I tihnk it's petrty colse

[jackofallgeeks]

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

Comments

[thismortalquill.livejournal.com]

Indeed. You are muchly correct.

[ex-orin917.livejournal.com]

*laughs* I like that.

I have to add that I've just spent about four hours reading an ebook and I read over that paragraph with complete indifference. In fact I only actually noticed the abnormality after the first sentence...

[meg-and.livejournal.com]

Ddue! Taths aweomse! I hda no tobrule radineg taht at all! It atucally took me sveeral scendos bfeore I eevn raelzied tehy wree all wkcay! Mybae we souhld tpye meagesss lkie tihs form now on! ^_~


~M&ge

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

Your name does not end in an 'e'.  ^_~

[naughtjennifer.livejournal.com]

I disagree. The human mind is amazing at finding patterns and making sense of gibberish, however. I mean, someone used hex to make pi create a circle. You see the word , your mind tries to makes sense of it by anagramming it into possible words. It then takes the msot fitting anagram, and that'w what you decipher the word as. You still, however, read the word through its letters. If this were not the case, an 8-year old who is familair with all the words in the paragraph would bea ble to decipher the meaning. As my little sister proved earlier today, this is not the case.

So, in short, the anagram deciphering is a skill the brain learns after becoming acquainted with words for some time.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

So, you would argue that this is quantitatively inaccurate, in that it doesn't specify that there is a given range at which this phenomenon occurs, but that it is yet qualatatively correct, in that, yes, in the given range this phenomenon, regardless of explaination, is the case?

[naughtjennifer.livejournal.com]

There is a range in which the human mind can adapt and decrypt the gidderish. One could say that it works on the same basis as learning a new language(when you associate the other language with words, not concepts). Your mind sees one thing, searches through a database of known words with similar characteristics, and replaces it with the one which most fits. With a young child however, this database method hasn't been developed yet. They take their assumption based on an insufficent test group(the assumption: that the mind reads words, not letters; the test group: those with developed language skills) and make a blanket statement using said assumption. When you read code, do you see the components of the lines of code, or do you see the operation that the lines would perform? Being a programmer, you'd most likely say the latter. One unfamiliar or only mildly familiar with the code, however, would see the pieces, not the whole. As such, the programmer may notice a mistake, but still be able to identify the operation. The non-programmer will notice the mistake, and thus be inable to tell what the operation is.

I hope that analogy makes sense . . .