carrieddata loggers specially built by Usherwood and his lab.The device’s GPS determined each bird’s flightposition to within 30 cm, and an accelerometershowed the timing of the wing flaps.Just as aerodynamic estimates would predict, thebirds positioned themselves to fly just behind and tothe side of the bird in front, timing their wing beatsto catch the uplifting eddies. When a bird flewdirectly behind another, the timing of the flappingreversed so that it could minimize the effects of thedowndraft coming off the back of the bird’s body.“We didn’t think this was possible,” Usherwoodsays, considering that the feat requires carefulflight and incredible awareness of one’s neighbors.“Perhaps these big V formation birds can be thoughtof quite like an airplane with wings that go up anddown.”The findings likely apply to other long-wingedbirds, such as pelicans, storks, and geese, Usherwoodsays. Smaller birds create more complex wakes thatwould make drafting too difficult. The researchersdid not attempt to calculate the bird’s energy savingsbecause the necessary physiological measurementswould be too invasive for an endangered species.Previous studies estimate that birds can use20 percent to 30 percent less energy whileflying in a V.“From a behavioral perspective it’s really abreakthrough,” says David Lentink, a mechanicalengineer at Stanford University in Palo Alto,California, who was not involved in the work.“Showing that birds care about syncing their wingbeats is definitely an important insight that we didn’thave before.”Scientists do not know how the birds findthat aerodynamic sweet spot, but they suspect thatthe animals align themselves either by sight orby sensing air currents through their feathers.Alternatively, they may move around until they findthe location with the least resistance. In futurestudies, the researchers will switch to more commonbirds, such as pigeons or geese. They plan toinvestigate how the animals decide who sets thecourse and the pace, and whether a mistake made bythe leader can ripple through the rest of the flock tocause traffic jams.“It’s a pretty impressive piece of work as it is, butit does suggest that there’s a lot more to learn,”says Ty Hedrick, a biologist at the University ofNorth Carolina, Chapel Hill, who studies flightaerodynamics in birds and insects. However they doit, he says, “birds are awfully good hang-gliderpilots.”

Fly in a V Formation.” ©2014 by American Association forthe Advancement of Science.Anyone watching the autumn sky knows thatmigrating birds fly in a V formation, but scientistshave long debated why. A new study of ibises findsthat these big-winged birds carefully position theirwingtips and sync their flapping, presumably to catchthe preceding bird’s updraft—and save energyduring flight.There are two reasons birds might fly in aV formation: It may make flight easier, or they’resimply following the leader. Squadrons of planes cansave fuel by flying in a V formation, and manyscientists suspect that migrating birds do the same.Models that treated flapping birds like fixed-wingairplanes estimate that they save energy by draftingoff each other, but currents created by airplanes arefar more stable than the oscillating eddies coming offof a bird. “Air gets pretty unpredictable behind aflapping wing,” says James Usherwood, a locomotorbiomechanist at the Royal Veterinary College at theUniversity of London in Hatfield, where the researchtook place.The study, published in Nature, took advantage ofan existing project to reintroduce endangerednorthern bald ibises (Geronticus eremita) to Europe.Scientists used a microlight plane to showhand-raised birds their ancestral migration routefrom Austria to Italy. A flock of 14 juveniles carrieddata loggers specially built by Usherwood and his lab.The device’s GPS determined each bird’s flightposition to within 30 cm, and an accelerometershowed the timing of the wing flaps.Just as aerodynamic estimates would predict, thebirds positioned themselves to fly just behind and tothe side of the bird in front, timing their wing beatsto catch the uplifting eddies. When a bird flewdirectly behind another, the timing of the flappingreversed so that it could minimize the effects of thedowndraft coming off the back of the bird’s body.“We didn’t think this was possible,” Usherwoodsays, considering that the feat requires carefulflight and incredible awareness of one’s neighbors.“Perhaps these big V formation birds can be thoughtof quite like an airplane with wings that go up anddown.”The findings likely apply to other long-wingedbirds, such as pelicans, storks, and geese, Usherwoodsays. Smaller birds create more complex wakes thatwould make drafting too difficult. The researchersdid not attempt to calculate the bird’s energy savingsbecause the necessary physiological measurementswould be too invasive for an endangered species.Previous studies estimate that birds can use20 percent to 30 percent less energy whileflying in a V.“From a behavioral perspective it’s really abreakthrough,” says David Lentink, a mechanicalengineer at Stanford University in Palo Alto,California, who was not involved in the work.“Showing that birds care about syncing their wingbeats is definitely an important insight that we didn’thave before.”Scientists do not know how the birds findthat aerodynamic sweet spot, but they suspect thatthe animals align themselves either by sight orby sensing air currents through their feathers.Alternatively, they may move around until they findthe location with the least resistance. In futurestudies, the researchers will switch to more commonbirds, such as pigeons or geese. They plan toinvestigate how the animals decide who sets thecourse and the pace, and whether a mistake made bythe leader can ripple through the rest of the flock tocause traffic jams.“It’s a pretty impressive piece of work as it is, butit does suggest that there’s a lot more to learn,”says Ty Hedrick, a biologist at the University ofNorth Carolina, Chapel Hill, who studies flightaerodynamics in birds and insects. However they doit, he says, “birds are awfully good hang-gliderpilots.”

Fly in a V Formation.” ©2014 by American Association forthe Advancement of Science.Anyone watching the autumn sky knows thatmigrating birds fly in a V formation, but scientistshave long debated why. A new study of ibises findsthat these big-winged birds carefully position theirwingtips and sync their flapping, presumably to catchthe preceding bird’s updraft—and save energyduring flight.There are two reasons birds might fly in aV formation: It may make flight easier, or they’resimply following the leader. Squadrons of planes cansave fuel by flying in a V formation, and manyscientists suspect that migrating birds do the same.Models that treated flapping birds like fixed-wingairplanes estimate that they save energy by draftingoff each other, but currents created by airplanes arefar more stable than the oscillating eddies coming offof a bird. “Air gets pretty unpredictable behind aflapping wing,” says James Usherwood, a locomotorbiomechanist at the Royal Veterinary College at theUniversity of London in Hatfield, where the researchtook place.The study, published in Nature, took advantage ofan existing project to reintroduce endangerednorthern bald ibises (Geronticus eremita) to Europe.Scientists used a microlight plane to showhand-raised birds their ancestral migration routefrom Austria to Italy. A flock of 14 juveniles carrieddata loggers specially built by Usherwood and his lab.The device’s GPS determined each bird’s flightposition to within 30 cm, and an accelerometershowed the timing of the wing flaps.Just as aerodynamic estimates would predict, thebirds positioned themselves to fly just behind and tothe side of the bird in front, timing their wing beatsto catch the uplifting eddies. When a bird flewdirectly behind another, the timing of the flappingreversed so that it could minimize the effects of thedowndraft coming off the back of the bird’s body.“We didn’t think this was possible,” Usherwoodsays, considering that the feat requires carefulflight and incredible awareness of one’s neighbors.“Perhaps these big V formation birds can be thoughtof quite like an airplane with wings that go up anddown.”The findings likely apply to other long-wingedbirds, such as pelicans, storks, and geese, Usherwoodsays. Smaller birds create more complex wakes thatwould make drafting too difficult. The researchersdid not attempt to calculate the bird’s energy savingsbecause the necessary physiological measurementswould be too invasive for an endangered species.Previous studies estimate that birds can use20 percent to 30 percent less energy whileflying in a V.“From a behavioral perspective it’s really abreakthrough,” says David Lentink, a mechanicalengineer at Stanford University in Palo Alto,California, who was not involved in the work.“Showing that birds care about syncing their wingbeats is definitely an important insight that we didn’thave before.”Scientists do not know how the birds findthat aerodynamic sweet spot, but they suspect thatthe animals align themselves either by sight orby sensing air currents through their feathers.Alternatively, they may move around until they findthe location with the least resistance. In futurestudies, the researchers will switch to more commonbirds, such as pigeons or geese. They plan toinvestigate how the animals decide who sets thecourse and the pace, and whether a mistake made bythe leader can ripple through the rest of the flock tocause traffic jams.“It’s a pretty impressive piece of work as it is, butit does suggest that there’s a lot more to learn,”says Ty Hedrick, a biologist at the University ofNorth Carolina, Chapel Hill, who studies flightaerodynamics in birds and insects. However they doit, he says, “birds are awfully good hang-gliderpilots.”

Fly in a V Formation.” ©2014 by American Association forthe Advancement of Science.Anyone watching the autumn sky knows thatmigrating birds fly in a V formation, but scientistshave long debated why. A new study of ibises findsthat these big-winged birds carefully position theirwingtips and sync their flapping, presumably to catchthe preceding bird’s updraft—and save energyduring flight.There are two reasons birds might fly in aV formation: It may make flight easier, or they’resimply following the leader. Squadrons of planes cansave fuel by flying in a V formation, and manyscientists suspect that migrating birds do the same.Models that treated flapping birds like fixed-wingairplanes estimate that they save energy by draftingoff each other, but currents created by airplanes arefar more stable than the oscillating eddies coming offof a bird. “Air gets pretty unpredictable behind aflapping wing,” says James Usherwood, a locomotorbiomechanist at the Royal Veterinary College at theUniversity of London in Hatfield, where the researchtook place.The study, published in Nature, took advantage ofan existing project to reintroduce endangerednorthern bald ibises (Geronticus eremita) to Europe.Scientists used a microlight plane to showhand-raised birds their ancestral migration routefrom Austria to Italy. A flock of 14 juveniles carrieddata loggers specially built by Usherwood and his lab.The device’s GPS determined each bird’s flightposition to within 30 cm, and an accelerometershowed the timing of the wing flaps.Just as aerodynamic estimates would predict, thebirds positioned themselves to fly just behind and tothe side of the bird in front, timing their wing beatsto catch the uplifting eddies. When a bird flewdirectly behind another, the timing of the flappingreversed so that it could minimize the effects of thedowndraft coming off the back of the bird’s body.“We didn’t think this was possible,” Usherwoodsays, considering that the feat requires carefulflight and incredible awareness of one’s neighbors.“Perhaps these big V formation birds can be thoughtof quite like an airplane with wings that go up anddown.”The findings likely apply to other long-wingedbirds, such as pelicans, storks, and geese, Usherwoodsays. Smaller birds create more complex wakes thatwould make drafting too difficult. The researchersdid not attempt to calculate the bird’s energy savingsbecause the necessary physiological measurementswould be too invasive for an endangered species.Previous studies estimate that birds can use20 percent to 30 percent less energy whileflying in a V.“From a behavioral perspective it’s really abreakthrough,” says David Lentink, a mechanicalengineer at Stanford University in Palo Alto,California, who was not involved in the work.“Showing that birds care about syncing their wingbeats is definitely an important insight that we didn’thave before.”Scientists do not know how the birds findthat aerodynamic sweet spot, but they suspect thatthe animals align themselves either by sight orby sensing air currents through their feathers.Alternatively, they may move around until they findthe location with the least resistance. In futurestudies, the researchers will switch to more commonbirds, such as pigeons or geese. They plan toinvestigate how the animals decide who sets thecourse and the pace, and whether a mistake made bythe leader can ripple through the rest of the flock tocause traffic jams.“It’s a pretty impressive piece of work as it is, butit does suggest that there’s a lot more to learn,”says Ty Hedrick, a biologist at the University ofNorth Carolina, Chapel Hill, who studies flightaerodynamics in birds and insects. However they doit, he says, “birds are awfully good hang-gliderpilots.”

Fly in a V Formation.” ©2014 by American Association forthe Advancement of Science.Anyone watching the autumn sky knows thatmigrating birds fly in a V formation, but scientistshave long debated why. A new study of ibises findsthat these big-winged birds carefully position theirwingtips and sync their flapping, presumably to catchthe preceding bird’s updraft—and save energyduring flight.There are two reasons birds might fly in aV formation: It may make flight easier, or they’resimply following the leader. Squadrons of planes cansave fuel by flying in a V formation, and manyscientists suspect that migrating birds do the same.Models that treated flapping birds like fixed-wingairplanes estimate that they save energy by draftingoff each other, but currents created by airplanes arefar more stable than the oscillating eddies coming offof a bird. “Air gets pretty unpredictable behind aflapping wing,” says James Usherwood, a locomotorbiomechanist at the Royal Veterinary College at theUniversity of London in Hatfield, where the researchtook place.The study, published in Nature, took advantage ofan existing project to reintroduce endangerednorthern bald ibises (Geronticus eremita) to Europe.Scientists used a microlight plane to showhand-raised birds their ancestral migration routefrom Austria to Italy. A flock of 14 juveniles carrieddata loggers specially built by Usherwood and his lab.The device’s GPS determined each bird’s flightposition to within 30 cm, and an accelerometershowed the timing of the wing flaps.Just as aerodynamic estimates would predict, thebirds positioned themselves to fly just behind and tothe side of the bird in front, timing their wing beatsto catch the uplifting eddies. When a bird flewdirectly behind another, the timing of the flappingreversed so that it could minimize the effects of thedowndraft coming off the back of the bird’s body.“We didn’t think this was possible,” Usherwoodsays, considering that the feat requires carefulflight and incredible awareness of one’s neighbors.“Perhaps these big V formation birds can be thoughtof quite like an airplane with wings that go up anddown.”The findings likely apply to other long-wingedbirds, such as pelicans, storks, and geese, Usherwoodsays. Smaller birds create more complex wakes thatwould make drafting too difficult. The researchersdid not attempt to calculate the bird’s energy savingsbecause the necessary physiological measurementswould be too invasive for an endangered species.Previous studies estimate that birds can use20 percent to 30 percent less energy whileflying in a V.“From a behavioral perspective it’s really abreakthrough,” says David Lentink, a mechanicalengineer at Stanford University in Palo Alto,California, who was not involved in the work.“Showing that birds care about syncing their wingbeats is definitely an important insight that we didn’thave before.”Scientists do not know how the birds findthat aerodynamic sweet spot, but they suspect thatthe animals align themselves either by sight orby sensing air currents through their feathers.Alternatively, they may move around until they findthe location with the least resistance. In futurestudies, the researchers will switch to more commonbirds, such as pigeons or geese. They plan toinvestigate how the animals decide who sets thecourse and the pace, and whether a mistake made bythe leader can ripple through the rest of the flock tocause traffic jams.“It’s a pretty impressive piece of work as it is, butit does suggest that there’s a lot more to learn,”says Ty Hedrick, a biologist at the University ofNorth Carolina, Chapel Hill, who studies flightaerodynamics in birds and insects. However they doit, he says, “birds are awfully good hang-gliderpilots.”

Fly in a V Formation.” ©2014 by American Association forthe Advancement of Science.Anyone watching the autumn sky knows thatmigrating birds fly in a V formation, but scientistshave long debated why. A new study of ibises findsthat these big-winged birds carefully position theirwingtips and sync their flapping, presumably to catchthe preceding bird’s updraft—and save energyduring flight.There are two reasons birds might fly in aV formation: It may make flight easier, or they’resimply following the leader. Squadrons of planes cansave fuel by flying in a V formation, and manyscientists suspect that migrating birds do the same.Models that treated flapping birds like fixed-wingairplanes estimate that they save energy by draftingoff each other, but currents created by airplanes arefar more stable than the oscillating eddies coming offof a bird. “Air gets pretty unpredictable behind aflapping wing,” says James Usherwood, a locomotorbiomechanist at the Royal Veterinary College at theUniversity of London in Hatfield, where the researchtook place.The study, published in Nature, took advantage ofan existing project to reintroduce endangerednorthern bald ibises (Geronticus eremita) to Europe.Scientists used a microlight plane to showhand-raised birds their ancestral migration routefrom Austria to Italy. A flock of 14 juveniles carrieddata loggers specially built by Usherwood and his lab.The device’s GPS determined each bird’s flightposition to within 30 cm, and an accelerometershowed the timing of the wing flaps.Just as aerodynamic estimates would predict, thebirds positioned themselves to fly just behind and tothe side of the bird in front, timing their wing beatsto catch the uplifting eddies. When a bird flewdirectly behind another, the timing of the flappingreversed so that it could minimize the effects of thedowndraft coming off the back of the bird’s body.“We didn’t think this was possible,” Usherwoodsays, considering that the feat requires carefulflight and incredible awareness of one’s neighbors.“Perhaps these big V formation birds can be thoughtof quite like an airplane with wings that go up anddown.”The findings likely apply to other long-wingedbirds, such as pelicans, storks, and geese, Usherwoodsays. Smaller birds create more complex wakes thatwould make drafting too difficult. The researchersdid not attempt to calculate the bird’s energy savingsbecause the necessary physiological measurementswould be too invasive for an endangered species.Previous studies estimate that birds can use20 percent to 30 percent less energy whileflying in a V.“From a behavioral perspective it’s really abreakthrough,” says David Lentink, a mechanicalengineer at Stanford University in Palo Alto,California, who was not involved in the work.“Showing that birds care about syncing their wingbeats is definitely an important insight that we didn’thave before.”Scientists do not know how the birds findthat aerodynamic sweet spot, but they suspect thatthe animals align themselves either by sight orby sensing air currents through their feathers.Alternatively, they may move around until they findthe location with the least resistance. In futurestudies, the researchers will switch to more commonbirds, such as pigeons or geese. They plan toinvestigate how the animals decide who sets thecourse and the pace, and whether a mistake made bythe leader can ripple through the rest of the flock tocause traffic jams.“It’s a pretty impressive piece of work as it is, butit does suggest that there’s a lot more to learn,”says Ty Hedrick, a biologist at the University ofNorth Carolina, Chapel Hill, who studies flightaerodynamics in birds and insects. However they doit, he says, “birds are awfully good hang-gliderpilots.”

Passage 1 is adapted from Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracyin America, Volume 2. Originally published in 1840. Passage 2is adapted from Harriet Taylor Mill, “Enfranchisement ofWomen.” Originally published in 1851. As United States andEuropean societies grew increasingly democratic during thenineteenth century, debates arose about whether freedomsenjoyed by men should be extended to women as well.Passage 1I have shown how democracy destroys ormodifies the different inequalities which originate insociety; but is this all? or does it not ultimately affectthat great inequality of man and woman which hasseemed, up to the present day, to be eternally basedin human nature? I believe that the social changeswhich bring nearer to the same level the father andson, the master and servant, and superiors andinferiors generally speaking, will raise woman andmake her more and more the equal of man. But here,more than ever, I feel the necessity of making myselfclearly understood; for there is no subject on whichthe coarse and lawless fancies of our age have taken afreer range.There are people in Europe who, confoundingtogether the different characteristics of the sexes,would make of man and woman beings not onlyequal but alike. They would give to both the samefunctions, impose on both the same duties, and grantto both the same rights; they would mix them in allthings—their occupations, their pleasures, theirbusiness. It may readily be conceived, that by thusattempting to make one sex equal to the other, bothare degraded; and from so preposterous a medley ofthe works of nature nothing could ever result butweak men and disorderly women.It is not thus that the Americans understand thatspecies of democratic equality which may beestablished between the sexes. They admit, that asnature has appointed such wide differences betweenthe physical and moral constitution of man andwoman, her manifest design was to give a distinctemployment to their various faculties; and they holdthat improvement does not consist in making beingsso dissimilar do pretty nearly the same things, but ingetting each of them to fulfill their respective tasks inthe best possible manner. The Americans haveapplied to the sexes the great principle of politicaleconomy which governs the manufactures of our age,by carefully dividing the duties of man from those ofwoman, in order that the great work of society maybe the better carried on.Passage 2As society was constituted until the last fewgenerations, inequality was its very basis; associationgrounded on equal rights scarcely existed; to beequals was to be enemies; two persons could hardlycoöperate in anything, or meet in any amicablerelation, without the law’s appointing that one ofthem should be the superior of the other.Mankind have outgrown this state, and all thingsnow tend to substitute, as the general principle ofhuman relations, a just equality, instead of thedominion of the strongest. But of all relations, thatbetween men and women, being the nearest andmost intimate, and connected with the greatestnumber of strong emotions, was sure to be the last tothrow off the old rule, and receive the new; for,in proportion to the strength of a feeling is thetenacity with which it clings to the forms andcircumstances with which it has even accidentallybecome associated..... . . The proper sphere for all human beings is thelargest and highest which they are able to attain to.What this is, cannot be ascertained without completeliberty of choice. . . . Let every occupation be open toall, without favor or discouragement to any, andemployments will fall into the hands of those men orwomen who are found by experience to be mostcapable of worthily exercising them. There need beno fear that women will take out of the hands of menany occupation which men perform better than they.Each individual will prove his or her capacities, in theonly way in which capacities can be proved,—bytrial; and the world will have the benefit of the bestfaculties of all its inhabitants. But to interferebeforehand by an arbitrary limit, and declare thatwhatever be the genius, talent, energy, or force of mind, of an individual of a certain sex or class, thosefaculties shall not be exerted, or shall be exerted onlyin some few of the many modes in which others arepermitted to use theirs, is not only an injustice to theindividual, and a detriment to society, which loseswhat it can ill spare, but is also the most effectual wayof providing that, in the sex or class so fettered, thequalities which are not permitted to be exercisedshall not exist.

Passage 1 is adapted from Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracyin America, Volume 2. Originally published in 1840. Passage 2is adapted from Harriet Taylor Mill, “Enfranchisement ofWomen.” Originally published in 1851. As United States andEuropean societies grew increasingly democratic during thenineteenth century, debates arose about whether freedomsenjoyed by men should be extended to women as well.Passage 1I have shown how democracy destroys ormodifies the different inequalities which originate insociety; but is this all? or does it not ultimately affectthat great inequality of man and woman which hasseemed, up to the present day, to be eternally basedin human nature? I believe that the social changeswhich bring nearer to the same level the father andson, the master and servant, and superiors andinferiors generally speaking, will raise woman andmake her more and more the equal of man. But here,more than ever, I feel the necessity of making myselfclearly understood; for there is no subject on whichthe coarse and lawless fancies of our age have taken afreer range.There are people in Europe who, confoundingtogether the different characteristics of the sexes,would make of man and woman beings not onlyequal but alike. They would give to both the samefunctions, impose on both the same duties, and grantto both the same rights; they would mix them in allthings—their occupations, their pleasures, theirbusiness. It may readily be conceived, that by thusattempting to make one sex equal to the other, bothare degraded; and from so preposterous a medley ofthe works of nature nothing could ever result butweak men and disorderly women.It is not thus that the Americans understand thatspecies of democratic equality which may beestablished between the sexes. They admit, that asnature has appointed such wide differences betweenthe physical and moral constitution of man andwoman, her manifest design was to give a distinctemployment to their various faculties; and they holdthat improvement does not consist in making beingsso dissimilar do pretty nearly the same things, but ingetting each of them to fulfill their respective tasks inthe best possible manner. The Americans haveapplied to the sexes the great principle of politicaleconomy which governs the manufactures of our age,by carefully dividing the duties of man from those ofwoman, in order that the great work of society maybe the better carried on.Passage 2As society was constituted until the last fewgenerations, inequality was its very basis; associationgrounded on equal rights scarcely existed; to beequals was to be enemies; two persons could hardlycoöperate in anything, or meet in any amicablerelation, without the law’s appointing that one ofthem should be the superior of the other.Mankind have outgrown this state, and all thingsnow tend to substitute, as the general principle ofhuman relations, a just equality, instead of thedominion of the strongest. But of all relations, thatbetween men and women, being the nearest andmost intimate, and connected with the greatestnumber of strong emotions, was sure to be the last tothrow off the old rule, and receive the new; for,in proportion to the strength of a feeling is thetenacity with which it clings to the forms andcircumstances with which it has even accidentallybecome associated..... . . The proper sphere for all human beings is thelargest and highest which they are able to attain to.What this is, cannot be ascertained without completeliberty of choice. . . . Let every occupation be open toall, without favor or discouragement to any, andemployments will fall into the hands of those men orwomen who are found by experience to be mostcapable of worthily exercising them. There need beno fear that women will take out of the hands of menany occupation which men perform better than they.Each individual will prove his or her capacities, in theonly way in which capacities can be proved,—bytrial; and the world will have the benefit of the bestfaculties of all its inhabitants. But to interferebeforehand by an arbitrary limit, and declare thatwhatever be the genius, talent, energy, or force of mind, of an individual of a certain sex or class, thosefaculties shall not be exerted, or shall be exerted onlyin some few of the many modes in which others arepermitted to use theirs, is not only an injustice to theindividual, and a detriment to society, which loseswhat it can ill spare, but is also the most effectual wayof providing that, in the sex or class so fettered, thequalities which are not permitted to be exercisedshall not exist.

Passage 1 is adapted from Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracyin America, Volume 2. Originally published in 1840. Passage 2is adapted from Harriet Taylor Mill, “Enfranchisement ofWomen.” Originally published in 1851. As United States andEuropean societies grew increasingly democratic during thenineteenth century, debates arose about whether freedomsenjoyed by men should be extended to women as well.Passage 1I have shown how democracy destroys ormodifies the different inequalities which originate insociety; but is this all? or does it not ultimately affectthat great inequality of man and woman which hasseemed, up to the present day, to be eternally basedin human nature? I believe that the social changeswhich bring nearer to the same level the father andson, the master and servant, and superiors andinferiors generally speaking, will raise woman andmake her more and more the equal of man. But here,more than ever, I feel the necessity of making myselfclearly understood; for there is no subject on whichthe coarse and lawless fancies of our age have taken afreer range.There are people in Europe who, confoundingtogether the different characteristics of the sexes,would make of man and woman beings not onlyequal but alike. They would give to both the samefunctions, impose on both the same duties, and grantto both the same rights; they would mix them in allthings—their occupations, their pleasures, theirbusiness. It may readily be conceived, that by thusattempting to make one sex equal to the other, bothare degraded; and from so preposterous a medley ofthe works of nature nothing could ever result butweak men and disorderly women.It is not thus that the Americans understand thatspecies of democratic equality which may beestablished between the sexes. They admit, that asnature has appointed such wide differences betweenthe physical and moral constitution of man andwoman, her manifest design was to give a distinctemployment to their various faculties; and they holdthat improvement does not consist in making beingsso dissimilar do pretty nearly the same things, but ingetting each of them to fulfill their respective tasks inthe best possible manner. The Americans haveapplied to the sexes the great principle of politicaleconomy which governs the manufactures of our age,by carefully dividing the duties of man from those ofwoman, in order that the great work of society maybe the better carried on.Passage 2As society was constituted until the last fewgenerations, inequality was its very basis; associationgrounded on equal rights scarcely existed; to beequals was to be enemies; two persons could hardlycoöperate in anything, or meet in any amicablerelation, without the law’s appointing that one ofthem should be the superior of the other.Mankind have outgrown this state, and all thingsnow tend to substitute, as the general principle ofhuman relations, a just equality, instead of thedominion of the strongest. But of all relations, thatbetween men and women, being the nearest andmost intimate, and connected with the greatestnumber of strong emotions, was sure to be the last tothrow off the old rule, and receive the new; for,in proportion to the strength of a feeling is thetenacity with which it clings to the forms andcircumstances with which it has even accidentallybecome associated..... . . The proper sphere for all human beings is thelargest and highest which they are able to attain to.What this is, cannot be ascertained without completeliberty of choice. . . . Let every occupation be open toall, without favor or discouragement to any, andemployments will fall into the hands of those men orwomen who are found by experience to be mostcapable of worthily exercising them. There need beno fear that women will take out of the hands of menany occupation which men perform better than they.Each individual will prove his or her capacities, in theonly way in which capacities can be proved,—bytrial; and the world will have the benefit of the bestfaculties of all its inhabitants. But to interferebeforehand by an arbitrary limit, and declare thatwhatever be the genius, talent, energy, or force of mind, of an individual of a certain sex or class, thosefaculties shall not be exerted, or shall be exerted onlyin some few of the many modes in which others arepermitted to use theirs, is not only an injustice to theindividual, and a detriment to society, which loseswhat it can ill spare, but is also the most effectual wayof providing that, in the sex or class so fettered, thequalities which are not permitted to be exercisedshall not exist.

Passage 1 is adapted from Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracyin America, Volume 2. Originally published in 1840. Passage 2is adapted from Harriet Taylor Mill, “Enfranchisement ofWomen.” Originally published in 1851. As United States andEuropean societies grew increasingly democratic during thenineteenth century, debates arose about whether freedomsenjoyed by men should be extended to women as well.Passage 1I have shown how democracy destroys ormodifies the different inequalities which originate insociety; but is this all? or does it not ultimately affectthat great inequality of man and woman which hasseemed, up to the present day, to be eternally basedin human nature? I believe that the social changeswhich bring nearer to the same level the father andson, the master and servant, and superiors andinferiors generally speaking, will raise woman andmake her more and more the equal of man. But here,more than ever, I feel the necessity of making myselfclearly understood; for there is no subject on whichthe coarse and lawless fancies of our age have taken afreer range.There are people in Europe who, confoundingtogether the different characteristics of the sexes,would make of man and woman beings not onlyequal but alike. They would give to both the samefunctions, impose on both the same duties, and grantto both the same rights; they would mix them in allthings—their occupations, their pleasures, theirbusiness. It may readily be conceived, that by thusattempting to make one sex equal to the other, bothare degraded; and from so preposterous a medley ofthe works of nature nothing could ever result butweak men and disorderly women.It is not thus that the Americans understand thatspecies of democratic equality which may beestablished between the sexes. They admit, that asnature has appointed such wide differences betweenthe physical and moral constitution of man andwoman, her manifest design was to give a distinctemployment to their various faculties; and they holdthat improvement does not consist in making beingsso dissimilar do pretty nearly the same things, but ingetting each of them to fulfill their respective tasks inthe best possible manner. The Americans haveapplied to the sexes the great principle of politicaleconomy which governs the manufactures of our age,by carefully dividing the duties of man from those ofwoman, in order that the great work of society maybe the better carried on.Passage 2As society was constituted until the last fewgenerations, inequality was its very basis; associationgrounded on equal rights scarcely existed; to beequals was to be enemies; two persons could hardlycoöperate in anything, or meet in any amicablerelation, without the law’s appointing that one ofthem should be the superior of the other.Mankind have outgrown this state, and all thingsnow tend to substitute, as the general principle ofhuman relations, a just equality, instead of thedominion of the strongest. But of all relations, thatbetween men and women, being the nearest andmost intimate, and connected with the greatestnumber of strong emotions, was sure to be the last tothrow off the old rule, and receive the new; for,in proportion to the strength of a feeling is thetenacity with which it clings to the forms andcircumstances with which it has even accidentallybecome associated..... . . The proper sphere for all human beings is thelargest and highest which they are able to attain to.What this is, cannot be ascertained without completeliberty of choice. . . . Let every occupation be open toall, without favor or discouragement to any, andemployments will fall into the hands of those men orwomen who are found by experience to be mostcapable of worthily exercising them. There need beno fear that women will take out of the hands of menany occupation which men perform better than they.Each individual will prove his or her capacities, in theonly way in which capacities can be proved,—bytrial; and the world will have the benefit of the bestfaculties of all its inhabitants. But to interferebeforehand by an arbitrary limit, and declare thatwhatever be the genius, talent, energy, or force of mind, of an individual of a certain sex or class, thosefaculties shall not be exerted, or shall be exerted onlyin some few of the many modes in which others arepermitted to use theirs, is not only an injustice to theindividual, and a detriment to society, which loseswhat it can ill spare, but is also the most effectual wayof providing that, in the sex or class so fettered, thequalities which are not permitted to be exercisedshall not exist.

Passage 1 is adapted from Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracyin America, Volume 2. Originally published in 1840. Passage 2is adapted from Harriet Taylor Mill, “Enfranchisement ofWomen.” Originally published in 1851. As United States andEuropean societies grew increasingly democratic during thenineteenth century, debates arose about whether freedomsenjoyed by men should be extended to women as well.Passage 1I have shown how democracy destroys ormodifies the different inequalities which originate insociety; but is this all? or does it not ultimately affectthat great inequality of man and woman which hasseemed, up to the present day, to be eternally basedin human nature? I believe that the social changeswhich bring nearer to the same level the father andson, the master and servant, and superiors andinferiors generally speaking, will raise woman andmake her more and more the equal of man. But here,more than ever, I feel the necessity of making myselfclearly understood; for there is no subject on whichthe coarse and lawless fancies of our age have taken afreer range.There are people in Europe who, confoundingtogether the different characteristics of the sexes,would make of man and woman beings not onlyequal but alike. They would give to both the samefunctions, impose on both the same duties, and grantto both the same rights; they would mix them in allthings—their occupations, their pleasures, theirbusiness. It may readily be conceived, that by thusattempting to make one sex equal to the other, bothare degraded; and from so preposterous a medley ofthe works of nature nothing could ever result butweak men and disorderly women.It is not thus that the Americans understand thatspecies of democratic equality which may beestablished between the sexes. They admit, that asnature has appointed such wide differences betweenthe physical and moral constitution of man andwoman, her manifest design was to give a distinctemployment to their various faculties; and they holdthat improvement does not consist in making beingsso dissimilar do pretty nearly the same things, but ingetting each of them to fulfill their respective tasks inthe best possible manner. The Americans haveapplied to the sexes the great principle of politicaleconomy which governs the manufactures of our age,by carefully dividing the duties of man from those ofwoman, in order that the great work of society maybe the better carried on.Passage 2As society was constituted until the last fewgenerations, inequality was its very basis; associationgrounded on equal rights scarcely existed; to beequals was to be enemies; two persons could hardlycoöperate in anything, or meet in any amicablerelation, without the law’s appointing that one ofthem should be the superior of the other.Mankind have outgrown this state, and all thingsnow tend to substitute, as the general principle ofhuman relations, a just equality, instead of thedominion of the strongest. But of all relations, thatbetween men and women, being the nearest andmost intimate, and connected with the greatestnumber of strong emotions, was sure to be the last tothrow off the old rule, and receive the new; for,in proportion to the strength of a feeling is thetenacity with which it clings to the forms andcircumstances with which it has even accidentallybecome associated..... . . The proper sphere for all human beings is thelargest and highest which they are able to attain to.What this is, cannot be ascertained without completeliberty of choice. . . . Let every occupation be open toall, without favor or discouragement to any, andemployments will fall into the hands of those men orwomen who are found by experience to be mostcapable of worthily exercising them. There need beno fear that women will take out of the hands of menany occupation which men perform better than they.Each individual will prove his or her capacities, in theonly way in which capacities can be proved,—bytrial; and the world will have the benefit of the bestfaculties of all its inhabitants. But to interferebeforehand by an arbitrary limit, and declare thatwhatever be the genius, talent, energy, or force of mind, of an individual of a certain sex or class, thosefaculties shall not be exerted, or shall be exerted onlyin some few of the many modes in which others arepermitted to use theirs, is not only an injustice to theindividual, and a detriment to society, which loseswhat it can ill spare, but is also the most effectual wayof providing that, in the sex or class so fettered, thequalities which are not permitted to be exercisedshall not exist.

Passage 1 is adapted from Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracyin America, Volume 2. Originally published in 1840. Passage 2is adapted from Harriet Taylor Mill, “Enfranchisement ofWomen.” Originally published in 1851. As United States andEuropean societies grew increasingly democratic during thenineteenth century, debates arose about whether freedomsenjoyed by men should be extended to women as well.Passage 1I have shown how democracy destroys ormodifies the different inequalities which originate insociety; but is this all? or does it not ultimately affectthat great inequality of man and woman which hasseemed, up to the present day, to be eternally basedin human nature? I believe that the social changeswhich bring nearer to the same level the father andson, the master and servant, and superiors andinferiors generally speaking, will raise woman andmake her more and more the equal of man. But here,more than ever, I feel the necessity of making myselfclearly understood; for there is no subject on whichthe coarse and lawless fancies of our age have taken afreer range.There are people in Europe who, confoundingtogether the different characteristics of the sexes,would make of man and woman beings not onlyequal but alike. They would give to both the samefunctions, impose on both the same duties, and grantto both the same rights; they would mix them in allthings—their occupations, their pleasures, theirbusiness. It may readily be conceived, that by thusattempting to make one sex equal to the other, bothare degraded; and from so preposterous a medley ofthe works of nature nothing could ever result butweak men and disorderly women.It is not thus that the Americans understand thatspecies of democratic equality which may beestablished between the sexes. They admit, that asnature has appointed such wide differences betweenthe physical and moral constitution of man andwoman, her manifest design was to give a distinctemployment to their various faculties; and they holdthat improvement does not consist in making beingsso dissimilar do pretty nearly the same things, but ingetting each of them to fulfill their respective tasks inthe best possible manner. The Americans haveapplied to the sexes the great principle of politicaleconomy which governs the manufactures of our age,by carefully dividing the duties of man from those ofwoman, in order that the great work of society maybe the better carried on.Passage 2As society was constituted until the last fewgenerations, inequality was its very basis; associationgrounded on equal rights scarcely existed; to beequals was to be enemies; two persons could hardlycoöperate in anything, or meet in any amicablerelation, without the law’s appointing that one ofthem should be the superior of the other.Mankind have outgrown this state, and all thingsnow tend to substitute, as the general principle ofhuman relations, a just equality, instead of thedominion of the strongest. But of all relations, thatbetween men and women, being the nearest andmost intimate, and connected with the greatestnumber of strong emotions, was sure to be the last tothrow off the old rule, and receive the new; for,in proportion to the strength of a feeling is thetenacity with which it clings to the forms andcircumstances with which it has even accidentallybecome associated..... . . The proper sphere for all human beings is thelargest and highest which they are able to attain to.What this is, cannot be ascertained without completeliberty of choice. . . . Let every occupation be open toall, without favor or discouragement to any, andemployments will fall into the hands of those men orwomen who are found by experience to be mostcapable of worthily exercising them. There need beno fear that women will take out of the hands of menany occupation which men perform better than they.Each individual will prove his or her capacities, in theonly way in which capacities can be proved,—bytrial; and the world will have the benefit of the bestfaculties of all its inhabitants. But to interferebeforehand by an arbitrary limit, and declare thatwhatever be the genius, talent, energy, or force of mind, of an individual of a certain sex or class, thosefaculties shall not be exerted, or shall be exerted onlyin some few of the many modes in which others arepermitted to use theirs, is not only an injustice to theindividual, and a detriment to society, which loseswhat it can ill spare, but is also the most effectual wayof providing that, in the sex or class so fettered, thequalities which are not permitted to be exercisedshall not exist.

Passage 1 is adapted from Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracyin America, Volume 2. Originally published in 1840. Passage 2is adapted from Harriet Taylor Mill, “Enfranchisement ofWomen.” Originally published in 1851. As United States andEuropean societies grew increasingly democratic during thenineteenth century, debates arose about whether freedomsenjoyed by men should be extended to women as well.Passage 1I have shown how democracy destroys ormodifies the different inequalities which originate insociety; but is this all? or does it not ultimately affectthat great inequality of man and woman which hasseemed, up to the present day, to be eternally basedin human nature? I believe that the social changeswhich bring nearer to the same level the father andson, the master and servant, and superiors andinferiors generally speaking, will raise woman andmake her more and more the equal of man. But here,more than ever, I feel the necessity of making myselfclearly understood; for there is no subject on whichthe coarse and lawless fancies of our age have taken afreer range.There are people in Europe who, confoundingtogether the different characteristics of the sexes,would make of man and woman beings not onlyequal but alike. They would give to both the samefunctions, impose on both the same duties, and grantto both the same rights; they would mix them in allthings—their occupations, their pleasures, theirbusiness. It may readily be conceived, that by thusattempting to make one sex equal to the other, bothare degraded; and from so preposterous a medley ofthe works of nature nothing could ever result butweak men and disorderly women.It is not thus that the Americans understand thatspecies of democratic equality which may beestablished between the sexes. They admit, that asnature has appointed such wide differences betweenthe physical and moral constitution of man andwoman, her manifest design was to give a distinctemployment to their various faculties; and they holdthat improvement does not consist in making beingsso dissimilar do pretty nearly the same things, but ingetting each of them to fulfill their respective tasks inthe best possible manner. The Americans haveapplied to the sexes the great principle of politicaleconomy which governs the manufactures of our age,by carefully dividing the duties of man from those ofwoman, in order that the great work of society maybe the better carried on.Passage 2As society was constituted until the last fewgenerations, inequality was its very basis; associationgrounded on equal rights scarcely existed; to beequals was to be enemies; two persons could hardlycoöperate in anything, or meet in any amicablerelation, without the law’s appointing that one ofthem should be the superior of the other.Mankind have outgrown this state, and all thingsnow tend to substitute, as the general principle ofhuman relations, a just equality, instead of thedominion of the strongest. But of all relations, thatbetween men and women, being the nearest andmost intimate, and connected with the greatestnumber of strong emotions, was sure to be the last tothrow off the old rule, and receive the new; for,in proportion to the strength of a feeling is thetenacity with which it clings to the forms andcircumstances with which it has even accidentallybecome associated..... . . The proper sphere for all human beings is thelargest and highest which they are able to attain to.What this is, cannot be ascertained without completeliberty of choice. . . . Let every occupation be open toall, without favor or discouragement to any, andemployments will fall into the hands of those men orwomen who are found by experience to be mostcapable of worthily exercising them. There need beno fear that women will take out of the hands of menany occupation which men perform better than they.Each individual will prove his or her capacities, in theonly way in which capacities can be proved,—bytrial; and the world will have the benefit of the bestfaculties of all its inhabitants. But to interferebeforehand by an arbitrary limit, and declare thatwhatever be the genius, talent, energy, or force of mind, of an individual of a certain sex or class, thosefaculties shall not be exerted, or shall be exerted onlyin some few of the many modes in which others arepermitted to use theirs, is not only an injustice to theindividual, and a detriment to society, which loseswhat it can ill spare, but is also the most effectual wayof providing that, in the sex or class so fettered, thequalities which are not permitted to be exercisedshall not exist.

Passage 1 is adapted from Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracyin America, Volume 2. Originally published in 1840. Passage 2is adapted from Harriet Taylor Mill, “Enfranchisement ofWomen.” Originally published in 1851. As United States andEuropean societies grew increasingly democratic during thenineteenth century, debates arose about whether freedomsenjoyed by men should be extended to women as well.Passage 1I have shown how democracy destroys ormodifies the different inequalities which originate insociety; but is this all? or does it not ultimately affectthat great inequality of man and woman which hasseemed, up to the present day, to be eternally basedin human nature? I believe that the social changeswhich bring nearer to the same level the father andson, the master and servant, and superiors andinferiors generally speaking, will raise woman andmake her more and more the equal of man. But here,more than ever, I feel the necessity of making myselfclearly understood; for there is no subject on whichthe coarse and lawless fancies of our age have taken afreer range.There are people in Europe who, confoundingtogether the different characteristics of the sexes,would make of man and woman beings not onlyequal but alike. They would give to both the samefunctions, impose on both the same duties, and grantto both the same rights; they would mix them in allthings—their occupations, their pleasures, theirbusiness. It may readily be conceived, that by thusattempting to make one sex equal to the other, bothare degraded; and from so preposterous a medley ofthe works of nature nothing could ever result butweak men and disorderly women.It is not thus that the Americans understand thatspecies of democratic equality which may beestablished between the sexes. They admit, that asnature has appointed such wide differences betweenthe physical and moral constitution of man andwoman, her manifest design was to give a distinctemployment to their various faculties; and they holdthat improvement does not consist in making beingsso dissimilar do pretty nearly the same things, but ingetting each of them to fulfill their respective tasks inthe best possible manner. The Americans haveapplied to the sexes the great principle of politicaleconomy which governs the manufactures of our age,by carefully dividing the duties of man from those ofwoman, in order that the great work of society maybe the better carried on.Passage 2As society was constituted until the last fewgenerations, inequality was its very basis; associationgrounded on equal rights scarcely existed; to beequals was to be enemies; two persons could hardlycoöperate in anything, or meet in any amicablerelation, without the law’s appointing that one ofthem should be the superior of the other.Mankind have outgrown this state, and all thingsnow tend to substitute, as the general principle ofhuman relations, a just equality, instead of thedominion of the strongest. But of all relations, thatbetween men and women, being the nearest andmost intimate, and connected with the greatestnumber of strong emotions, was sure to be the last tothrow off the old rule, and receive the new; for,in proportion to the strength of a feeling is thetenacity with which it clings to the forms andcircumstances with which it has even accidentallybecome associated..... . . The proper sphere for all human beings is thelargest and highest which they are able to attain to.What this is, cannot be ascertained without completeliberty of choice. . . . Let every occupation be open toall, without favor or discouragement to any, andemployments will fall into the hands of those men orwomen who are found by experience to be mostcapable of worthily exercising them. There need beno fear that women will take out of the hands of menany occupation which men perform better than they.Each individual will prove his or her capacities, in theonly way in which capacities can be proved,—bytrial; and the world will have the benefit of the bestfaculties of all its inhabitants. But to interferebeforehand by an arbitrary limit, and declare thatwhatever be the genius, talent, energy, or force of mind, of an individual of a certain sex or class, thosefaculties shall not be exerted, or shall be exerted onlyin some few of the many modes in which others arepermitted to use theirs, is not only an injustice to theindividual, and a detriment to society, which loseswhat it can ill spare, but is also the most effectual wayof providing that, in the sex or class so fettered, thequalities which are not permitted to be exercisedshall not exist.

Passage 1 is adapted from Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracyin America, Volume 2. Originally published in 1840. Passage 2is adapted from Harriet Taylor Mill, “Enfranchisement ofWomen.” Originally published in 1851. As United States andEuropean societies grew increasingly democratic during thenineteenth century, debates arose about whether freedomsenjoyed by men should be extended to women as well.Passage 1I have shown how democracy destroys ormodifies the different inequalities which originate insociety; but is this all? or does it not ultimately affectthat great inequality of man and woman which hasseemed, up to the present day, to be eternally basedin human nature? I believe that the social changeswhich bring nearer to the same level the father andson, the master and servant, and superiors andinferiors generally speaking, will raise woman andmake her more and more the equal of man. But here,more than ever, I feel the necessity of making myselfclearly understood; for there is no subject on whichthe coarse and lawless fancies of our age have taken afreer range.There are people in Europe who, confoundingtogether the different characteristics of the sexes,would make of man and woman beings not onlyequal but alike. They would give to both the samefunctions, impose on both the same duties, and grantto both the same rights; they would mix them in allthings—their occupations, their pleasures, theirbusiness. It may readily be conceived, that by thusattempting to make one sex equal to the other, bothare degraded; and from so preposterous a medley ofthe works of nature nothing could ever result butweak men and disorderly women.It is not thus that the Americans understand thatspecies of democratic equality which may beestablished between the sexes. They admit, that asnature has appointed such wide differences betweenthe physical and moral constitution of man andwoman, her manifest design was to give a distinctemployment to their various faculties; and they holdthat improvement does not consist in making beingsso dissimilar do pretty nearly the same things, but ingetting each of them to fulfill their respective tasks inthe best possible manner. The Americans haveapplied to the sexes the great principle of politicaleconomy which governs the manufactures of our age,by carefully dividing the duties of man from those ofwoman, in order that the great work of society maybe the better carried on.Passage 2As society was constituted until the last fewgenerations, inequality was its very basis; associationgrounded on equal rights scarcely existed; to beequals was to be enemies; two persons could hardlycoöperate in anything, or meet in any amicablerelation, without the law’s appointing that one ofthem should be the superior of the other.Mankind have outgrown this state, and all thingsnow tend to substitute, as the general principle ofhuman relations, a just equality, instead of thedominion of the strongest. But of all relations, thatbetween men and women, being the nearest andmost intimate, and connected with the greatestnumber of strong emotions, was sure to be the last tothrow off the old rule, and receive the new; for,in proportion to the strength of a feeling is thetenacity with which it clings to the forms andcircumstances with which it has even accidentallybecome associated..... . . The proper sphere for all human beings is thelargest and highest which they are able to attain to.What this is, cannot be ascertained without completeliberty of choice. . . . Let every occupation be open toall, without favor or discouragement to any, andemployments will fall into the hands of those men orwomen who are found by experience to be mostcapable of worthily exercising them. There need beno fear that women will take out of the hands of menany occupation which men perform better than they.Each individual will prove his or her capacities, in theonly way in which capacities can be proved,—bytrial; and the world will have the benefit of the bestfaculties of all its inhabitants. But to interferebeforehand by an arbitrary limit, and declare thatwhatever be the genius, talent, energy, or force of mind, of an individual of a certain sex or class, thosefaculties shall not be exerted, or shall be exerted onlyin some few of the many modes in which others arepermitted to use theirs, is not only an injustice to theindividual, and a detriment to society, which loseswhat it can ill spare, but is also the most effectual wayof providing that, in the sex or class so fettered, thequalities which are not permitted to be exercisedshall not exist.

Passage 1 is adapted from Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracyin America, Volume 2. Originally published in 1840. Passage 2is adapted from Harriet Taylor Mill, “Enfranchisement ofWomen.” Originally published in 1851. As United States andEuropean societies grew increasingly democratic during thenineteenth century, debates arose about whether freedomsenjoyed by men should be extended to women as well.Passage 1I have shown how democracy destroys ormodifies the different inequalities which originate insociety; but is this all? or does it not ultimately affectthat great inequality of man and woman which hasseemed, up to the present day, to be eternally basedin human nature? I believe that the social changeswhich bring nearer to the same level the father andson, the master and servant, and superiors andinferiors generally speaking, will raise woman andmake her more and more the equal of man. But here,more than ever, I feel the necessity of making myselfclearly understood; for there is no subject on whichthe coarse and lawless fancies of our age have taken afreer range.There are people in Europe who, confoundingtogether the different characteristics of the sexes,would make of man and woman beings not onlyequal but alike. They would give to both the samefunctions, impose on both the same duties, and grantto both the same rights; they would mix them in allthings—their occupations, their pleasures, theirbusiness. It may readily be conceived, that by thusattempting to make one sex equal to the other, bothare degraded; and from so preposterous a medley ofthe works of nature nothing could ever result butweak men and disorderly women.It is not thus that the Americans understand thatspecies of democratic equality which may beestablished between the sexes. They admit, that asnature has appointed such wide differences betweenthe physical and moral constitution of man andwoman, her manifest design was to give a distinctemployment to their various faculties; and they holdthat improvement does not consist in making beingsso dissimilar do pretty nearly the same things, but ingetting each of them to fulfill their respective tasks inthe best possible manner. The Americans haveapplied to the sexes the great principle of politicaleconomy which governs the manufactures of our age,by carefully dividing the duties of man from those ofwoman, in order that the great work of society maybe the better carried on.Passage 2As society was constituted until the last fewgenerations, inequality was its very basis; associationgrounded on equal rights scarcely existed; to beequals was to be enemies; two persons could hardlycoöperate in anything, or meet in any amicablerelation, without the law’s appointing that one ofthem should be the superior of the other.Mankind have outgrown this state, and all thingsnow tend to substitute, as the general principle ofhuman relations, a just equality, instead of thedominion of the strongest. But of all relations, thatbetween men and women, being the nearest andmost intimate, and connected with the greatestnumber of strong emotions, was sure to be the last tothrow off the old rule, and receive the new; for,in proportion to the strength of a feeling is thetenacity with which it clings to the forms andcircumstances with which it has even accidentallybecome associated..... . . The proper sphere for all human beings is thelargest and highest which they are able to attain to.What this is, cannot be ascertained without completeliberty of choice. . . . Let every occupation be open toall, without favor or discouragement to any, andemployments will fall into the hands of those men orwomen who are found by experience to be mostcapable of worthily exercising them. There need beno fear that women will take out of the hands of menany occupation which men perform better than they.Each individual will prove his or her capacities, in theonly way in which capacities can be proved,—bytrial; and the world will have the benefit of the bestfaculties of all its inhabitants. But to interferebeforehand by an arbitrary limit, and declare thatwhatever be the genius, talent, energy, or force of mind, of an individual of a certain sex or class, thosefaculties shall not be exerted, or shall be exerted onlyin some few of the many modes in which others arepermitted to use theirs, is not only an injustice to theindividual, and a detriment to society, which loseswhat it can ill spare, but is also the most effectual wayof providing that, in the sex or class so fettered, thequalities which are not permitted to be exercisedshall not exist.

This passage is adapted from Brian Greene, “How the HiggsBoson Was Found.” ©2013 by Smithsonian Institution. TheHiggs boson is an elementary particle associated with theHiggs field. Experiments conducted in 2012–2013tentatively confirmed the existence of the Higgs boson andthus of the Higgs field.Nearly a half-century ago, Peter Higgs and ahandful of other physicists were trying to understandthe origin of a basic physical feature: mass. You canthink of mass as an object’s heft or, a little moreprecisely, as the resistance it offers to having itsmotion changed. Push on a freight train (or afeather) to increase its speed, and the resistance youfeel reflects its mass. At a microscopic level, thefreight train’s mass comes from its constituentmolecules and atoms, which are themselves builtfrom fundamental particles, electrons and quarks.But where do the masses of these and otherfundamental particles come from?When physicists in the 1960s modeled thebehavior of these particles using equations rooted inquantum physics, they encountered a puzzle. If theyimagined that the particles were all massless, theneach term in the equations clicked into a perfectlysymmetric pattern, like the tips of a perfectsnowflake. And this symmetry was not justmathematically elegant. It explained patterns evidentin the experimental data. But—and here’s thepuzzle—physicists knew that the particles did havemass, and when they modified the equations toaccount for this fact, the mathematical harmony wasspoiled. The equations became complex andunwieldy and, worse still, inconsistent.What to do? Here’s the idea put forward by Higgs.Don’t shove the particles’ masses down the throat ofthe beautiful equations. Instead, keep the equationspristine and symmetric, but consider them operatingwithin a peculiar environment. Imagine that all ofspace is uniformly filled with an invisiblesubstance—now called the Higgs field—that exerts adrag force on particles when they accelerate throughit. Push on a fundamental particle in an effort toincrease its speed and, according to Higgs, you wouldfeel this drag force as a resistance. Justifiably, youwould interpret the resistance as the particle’s mass.For a mental toehold, think of a ping-pong ballsubmerged in water. When you push on theping-pong ball, it will feel much more massive than itdoes outside of water. Its interaction with the wateryenvironment has the effect of endowing it with mass.So with particles submerged in the Higgs field.In 1964, Higgs submitted a paper to a prominentphysics journal in which he formulated this ideamathematically. The paper was rejected. Not becauseit contained a technical error, but because thepremise of an invisible something permeating space,interacting with particles to provide their mass, well,it all just seemed like heaps of overwroughtspeculation. The editors of the journal deemed it “ofno obvious relevance to physics.”But Higgs persevered (and his revised paperappeared later that year in another journal), andphysicists who took the time to study the proposalgradually realized that his idea was a stroke of genius,one that allowed them to have their cake and eat ittoo. In Higgs’s scheme, the fundamental equationscan retain their pristine form because the dirty workof providing the particles’ masses is relegated to theenvironment.While I wasn’t around to witness the initialrejection of Higgs’s proposal in 1964 (well, I wasaround, but only barely), I can attest that by themid-1980s, the assessment had changed. The physicscommunity had, for the most part, fully bought intothe idea that there was a Higgs field permeatingspace. In fact, in a graduate course I took thatcovered what’s known as the Standard Model ofParticle Physics (the quantum equations physicistshave assembled to describe the particles of matterand the dominant forces by which they influenceeach other), the professor presented the Higgs fieldwith such certainty that for a long while I had no ideait had yet to be established experimentally.On occasion, that happens in physics. Mathematicalequations can sometimes tell such a convincing tale,they can seemingly radiate reality so strongly, thatthey become entrenched in the vernacular ofworking physicists, even before there’s data toconfirm them.

This passage is adapted from Brian Greene, “How the HiggsBoson Was Found.” ©2013 by Smithsonian Institution. TheHiggs boson is an elementary particle associated with theHiggs field. Experiments conducted in 2012–2013tentatively confirmed the existence of the Higgs boson andthus of the Higgs field.Nearly a half-century ago, Peter Higgs and ahandful of other physicists were trying to understandthe origin of a basic physical feature: mass. You canthink of mass as an object’s heft or, a little moreprecisely, as the resistance it offers to having itsmotion changed. Push on a freight train (or afeather) to increase its speed, and the resistance youfeel reflects its mass. At a microscopic level, thefreight train’s mass comes from its constituentmolecules and atoms, which are themselves builtfrom fundamental particles, electrons and quarks.But where do the masses of these and otherfundamental particles come from?When physicists in the 1960s modeled thebehavior of these particles using equations rooted inquantum physics, they encountered a puzzle. If theyimagined that the particles were all massless, theneach term in the equations clicked into a perfectlysymmetric pattern, like the tips of a perfectsnowflake. And this symmetry was not justmathematically elegant. It explained patterns evidentin the experimental data. But—and here’s thepuzzle—physicists knew that the particles did havemass, and when they modified the equations toaccount for this fact, the mathematical harmony wasspoiled. The equations became complex andunwieldy and, worse still, inconsistent.What to do? Here’s the idea put forward by Higgs.Don’t shove the particles’ masses down the throat ofthe beautiful equations. Instead, keep the equationspristine and symmetric, but consider them operatingwithin a peculiar environment. Imagine that all ofspace is uniformly filled with an invisiblesubstance—now called the Higgs field—that exerts adrag force on particles when they accelerate throughit. Push on a fundamental particle in an effort toincrease its speed and, according to Higgs, you wouldfeel this drag force as a resistance. Justifiably, youwould interpret the resistance as the particle’s mass.For a mental toehold, think of a ping-pong ballsubmerged in water. When you push on theping-pong ball, it will feel much more massive than itdoes outside of water. Its interaction with the wateryenvironment has the effect of endowing it with mass.So with particles submerged in the Higgs field.In 1964, Higgs submitted a paper to a prominentphysics journal in which he formulated this ideamathematically. The paper was rejected. Not becauseit contained a technical error, but because thepremise of an invisible something permeating space,interacting with particles to provide their mass, well,it all just seemed like heaps of overwroughtspeculation. The editors of the journal deemed it “ofno obvious relevance to physics.”But Higgs persevered (and his revised paperappeared later that year in another journal), andphysicists who took the time to study the proposalgradually realized that his idea was a stroke of genius,one that allowed them to have their cake and eat ittoo. In Higgs’s scheme, the fundamental equationscan retain their pristine form because the dirty workof providing the particles’ masses is relegated to theenvironment.While I wasn’t around to witness the initialrejection of Higgs’s proposal in 1964 (well, I wasaround, but only barely), I can attest that by themid-1980s, the assessment had changed. The physicscommunity had, for the most part, fully bought intothe idea that there was a Higgs field permeatingspace. In fact, in a graduate course I took thatcovered what’s known as the Standard Model ofParticle Physics (the quantum equations physicistshave assembled to describe the particles of matterand the dominant forces by which they influenceeach other), the professor presented the Higgs fieldwith such certainty that for a long while I had no ideait had yet to be established experimentally.On occasion, that happens in physics. Mathematicalequations can sometimes tell such a convincing tale,they can seemingly radiate reality so strongly, thatthey become entrenched in the vernacular ofworking physicists, even before there’s data toconfirm them.

This passage is adapted from Brian Greene, “How the HiggsBoson Was Found.” ©2013 by Smithsonian Institution. TheHiggs boson is an elementary particle associated with theHiggs field. Experiments conducted in 2012–2013tentatively confirmed the existence of the Higgs boson andthus of the Higgs field.Nearly a half-century ago, Peter Higgs and ahandful of other physicists were trying to understandthe origin of a basic physical feature: mass. You canthink of mass as an object’s heft or, a little moreprecisely, as the resistance it offers to having itsmotion changed. Push on a freight train (or afeather) to increase its speed, and the resistance youfeel reflects its mass. At a microscopic level, thefreight train’s mass comes from its constituentmolecules and atoms, which are themselves builtfrom fundamental particles, electrons and quarks.But where do the masses of these and otherfundamental particles come from?When physicists in the 1960s modeled thebehavior of these particles using equations rooted inquantum physics, they encountered a puzzle. If theyimagined that the particles were all massless, theneach term in the equations clicked into a perfectlysymmetric pattern, like the tips of a perfectsnowflake. And this symmetry was not justmathematically elegant. It explained patterns evidentin the experimental data. But—and here’s thepuzzle—physicists knew that the particles did havemass, and when they modified the equations toaccount for this fact, the mathematical harmony wasspoiled. The equations became complex andunwieldy and, worse still, inconsistent.What to do? Here’s the idea put forward by Higgs.Don’t shove the particles’ masses down the throat ofthe beautiful equations. Instead, keep the equationspristine and symmetric, but consider them operatingwithin a peculiar environment. Imagine that all ofspace is uniformly filled with an invisiblesubstance—now called the Higgs field—that exerts adrag force on particles when they accelerate throughit. Push on a fundamental particle in an effort toincrease its speed and, according to Higgs, you wouldfeel this drag force as a resistance. Justifiably, youwould interpret the resistance as the particle’s mass.For a mental toehold, think of a ping-pong ballsubmerged in water. When you push on theping-pong ball, it will feel much more massive than itdoes outside of water. Its interaction with the wateryenvironment has the effect of endowing it with mass.So with particles submerged in the Higgs field.In 1964, Higgs submitted a paper to a prominentphysics journal in which he formulated this ideamathematically. The paper was rejected. Not becauseit contained a technical error, but because thepremise of an invisible something permeating space,interacting with particles to provide their mass, well,it all just seemed like heaps of overwroughtspeculation. The editors of the journal deemed it “ofno obvious relevance to physics.”But Higgs persevered (and his revised paperappeared later that year in another journal), andphysicists who took the time to study the proposalgradually realized that his idea was a stroke of genius,one that allowed them to have their cake and eat ittoo. In Higgs’s scheme, the fundamental equationscan retain their pristine form because the dirty workof providing the particles’ masses is relegated to theenvironment.While I wasn’t around to witness the initialrejection of Higgs’s proposal in 1964 (well, I wasaround, but only barely), I can attest that by themid-1980s, the assessment had changed. The physicscommunity had, for the most part, fully bought intothe idea that there was a Higgs field permeatingspace. In fact, in a graduate course I took thatcovered what’s known as the Standard Model ofParticle Physics (the quantum equations physicistshave assembled to describe the particles of matterand the dominant forces by which they influenceeach other), the professor presented the Higgs fieldwith such certainty that for a long while I had no ideait had yet to be established experimentally.On occasion, that happens in physics. Mathematicalequations can sometimes tell such a convincing tale,they can seemingly radiate reality so strongly, thatthey become entrenched in the vernacular ofworking physicists, even before there’s data toconfirm them.

This passage is adapted from Brian Greene, “How the HiggsBoson Was Found.” ©2013 by Smithsonian Institution. TheHiggs boson is an elementary particle associated with theHiggs field. Experiments conducted in 2012–2013tentatively confirmed the existence of the Higgs boson andthus of the Higgs field.Nearly a half-century ago, Peter Higgs and ahandful of other physicists were trying to understandthe origin of a basic physical feature: mass. You canthink of mass as an object’s heft or, a little moreprecisely, as the resistance it offers to having itsmotion changed. Push on a freight train (or afeather) to increase its speed, and the resistance youfeel reflects its mass. At a microscopic level, thefreight train’s mass comes from its constituentmolecules and atoms, which are themselves builtfrom fundamental particles, electrons and quarks.But where do the masses of these and otherfundamental particles come from?When physicists in the 1960s modeled thebehavior of these particles using equations rooted inquantum physics, they encountered a puzzle. If theyimagined that the particles were all massless, theneach term in the equations clicked into a perfectlysymmetric pattern, like the tips of a perfectsnowflake. And this symmetry was not justmathematically elegant. It explained patterns evidentin the experimental data. But—and here’s thepuzzle—physicists knew that the particles did havemass, and when they modified the equations toaccount for this fact, the mathematical harmony wasspoiled. The equations became complex andunwieldy and, worse still, inconsistent.What to do? Here’s the idea put forward by Higgs.Don’t shove the particles’ masses down the throat ofthe beautiful equations. Instead, keep the equationspristine and symmetric, but consider them operatingwithin a peculiar environment. Imagine that all ofspace is uniformly filled with an invisiblesubstance—now called the Higgs field—that exerts adrag force on particles when they accelerate throughit. Push on a fundamental particle in an effort toincrease its speed and, according to Higgs, you wouldfeel this drag force as a resistance. Justifiably, youwould interpret the resistance as the particle’s mass.For a mental toehold, think of a ping-pong ballsubmerged in water. When you push on theping-pong ball, it will feel much more massive than itdoes outside of water. Its interaction with the wateryenvironment has the effect of endowing it with mass.So with particles submerged in the Higgs field.In 1964, Higgs submitted a paper to a prominentphysics journal in which he formulated this ideamathematically. The paper was rejected. Not becauseit contained a technical error, but because thepremise of an invisible something permeating space,interacting with particles to provide their mass, well,it all just seemed like heaps of overwroughtspeculation. The editors of the journal deemed it “ofno obvious relevance to physics.”But Higgs persevered (and his revised paperappeared later that year in another journal), andphysicists who took the time to study the proposalgradually realized that his idea was a stroke of genius,one that allowed them to have their cake and eat ittoo. In Higgs’s scheme, the fundamental equationscan retain their pristine form because the dirty workof providing the particles’ masses is relegated to theenvironment.While I wasn’t around to witness the initialrejection of Higgs’s proposal in 1964 (well, I wasaround, but only barely), I can attest that by themid-1980s, the assessment had changed. The physicscommunity had, for the most part, fully bought intothe idea that there was a Higgs field permeatingspace. In fact, in a graduate course I took thatcovered what’s known as the Standard Model ofParticle Physics (the quantum equations physicistshave assembled to describe the particles of matterand the dominant forces by which they influenceeach other), the professor presented the Higgs fieldwith such certainty that for a long while I had no ideait had yet to be established experimentally.On occasion, that happens in physics. Mathematicalequations can sometimes tell such a convincing tale,they can seemingly radiate reality so strongly, thatthey become entrenched in the vernacular ofworking physicists, even before there’s data toconfirm them.

This passage is adapted from Brian Greene, “How the HiggsBoson Was Found.” ©2013 by Smithsonian Institution. TheHiggs boson is an elementary particle associated with theHiggs field. Experiments conducted in 2012–2013tentatively confirmed the existence of the Higgs boson andthus of the Higgs field.Nearly a half-century ago, Peter Higgs and ahandful of other physicists were trying to understandthe origin of a basic physical feature: mass. You canthink of mass as an object’s heft or, a little moreprecisely, as the resistance it offers to having itsmotion changed. Push on a freight train (or afeather) to increase its speed, and the resistance youfeel reflects its mass. At a microscopic level, thefreight train’s mass comes from its constituentmolecules and atoms, which are themselves builtfrom fundamental particles, electrons and quarks.But where do the masses of these and otherfundamental particles come from?When physicists in the 1960s modeled thebehavior of these particles using equations rooted inquantum physics, they encountered a puzzle. If theyimagined that the particles were all massless, theneach term in the equations clicked into a perfectlysymmetric pattern, like the tips of a perfectsnowflake. And this symmetry was not justmathematically elegant. It explained patterns evidentin the experimental data. But—and here’s thepuzzle—physicists knew that the particles did havemass, and when they modified the equations toaccount for this fact, the mathematical harmony wasspoiled. The equations became complex andunwieldy and, worse still, inconsistent.What to do? Here’s the idea put forward by Higgs.Don’t shove the particles’ masses down the throat ofthe beautiful equations. Instead, keep the equationspristine and symmetric, but consider them operatingwithin a peculiar environment. Imagine that all ofspace is uniformly filled with an invisiblesubstance—now called the Higgs field—that exerts adrag force on particles when they accelerate throughit. Push on a fundamental particle in an effort toincrease its speed and, according to Higgs, you wouldfeel this drag force as a resistance. Justifiably, youwould interpret the resistance as the particle’s mass.For a mental toehold, think of a ping-pong ballsubmerged in water. When you push on theping-pong ball, it will feel much more massive than itdoes outside of water. Its interaction with the wateryenvironment has the effect of endowing it with mass.So with particles submerged in the Higgs field.In 1964, Higgs submitted a paper to a prominentphysics journal in which he formulated this ideamathematically. The paper was rejected. Not becauseit contained a technical error, but because thepremise of an invisible something permeating space,interacting with particles to provide their mass, well,it all just seemed like heaps of overwroughtspeculation. The editors of the journal deemed it “ofno obvious relevance to physics.”But Higgs persevered (and his revised paperappeared later that year in another journal), andphysicists who took the time to study the proposalgradually realized that his idea was a stroke of genius,one that allowed them to have their cake and eat ittoo. In Higgs’s scheme, the fundamental equationscan retain their pristine form because the dirty workof providing the particles’ masses is relegated to theenvironment.While I wasn’t around to witness the initialrejection of Higgs’s proposal in 1964 (well, I wasaround, but only barely), I can attest that by themid-1980s, the assessment had changed. The physicscommunity had, for the most part, fully bought intothe idea that there was a Higgs field permeatingspace. In fact, in a graduate course I took thatcovered what’s known as the Standard Model ofParticle Physics (the quantum equations physicistshave assembled to describe the particles of matterand the dominant forces by which they influenceeach other), the professor presented the Higgs fieldwith such certainty that for a long while I had no ideait had yet to be established experimentally.On occasion, that happens in physics. Mathematicalequations can sometimes tell such a convincing tale,they can seemingly radiate reality so strongly, thatthey become entrenched in the vernacular ofworking physicists, even before there’s data toconfirm them.

This passage is adapted from Brian Greene, “How the HiggsBoson Was Found.” ©2013 by Smithsonian Institution. TheHiggs boson is an elementary particle associated with theHiggs field. Experiments conducted in 2012–2013tentatively confirmed the existence of the Higgs boson andthus of the Higgs field.Nearly a half-century ago, Peter Higgs and ahandful of other physicists were trying to understandthe origin of a basic physical feature: mass. You canthink of mass as an object’s heft or, a little moreprecisely, as the resistance it offers to having itsmotion changed. Push on a freight train (or afeather) to increase its speed, and the resistance youfeel reflects its mass. At a microscopic level, thefreight train’s mass comes from its constituentmolecules and atoms, which are themselves builtfrom fundamental particles, electrons and quarks.But where do the masses of these and otherfundamental particles come from?When physicists in the 1960s modeled thebehavior of these particles using equations rooted inquantum physics, they encountered a puzzle. If theyimagined that the particles were all massless, theneach term in the equations clicked into a perfectlysymmetric pattern, like the tips of a perfectsnowflake. And this symmetry was not justmathematically elegant. It explained patterns evidentin the experimental data. But—and here’s thepuzzle—physicists knew that the particles did havemass, and when they modified the equations toaccount for this fact, the mathematical harmony wasspoiled. The equations became complex andunwieldy and, worse still, inconsistent.What to do? Here’s the idea put forward by Higgs.Don’t shove the particles’ masses down the throat ofthe beautiful equations. Instead, keep the equationspristine and symmetric, but consider them operatingwithin a peculiar environment. Imagine that all ofspace is uniformly filled with an invisiblesubstance—now called the Higgs field—that exerts adrag force on particles when they accelerate throughit. Push on a fundamental particle in an effort toincrease its speed and, according to Higgs, you wouldfeel this drag force as a resistance. Justifiably, youwould interpret the resistance as the particle’s mass.For a mental toehold, think of a ping-pong ballsubmerged in water. When you push on theping-pong ball, it will feel much more massive than itdoes outside of water. Its interaction with the wateryenvironment has the effect of endowing it with mass.So with particles submerged in the Higgs field.In 1964, Higgs submitted a paper to a prominentphysics journal in which he formulated this ideamathematically. The paper was rejected. Not becauseit contained a technical error, but because thepremise of an invisible something permeating space,interacting with particles to provide their mass, well,it all just seemed like heaps of overwroughtspeculation. The editors of the journal deemed it “ofno obvious relevance to physics.”But Higgs persevered (and his revised paperappeared later that year in another journal), andphysicists who took the time to study the proposalgradually realized that his idea was a stroke of genius,one that allowed them to have their cake and eat ittoo. In Higgs’s scheme, the fundamental equationscan retain their pristine form because the dirty workof providing the particles’ masses is relegated to theenvironment.While I wasn’t around to witness the initialrejection of Higgs’s proposal in 1964 (well, I wasaround, but only barely), I can attest that by themid-1980s, the assessment had changed. The physicscommunity had, for the most part, fully bought intothe idea that there was a Higgs field permeatingspace. In fact, in a graduate course I took thatcovered what’s known as the Standard Model ofParticle Physics (the quantum equations physicistshave assembled to describe the particles of matterand the dominant forces by which they influenceeach other), the professor presented the Higgs fieldwith such certainty that for a long while I had no ideait had yet to be established experimentally.On occasion, that happens in physics. Mathematicalequations can sometimes tell such a convincing tale,they can seemingly radiate reality so strongly, thatthey become entrenched in the vernacular ofworking physicists, even before there’s data toconfirm them.

This passage is adapted from Brian Greene, “How the HiggsBoson Was Found.” ©2013 by Smithsonian Institution. TheHiggs boson is an elementary particle associated with theHiggs field. Experiments conducted in 2012–2013tentatively confirmed the existence of the Higgs boson andthus of the Higgs field.Nearly a half-century ago, Peter Higgs and ahandful of other physicists were trying to understandthe origin of a basic physical feature: mass. You canthink of mass as an object’s heft or, a little moreprecisely, as the resistance it offers to having itsmotion changed. Push on a freight train (or afeather) to increase its speed, and the resistance youfeel reflects its mass. At a microscopic level, thefreight train’s mass comes from its constituentmolecules and atoms, which are themselves builtfrom fundamental particles, electrons and quarks.But where do the masses of these and otherfundamental particles come from?When physicists in the 1960s modeled thebehavior of these particles using equations rooted inquantum physics, they encountered a puzzle. If theyimagined that the particles were all massless, theneach term in the equations clicked into a perfectlysymmetric pattern, like the tips of a perfectsnowflake. And this symmetry was not justmathematically elegant. It explained patterns evidentin the experimental data. But—and here’s thepuzzle—physicists knew that the particles did havemass, and when they modified the equations toaccount for this fact, the mathematical harmony wasspoiled. The equations became complex andunwieldy and, worse still, inconsistent.What to do? Here’s the idea put forward by Higgs.Don’t shove the particles’ masses down the throat ofthe beautiful equations. Instead, keep the equationspristine and symmetric, but consider them operatingwithin a peculiar environment. Imagine that all ofspace is uniformly filled with an invisiblesubstance—now called the Higgs field—that exerts adrag force on particles when they accelerate throughit. Push on a fundamental particle in an effort toincrease its speed and, according to Higgs, you wouldfeel this drag force as a resistance. Justifiably, youwould interpret the resistance as the particle’s mass.For a mental toehold, think of a ping-pong ballsubmerged in water. When you push on theping-pong ball, it will feel much more massive than itdoes outside of water. Its interaction with the wateryenvironment has the effect of endowing it with mass.So with particles submerged in the Higgs field.In 1964, Higgs submitted a paper to a prominentphysics journal in which he formulated this ideamathematically. The paper was rejected. Not becauseit contained a technical error, but because thepremise of an invisible something permeating space,interacting with particles to provide their mass, well,it all just seemed like heaps of overwroughtspeculation. The editors of the journal deemed it “ofno obvious relevance to physics.”But Higgs persevered (and his revised paperappeared later that year in another journal), andphysicists who took the time to study the proposalgradually realized that his idea was a stroke of genius,one that allowed them to have their cake and eat ittoo. In Higgs’s scheme, the fundamental equationscan retain their pristine form because the dirty workof providing the particles’ masses is relegated to theenvironment.While I wasn’t around to witness the initialrejection of Higgs’s proposal in 1964 (well, I wasaround, but only barely), I can attest that by themid-1980s, the assessment had changed. The physicscommunity had, for the most part, fully bought intothe idea that there was a Higgs field permeatingspace. In fact, in a graduate course I took thatcovered what’s known as the Standard Model ofParticle Physics (the quantum equations physicistshave assembled to describe the particles of matterand the dominant forces by which they influenceeach other), the professor presented the Higgs fieldwith such certainty that for a long while I had no ideait had yet to be established experimentally.On occasion, that happens in physics. Mathematicalequations can sometimes tell such a convincing tale,they can seemingly radiate reality so strongly, thatthey become entrenched in the vernacular ofworking physicists, even before there’s data toconfirm them.

This passage is adapted from Brian Greene, “How the HiggsBoson Was Found.” ©2013 by Smithsonian Institution. TheHiggs boson is an elementary particle associated with theHiggs field. Experiments conducted in 2012–2013tentatively confirmed the existence of the Higgs boson andthus of the Higgs field.Nearly a half-century ago, Peter Higgs and ahandful of other physicists were trying to understandthe origin of a basic physical feature: mass. You canthink of mass as an object’s heft or, a little moreprecisely, as the resistance it offers to having itsmotion changed. Push on a freight train (or afeather) to increase its speed, and the resistance youfeel reflects its mass. At a microscopic level, thefreight train’s mass comes from its constituentmolecules and atoms, which are themselves builtfrom fundamental particles, electrons and quarks.But where do the masses of these and otherfundamental particles come from?When physicists in the 1960s modeled thebehavior of these particles using equations rooted inquantum physics, they encountered a puzzle. If theyimagined that the particles were all massless, theneach term in the equations clicked into a perfectlysymmetric pattern, like the tips of a perfectsnowflake. And this symmetry was not justmathematically elegant. It explained patterns evidentin the experimental data. But—and here’s thepuzzle—physicists knew that the particles did havemass, and when they modified the equations toaccount for this fact, the mathematical harmony wasspoiled. The equations became complex andunwieldy and, worse still, inconsistent.What to do? Here’s the idea put forward by Higgs.Don’t shove the particles’ masses down the throat ofthe beautiful equations. Instead, keep the equationspristine and symmetric, but consider them operatingwithin a peculiar environment. Imagine that all ofspace is uniformly filled with an invisiblesubstance—now called the Higgs field—that exerts adrag force on particles when they accelerate throughit. Push on a fundamental particle in an effort toincrease its speed and, according to Higgs, you wouldfeel this drag force as a resistance. Justifiably, youwould interpret the resistance as the particle’s mass.For a mental toehold, think of a ping-pong ballsubmerged in water. When you push on theping-pong ball, it will feel much more massive than itdoes outside of water. Its interaction with the wateryenvironment has the effect of endowing it with mass.So with particles submerged in the Higgs field.In 1964, Higgs submitted a paper to a prominentphysics journal in which he formulated this ideamathematically. The paper was rejected. Not becauseit contained a technical error, but because thepremise of an invisible something permeating space,interacting with particles to provide their mass, well,it all just seemed like heaps of overwroughtspeculation. The editors of the journal deemed it “ofno obvious relevance to physics.”But Higgs persevered (and his revised paperappeared later that year in another journal), andphysicists who took the time to study the proposalgradually realized that his idea was a stroke of genius,one that allowed them to have their cake and eat ittoo. In Higgs’s scheme, the fundamental equationscan retain their pristine form because the dirty workof providing the particles’ masses is relegated to theenvironment.While I wasn’t around to witness the initialrejection of Higgs’s proposal in 1964 (well, I wasaround, but only barely), I can attest that by themid-1980s, the assessment had changed. The physicscommunity had, for the most part, fully bought intothe idea that there was a Higgs field permeatingspace. In fact, in a graduate course I took thatcovered what’s known as the Standard Model ofParticle Physics (the quantum equations physicistshave assembled to describe the particles of matterand the dominant forces by which they influenceeach other), the professor presented the Higgs fieldwith such certainty that for a long while I had no ideait had yet to be established experimentally.On occasion, that happens in physics. Mathematicalequations can sometimes tell such a convincing tale,they can seemingly radiate reality so strongly, thatthey become entrenched in the vernacular ofworking physicists, even before there’s data toconfirm them.

This passage is adapted from Brian Greene, “How the HiggsBoson Was Found.” ©2013 by Smithsonian Institution. TheHiggs boson is an elementary particle associated with theHiggs field. Experiments conducted in 2012–2013tentatively confirmed the existence of the Higgs boson andthus of the Higgs field.Nearly a half-century ago, Peter Higgs and ahandful of other physicists were trying to understandthe origin of a basic physical feature: mass. You canthink of mass as an object’s heft or, a little moreprecisely, as the resistance it offers to having itsmotion changed. Push on a freight train (or afeather) to increase its speed, and the resistance youfeel reflects its mass. At a microscopic level, thefreight train’s mass comes from its constituentmolecules and atoms, which are themselves builtfrom fundamental particles, electrons and quarks.But where do the masses of these and otherfundamental particles come from?When physicists in the 1960s modeled thebehavior of these particles using equations rooted inquantum physics, they encountered a puzzle. If theyimagined that the particles were all massless, theneach term in the equations clicked into a perfectlysymmetric pattern, like the tips of a perfectsnowflake. And this symmetry was not justmathematically elegant. It explained patterns evidentin the experimental data. But—and here’s thepuzzle—physicists knew that the particles did havemass, and when they modified the equations toaccount for this fact, the mathematical harmony wasspoiled. The equations became complex andunwieldy and, worse still, inconsistent.What to do? Here’s the idea put forward by Higgs.Don’t shove the particles’ masses down the throat ofthe beautiful equations. Instead, keep the equationspristine and symmetric, but consider them operatingwithin a peculiar environment. Imagine that all ofspace is uniformly filled with an invisiblesubstance—now called the Higgs field—that exerts adrag force on particles when they accelerate throughit. Push on a fundamental particle in an effort toincrease its speed and, according to Higgs, you wouldfeel this drag force as a resistance. Justifiably, youwould interpret the resistance as the particle’s mass.For a mental toehold, think of a ping-pong ballsubmerged in water. When you push on theping-pong ball, it will feel much more massive than itdoes outside of water. Its interaction with the wateryenvironment has the effect of endowing it with mass.So with particles submerged in the Higgs field.In 1964, Higgs submitted a paper to a prominentphysics journal in which he formulated this ideamathematically. The paper was rejected. Not becauseit contained a technical error, but because thepremise of an invisible something permeating space,interacting with particles to provide their mass, well,it all just seemed like heaps of overwroughtspeculation. The editors of the journal deemed it “ofno obvious relevance to physics.”But Higgs persevered (and his revised paperappeared later that year in another journal), andphysicists who took the time to study the proposalgradually realized that his idea was a stroke of genius,one that allowed them to have their cake and eat ittoo. In Higgs’s scheme, the fundamental equationscan retain their pristine form because the dirty workof providing the particles’ masses is relegated to theenvironment.While I wasn’t around to witness the initialrejection of Higgs’s proposal in 1964 (well, I wasaround, but only barely), I can attest that by themid-1980s, the assessment had changed. The physicscommunity had, for the most part, fully bought intothe idea that there was a Higgs field permeatingspace. In fact, in a graduate course I took thatcovered what’s known as the Standard Model ofParticle Physics (the quantum equations physicistshave assembled to describe the particles of matterand the dominant forces by which they influenceeach other), the professor presented the Higgs fieldwith such certainty that for a long while I had no ideait had yet to be established experimentally.On occasion, that happens in physics. Mathematicalequations can sometimes tell such a convincing tale,they can seemingly radiate reality so strongly, thatthey become entrenched in the vernacular ofworking physicists, even before there’s data toconfirm them.

This passage is adapted from Brian Greene, “How the HiggsBoson Was Found.” ©2013 by Smithsonian Institution. TheHiggs boson is an elementary particle associated with theHiggs field. Experiments conducted in 2012–2013tentatively confirmed the existence of the Higgs boson andthus of the Higgs field.Nearly a half-century ago, Peter Higgs and ahandful of other physicists were trying to understandthe origin of a basic physical feature: mass. You canthink of mass as an object’s heft or, a little moreprecisely, as the resistance it offers to having itsmotion changed. Push on a freight train (or afeather) to increase its speed, and the resistance youfeel reflects its mass. At a microscopic level, thefreight train’s mass comes from its constituentmolecules and atoms, which are themselves builtfrom fundamental particles, electrons and quarks.But where do the masses of these and otherfundamental particles come from?When physicists in the 1960s modeled thebehavior of these particles using equations rooted inquantum physics, they encountered a puzzle. If theyimagined that the particles were all massless, theneach term in the equations clicked into a perfectlysymmetric pattern, like the tips of a perfectsnowflake. And this symmetry was not justmathematically elegant. It explained patterns evidentin the experimental data. But—and here’s thepuzzle—physicists knew that the particles did havemass, and when they modified the equations toaccount for this fact, the mathematical harmony wasspoiled. The equations became complex andunwieldy and, worse still, inconsistent.What to do? Here’s the idea put forward by Higgs.Don’t shove the particles’ masses down the throat ofthe beautiful equations. Instead, keep the equationspristine and symmetric, but consider them operatingwithin a peculiar environment. Imagine that all ofspace is uniformly filled with an invisiblesubstance—now called the Higgs field—that exerts adrag force on particles when they accelerate throughit. Push on a fundamental particle in an effort toincrease its speed and, according to Higgs, you wouldfeel this drag force as a resistance. Justifiably, youwould interpret the resistance as the particle’s mass.For a mental toehold, think of a ping-pong ballsubmerged in water. When you push on theping-pong ball, it will feel much more massive than itdoes outside of water. Its interaction with the wateryenvironment has the effect of endowing it with mass.So with particles submerged in the Higgs field.In 1964, Higgs submitted a paper to a prominentphysics journal in which he formulated this ideamathematically. The paper was rejected. Not becauseit contained a technical error, but because thepremise of an invisible something permeating space,interacting with particles to provide their mass, well,it all just seemed like heaps of overwroughtspeculation. The editors of the journal deemed it “ofno obvious relevance to physics.”But Higgs persevered (and his revised paperappeared later that year in another journal), andphysicists who took the time to study the proposalgradually realized that his idea was a stroke of genius,one that allowed them to have their cake and eat ittoo. In Higgs’s scheme, the fundamental equationscan retain their pristine form because the dirty workof providing the particles’ masses is relegated to theenvironment.While I wasn’t around to witness the initialrejection of Higgs’s proposal in 1964 (well, I wasaround, but only barely), I can attest that by themid-1980s, the assessment had changed. The physicscommunity had, for the most part, fully bought intothe idea that there was a Higgs field permeatingspace. In fact, in a graduate course I took thatcovered what’s known as the Standard Model ofParticle Physics (the quantum equations physicistshave assembled to describe the particles of matterand the dominant forces by which they influenceeach other), the professor presented the Higgs fieldwith such certainty that for a long while I had no ideait had yet to be established experimentally.On occasion, that happens in physics. Mathematicalequations can sometimes tell such a convincing tale,they can seemingly radiate reality so strongly, thatthey become entrenched in the vernacular ofworking physicists, even before there’s data toconfirm them.

This passage is adapted from Brian Greene, “How the HiggsBoson Was Found.” ©2013 by Smithsonian Institution. TheHiggs boson is an elementary particle associated with theHiggs field. Experiments conducted in 2012–2013tentatively confirmed the existence of the Higgs boson andthus of the Higgs field.Nearly a half-century ago, Peter Higgs and ahandful of other physicists were trying to understandthe origin of a basic physical feature: mass. You canthink of mass as an object’s heft or, a little moreprecisely, as the resistance it offers to having itsmotion changed. Push on a freight train (or afeather) to increase its speed, and the resistance youfeel reflects its mass. At a microscopic level, thefreight train’s mass comes from its constituentmolecules and atoms, which are themselves builtfrom fundamental particles, electrons and quarks.But where do the masses of these and otherfundamental particles come from?When physicists in the 1960s modeled thebehavior of these particles using equations rooted inquantum physics, they encountered a puzzle. If theyimagined that the particles were all massless, theneach term in the equations clicked into a perfectlysymmetric pattern, like the tips of a perfectsnowflake. And this symmetry was not justmathematically elegant. It explained patterns evidentin the experimental data. But—and here’s thepuzzle—physicists knew that the particles did havemass, and when they modified the equations toaccount for this fact, the mathematical harmony wasspoiled. The equations became complex andunwieldy and, worse still, inconsistent.What to do? Here’s the idea put forward by Higgs.Don’t shove the particles’ masses down the throat ofthe beautiful equations. Instead, keep the equationspristine and symmetric, but consider them operatingwithin a peculiar environment. Imagine that all ofspace is uniformly filled with an invisiblesubstance—now called the Higgs field—that exerts adrag force on particles when they accelerate throughit. Push on a fundamental particle in an effort toincrease its speed and, according to Higgs, you wouldfeel this drag force as a resistance. Justifiably, youwould interpret the resistance as the particle’s mass.For a mental toehold, think of a ping-pong ballsubmerged in water. When you push on theping-pong ball, it will feel much more massive than itdoes outside of water. Its interaction with the wateryenvironment has the effect of endowing it with mass.So with particles submerged in the Higgs field.In 1964, Higgs submitted a paper to a prominentphysics journal in which he formulated this ideamathematically. The paper was rejected. Not becauseit contained a technical error, but because thepremise of an invisible something permeating space,interacting with particles to provide their mass, well,it all just seemed like heaps of overwroughtspeculation. The editors of the journal deemed it “ofno obvious relevance to physics.”But Higgs persevered (and his revised paperappeared later that year in another journal), andphysicists who took the time to study the proposalgradually realized that his idea was a stroke of genius,one that allowed them to have their cake and eat ittoo. In Higgs’s scheme, the fundamental equationscan retain their pristine form because the dirty workof providing the particles’ masses is relegated to theenvironment.While I wasn’t around to witness the initialrejection of Higgs’s proposal in 1964 (well, I wasaround, but only barely), I can attest that by themid-1980s, the assessment had changed. The physicscommunity had, for the most part, fully bought intothe idea that there was a Higgs field permeatingspace. In fact, in a graduate course I took thatcovered what’s known as the Standard Model ofParticle Physics (the quantum equations physicistshave assembled to describe the particles of matterand the dominant forces by which they influenceeach other), the professor presented the Higgs fieldwith such certainty that for a long while I had no ideait had yet to be established experimentally.On occasion, that happens in physics. Mathematicalequations can sometimes tell such a convincing tale,they can seemingly radiate reality so strongly, thatthey become entrenched in the vernacular ofworking physicists, even before there’s data toconfirm them.