THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULD DO A SEARCH BEFORE STARTING A NEW THREAD.

[Batman976]

I think this research should become a global announcement. No one has posted it in Entertainment yet, have they? Maybe I should do that now.

[Batman976]

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.

For further information and replies, please see the following threads:



Wanna see something neat?
http://tfproject.org/tfp/showthread....threadid=27092

Hloy Siht!!!
http://tfproject.org/tfp/showthread....threadid=27405

A Bit Of Trivia...
http://tfproject.org/tfp/showthread....threadid=27548

A cool thing to know about your brain...
http://tfproject.org/tfp/showthread....threadid=27685

vrey itnretsnig
http://tfproject.org/tfp/showthread....threadid=27586

Spelling isn't important!
http://tfproject.org/tfp/showthread....threadid=27304

sick of non english speaking people... (buried deep within the thread)
http://tfproject.org/tfp/showthread....0&pagenumber=2

Nothing to do with language or your brain.
http://tfproject.org/tfp/showthread....threadid=27944

Tihs is werid!
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=28066

check this out !!
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=28080

[JazzmanAl]

Seriously...

[Averett]

I think I've seen this at least 3 times on the 3 message boards I check out throughout the day. Sheesh!!

[Esoteric]

Originally posted by Bones
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, READ THE FUCKING BOARD BEFORE YOU FUCKING POST A FUCKING THREAD.

/ME STABS EVERYONE IN THE FACE

-thank you the management

To think, I was going to say the exact same thing.

[Midnight_Son]

Glad you posted the rest of these damn threds….
Therefore I’ll assume this is a joke and wont kill you.

[Batman976]

I wanted to see if Bones would throw his keyboard across the room. He was able to type a reply though, so I guess he didn't. Damn.

[Munku]

Rofl! That's too funny.

[Munku]

Notice how each one is slightly different? Especially the school type/name and ending..

[spectre]

I was about to close this thread (probably the third or fourth I've closed/deleted on this subject), then I saw the links. It gave me a good laugh.

[Batman976]

RUN AWAY! IT'S GONNA BLOW!

[Stare At The Sun]

that is kinda cool actually, cause i could read that whole post

[Flesh]

yeah, i've seen this everywhere o.O

[shalafi]

cant we kill him anyway? y'know.....just for kicks?

[Batman976]

Wait a minute... this isn't going to be an "everybody turn on Batman" night, is it?

I warn you... I've got a cell phone, which I'm not afraid to use... you know... to possibly give you some sort of tumor... in the long run.

[leakie]

Holy shit that was crazy. Read the whole paragraph without a second look.

All we need now is one of those translator type web pages to create pages of this stuff (a la www.pornolize.com) - that would be cool.

[BuddyHawks]

That rocks

[noblejr]

Wow! I got all the way to "mttaer" before I realized things were spelled wierd.


-edit-

I just now realized that the Subject is like that too. Didn't even notice when I clicked the thread.

[wondash]

Originally posted by Bones
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, READ THE FUCKING BOARD BEFORE YOU FUCKING POST A FUCKING THREAD.

/ME STABS EVERYONE IN THE FACE

-thank you the management

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, I DID READ THE BOARD, AND SEARCHED, BUT DID NOT SEE THE DUPS.

Take a pill and calm down. Not all of us read every post in Tilted Nonsense.

[wondash]

Originally posted by Bones
YOU MISSED 6 THREADS ON THE FIRST TWO PAGES?

ah-hem.... sorry i mean... read closer

I guess I did.

[alkaloid]

I found it fascinating, too. And it just sounds compelling. The example is perfect. So I tried to find the source of the information but could not find it.

Instead I found the following.

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/op...-3963847c.html

Qitue fasnciantig

This story was published Wednesday, September 17th, 2003


Something making the rounds on the Internet:

"Aoccdrnig to rsceearch 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 a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe."

According to the urban legends site, www.snopes.com, no research has actually been conducted at Cambridge University to verify the statement above. The author is unknown. However, the content speaks for itself.

Intgirunig, ins't it?

Steven T Abell on USENET said the following in comp.lang.apl. I don't know him but he seems to make sense.

I've seen this thing popping up in several places on the net
in the last day or so,
and I don't buy it.
I tried a little experiment,
and the simple claim given here doesn't hold up very well.
Short sentences without context are very hard to read,
especially if they don't have many one-, two-, or three-letter words
that are obviously invariant under the given rule.
Four-letter words are found in their correct form half the time,
and trivial to correct when they are not.
Furthermore,
one can devise scrambling strategies that mislead the reader
for certain classes of longer words.
I think what we see in the given paragraph
is that the first/last letter constraint
combined with enough invariant or nearly-invariant words
combined with enough material to provide context clues
raises the information content of the stream to a readable level.
I don't think the first/last letter constraint by itself is adequate.
It's certainly interesting, but the claim as given here is overstated.

Steve

[krwlz]

Thanks for posting that man. I was about to say the same thing as the rest of the people..... But then I saw the links. Good stuff man.

[anleja]

That's weird, I didn't even notice until partway through the second line.

[Seanathan03]

that is really fucking cool...im new here so this is the first time ive seen this posted...but im going to have to show that to some friends...nifty

[Stiltzkin]

Where is this crap coming from? Why has it suddenly become so popular? Is this another "All Your Base" phenomenon of sorts? All Your Base rules. You just can't step AYB.

[a1t3r3g0]

LOL! I'm glad to know I was the first person to post it here Not only that, but I did do a search before posting it!

[CSflim]

Hey, do you know what I just found out?

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh 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 are in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe and the biran fguiers it out aynawy.

cool huh?

[CSflim]

THIS JUST IN!!!

OMG! Check out this amazing article!!!

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh 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 are in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe and the biran fguiers it out aynawy.

[CSflim]

Hey, here's somethign I haven't read three seconds ago.

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh 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 are in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe and the biran fguiers it out aynawy.

[CSflim]

HA! FOOLED YOU!

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh 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 are in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe and the biran fguiers it out aynawy.

[Batman976]

Oh man, you got me! Looks like I'm gonna have to add this thread to my growing list documenting the posting of this study.

[Four Fingers]

that's great parody. honest.

[jwoody]

Cool. Reminds me of that thread about some research at done at Cmabirdge Unviertisy.

[bundy]

you bastard.
i´m going to have to invest in some stronger pain-killers if that damn topic comes up again.

**headache**

[bender]

I know lets just jump all over the guy for starting a thread, couldn't it just have been deleted and a pm sent ?

[John Falcon]

This reminds me of an earlier thread.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=27685

[LewisCouch]

Here's a little more information on this subject. I have a relative who is Professor Emeritus of Education at the University
of Oregon, and he does research in is "spare" time on how the brain learns. Anyway, here's his take.

---
This past week I've received at least a half dozen similar versions of the Cambridge University language research discovery (above), so it's obviously scooting around the Internet. Since I think I understand the neurobiological base of the research, and am in the initial process of developing one of my future monthly Brain Connection columns on it (http://www.brainconnection.com/sylwester), I thought I would provide a little background information on the discovery to friends who might have similarly received the Internet version and are curious about it.

The next time you're in a public library, you might want to look at the July 5 edition of the British journal, New Scientist, which does a fine job of explaining scientific developments in non-technical language. Read Stanislas Dehaene's "Natural Born Readers" (pages 30-33). You can also probably read it online even as a non-subscriber via http://archive.newscientist.com Stan Dehaene is a French neuroscientist best known for his work on figuring out the underlying neurobiology of mathematics. His 1997 book The Number Sense is the classic in the field.

The point of this line of research is that proficient readers read most words (except very long ones) principally through the first and last letters and a rapid recognition of the general shape and content of the entire word. That's why we typically read misspelled words with no trouble.

We can also easily read words in different fonts (including fonts we hadn't seen before), words with mixed capital and small letters, manuscript and cursive, etc. We also easily distinguish between words like eight and sight that have only one subtle spelling difference but are pronounced very differently.

Written language is processed in about a dozen different brain areas (and principally in the left hemisphere in most people). Written language doesn't have the innate elements that spoken language has, and so is learned with more difficulty. The brain structures we use to recognize words also exist in the visual systems of primates, where they are used to recognize important objects -- dangers and opportunities.

For example, a monkey must be able to quickly recognize a lion, but although each lion is slightly different from other lions, all have a characteristic lion face, and it is that configuration (a sort of cartoon lion with only the essential details) that the monkey's object recognition system tunes into. Further, the lion might be looking up/down/sideways/etc, so the object recognition system has to be able to recognize the conceptual lion in any possible positional variation.

Dehaene argues with considerable research support that we simply recycled this existing system when written language entered into human culture. For example, draw a capital A with the horizontal line extending a bit beyond the diagonal lines, and place a couple dots above the horizontal line within the triangle. Invert the drawing and it's a cartoon bull. Our letter A derives from the Greek alpha, which emerged out of the ancient Semitic word for bull (alf) -- and our brain has no difficulty in recognizing A whether it's right side up, upside down, or sideways. The rest of our alphabet has similar ancient beginnings.

Our alphabet is made up of combinations of vertical, horizontal, diagonal, and curved lines, which our brain's visual system easily recognizes -- alone and in combination. Rapid object recognition depends more on the outer shape of something than on the inner (often quite variant) details -- and so what works for an object also works nicely for a word with two outer and several inner letters.

By connecting innately meaningless sounds to innately meaningless lines within our incredibly inventive brain, we developed a marvelously meaningful language-driven civilization.


But alas, we didn't follow up on this brain property and invent a computer that could similarly recognize the external essence of an email address and ignore incorrect internal letter sequences.

Bob Sylwester

[EeOh1]

Read the following as fast as possible:

Acocdrnig to an elgnsih unviesitry sutdy the oredr of letetrs in a wrod dosen't mttaer, the olny thnig thta's iopmrantt is that the frsit and lsat ltteer of eevry word is in the crcreot ptoision. The rset can be jmbueld and one is stlil able to raed the txet wiohtut dclftfuiiy.

---

I wasn't sure exactly where to put this, but I found it very interesting and had to share. I think it falls under the knowledge category.

[m2k]

I read this the other day and also found it to pretty interesting. It seems to be true.

[Xell101]

I agree, as long as the middle isn't too mixed up it is still decipherable.