Can You Read This!!!!

[Mike Teutsch]

Hi all,

I thought with all of the debate on different formats, frame rates, color rendering, one persons impression vs anothers on looks, etc, you might find this interesting.

The human brain works in mysterious ways, and so there will never be a definitive look or style. We all preceive things in various and different ways, because of how our brains were programed from day one of our lives. Our brains can be easily fooled with effects, but it fools us in other ways.

To demonstrate how miraculously our brains work, consider the following:


Olny srmat poelpe can raed tihs?

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg.

The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy,
is proven by the fact that it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm.

Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? Yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!


Mike

[John McManimie]

Originally Posted by Mike Teutsch

To demonstrate how miraculously our brains work, consider the following:

Olny srmat poelpe can raed tihs?

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg.

The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy,
is proven by the fact that it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm.

Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? Yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!

Ah, I have seen this before...

Long before the research at Cambridge there was this:



A Plan for the Improvement of Spelling in the English Language
By Mark Twain

For example, in Year 1 that useless letter c would be dropped to be replased either by k or s, and likewise x would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which c would be retained would be the ch formation, which will be dealt with later.

Year 2 might reform w spelling, so that which and one would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish y replasing it with i and Iear 4 might fiks the g/j anomali wonse and for all.

Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants.

Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez c, y and x -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais ch, sh, and th rispektivli.

Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.

[Boyd Ostroff]

Srroy, I cna't rdea taht...

[Frank Granovski]

I don't think even a spell checker can fix that.

[Owen Dawe]

Aha, aha, what a laugh,

I say. Does this jumbled spelling apply to all languages? I'd like to see the Chinese try it!!

[Mike Teutsch]

Originally Posted by Frank Granovski

I don't think even a spell checker can fix that.

I had it save as a Word document, and yes it was a spell checker nightmare, a sea of red!

Since you mentioned though, I ran the spell checker on it and surprisingly it found the right word about 65% of the time. Might be an insite as to how they work.

Mike

[Keith Loh]

Insight not insite!

[Mike Teutsch]

Originally Posted by Keith Loh

Insight not insite!

Dnag, you cuahgt taht did you! (:

Mkie

[J. Stephen McDonald]

This is very interesting to me, because of my own beginnings in literacy. I taught myself to read at age 2, using mainly the funny papers. I did it entirely by whole-word recognition and wasn't introduced to the importance of individual letters until the 1st grade at age 4. I couldn't understand why they wasted so much effort on each letter, as only words conveyed meaning. I imagine that I wouldn't have noticed misspellings at that time. However, I soon learned that I had to know the separate letters to be able to write. I wonder if the language part of my brain is wired differently than those who learned letters first and then built words around them? I have several examples of things I wrote at age 4 and my spelling was terrible. But, I focused on letters and proper spelling and by age 5, I had overcome it.

The 1st grade I attended at age 4 was a special laboratory school at a university, for 4 and 5-year olds who had learned to read prior to any organized instruction. It was very progressive, stimulating and challenging, the way any school should be. However, the next year, I was tossed into a regular kindergarten, that had no academic content whatsoever. This was a major culture-shock for me. At that time, it was forbidden in the public schools here to teach reading before age 6. Perhaps they believed that tender young brain cells would rupture if forced to learn such things. I was threatened with expulsion when they caught me teaching some classmates to read and count, using the building-blocks we had in the play area. My little academy of verboten knowledge had to be conducted on the sly, after that.

[Tim Goldman]

I still can't read, only write so i dunno what the heck i'm saying:P

The word thing is sorta cool, cause I myself am dysgraphic or dyslexic or something (depends on who you ask). While reading isn't a big challange, i type much easier then i write (that and 20 yrs on a keyboard).

So this may also be why i'm moving into film/video. Much easier and enjoyable working with images.

I wonder if this word thing works differently with people based off their jobs....huh

[Steve McDonald]

The August issue of Discover magazine touches on the subject of this thread, in an article titled, "Sing a Song of Evolution". It is suggested that our ability to comprehend meaning from sentences that have words that are misspelled or arranged in odd sequence, is at the core of the development of diverging new languages. The author has a theory that human language originated from singing during mating behaviors. It also describes how digital audio editing and musical composition may be responsible for a reversing of this trend for divergence. Digital editing programs for music favor songs that are similar to existing ones and this stifles changes in the general type of popular music, according to the author. He claims that every decade up until the 1990s had very different popular music than the previous one. But, after digital editing programs became available in the middle to late 1980s, there has been much less change in music style.

I personally believe that the expansion of literacy over the last several centuries, has brought a big slowdown to the processes that spawned all the different spoken languages. Perhaps the digital revolution and the greater amount of communication it has brought, will further increase the standardization of languages.

During the first year I was on the Internet, I wrote more things than I had done in my whole previous life and I imagine this has been the case with many other people. The Internet may also speed up the reduction in the number of languages that are used. Possibly, this might eventually result in only one language surviving. If so, the evolution of language from the first one to emerge, that is called "Proto-world", would have come full-circle.

[Gabriel Yeager]

Originally Posted by Mike Teutsch

Hi all,

I thought with all of the debate on different formats, frame rates, color rendering, one persons impression vs anothers on looks, etc, you might find this interesting.

The human brain works in mysterious ways, and so there will never be a definitive look or style. We all preceive things in various and different ways, because of how our brains were programed from day one of our lives. Our brains can be easily fooled with effects, but it fools us in other ways.

To demonstrate how miraculously our brains work, consider the following:


Olny srmat poelpe can raed tihs?

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg.

The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy,
is proven by the fact that it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm.

Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? Yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!


Mike

Thats really cool! Where did you find that?

[Mike Teutsch]

Originally Posted by Gabriel Yeager

Thats really cool! Where did you find that?

It was sent to me in an email months ago, then I got it again a few weeks ago. After thinking about all the ways the human brain interprets information, I thought I would show it to others

Glad you enjoyed it. :)

Mike

P.S.---This is not an excuse for not using your spell checker. :)

[Gabriel Yeager]

Originally Posted by Mike Teutsch

It was sent to me in an email months ago, then I got it again a few weeks ago. After thinking about all the ways the human brain interprets information, I thought I would show it to others

Glad you enjoyed it. :)

Mike

P.S.---This is not an excuse for not using your spell checker. :)

Ooohhh... but I htae spell check! :( lol.