PDA

View Full Version : Cna yuo raed tihs?



philsmove
20th-August-2009, 10:36 AM
Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can.

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, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!

Phil_dB
20th-August-2009, 11:04 AM
Atnohre bsyu dya at teh oecffic raedgin tmei wsatnig elimas eh Pilh? :wink:

David Franklin
20th-August-2009, 11:09 AM
Clpmaxeretnuoe:

Anidroccg to crad cniyrrag lcitsiugnis planoissefors at an uemannd utisreviny, and crartnoy to the duoibus cmials of the ueticnd rcraeseh, a slpmie, macinahcel ioisrevnn of ianretnl cretcarahs araepps sneiciffut to csufnoe the eadyrevy oekoolnr.

As with the other examples, first and last letters are in the same place, rest are reordered.

Dreadful Scathe
20th-August-2009, 01:05 PM
Clpmaxeretnuoe:

Anidroccg to crad cniyrrag lcitsiugnis planoissefors at an uemannd utisreviny, and crartnoy to the duoibus cmials of the ueticnd rcraeseh, a slpmie, macinahcel ioisrevnn of ianretnl cretcarahs araepps sneiciffut to csufnoe the eadyrevy oekoolnr.

As with the other examples, first and last letters are in the same place, rest are reordered.
yes, that was much harder to read. I could read all of it of it apart from the 'macinahcel ioisrevnn of ianretnl ' which ironically is kind of the key :)

its amazing how often these memes come around again to bore us though - thanks Philsmove ;)

Dreadful Scathe
20th-August-2009, 02:35 PM
also, can i point out your "55 out of 100 can't read this" is a made up statistic.

as , indeed, are 82.5% of ALL statistics :)

Daisy Chain
21st-August-2009, 12:22 PM
I was amazed to find that I read it in a peculiar accent. Not out loud, in my mind. Tell me I'm not the only one?

Daisy

(A Linguistical Little Flower)

jim
21st-August-2009, 08:11 PM
Clpmaxeretnuoe:

Anidroccg to crad cniyrrag lcitsiugnis planoissefors at an uemannd utisreviny, and crartnoy to the duoibus cmials of the ueticnd rcraeseh, a slpmie, macinahcel ioisrevnn of ianretnl cretcarahs araepps sneiciffut to csufnoe the eadyrevy oekoolnr.

As with the other examples, first and last letters are in the same place, rest are reordered.

The first one was like reading normally, but I can't read this.

I tend to find I take in the entire sentance in, or at least what I think is the sentance is.

what does the above say?

David Franklin
21st-August-2009, 08:26 PM
what does the above say?
Counterexample:

According to card carring linguistics professionals at an unnamed university, and contrary to the dubious claims of the uncited research, a simple, mechanical inversion of internal characters appears sufficient to confuse the everyday onlooker.

I typed the above using what I posted before as a source - somewhat to my surprise I could actually read it at least as fast as I can type (and I'm a pretty good typist).

DavidY
21st-August-2009, 08:33 PM
I wonder if it's something to do with ordering of consonants.

In the original example the consonants are roughly in the same order in the original words, or are transposed one or two characters away.

In David's example, the consonants are much more randomly scattered.

David Franklin
21st-August-2009, 10:51 PM
I wonder if it's something to do with ordering of consonants.

In the original example the consonants are roughly in the same order in the original words, or are transposed one or two characters away.

In David's example, the consonants are much more randomly scattered.Actually, not randomly - as the text says itself, the internal order is inverted (reversed). In general this maximizes the distance each character is from its correct position (although obviously not so for words such as "rotator").

gamebird
22nd-August-2009, 05:54 PM
Counterexample:

According to card carring linguistics professionals at an unnamed university, and contrary to the dubious claims of the uncited research, a simple, mechanical inversion of internal characters appears sufficient to confuse the everyday onlooker.
I typed the above using what I posted before as a source - somewhat to my surprise I could actually read it at least as fast as I can type (and I'm a pretty good typist).


You sure?
:lol:
Yes, pot...kettle...I hold my hands up...just though it a tad amusing

David Franklin
22nd-August-2009, 08:40 PM
You sure?
:lol:
Yes, pot...kettle...I hold my hands up...just though it a tad amusingActually, I think one error in a hundred characters or so being copy typed isn't that bad (since I was looking at the source material and not what I was typing).

'thought', by the way...

Dreadful Scathe
22nd-August-2009, 11:40 PM
Actually, I think one error in a hundred characters or so being copy typed isn't that bad (since I was looking at the source material and not what I was typing).

'thought', by the way...
oh touchè sir :rofl:

whitetiger1518
7th-September-2009, 11:26 AM
I did decently well on the first, and thought that the one below was actually not too bad. I think the only words I missed were Counterexample, unnamed and inversion..

I periodically test myself on backwards reading - whenever the bus company put up a sign to be read from outside the bus (you know those semitransparent notices that show prices or offers) I try to read it from inside before confirming it from outside the bus..

I like to think that this mental gymnastic helps my brain from dying off, (I know my memory is dying already, so I need to keep all I can!). It also helps in business meetings to read notes upside down :innocent:



Counterexample:

According to card carring linguistics professionals at an unnamed university, and contrary to the dubious claims of the uncited research, a simple, mechanical inversion of internal characters appears sufficient to confuse the everyday onlooker.

I typed the above using what I posted before as a source - somewhat to my surprise I could actually read it at least as fast as I can type (and I'm a pretty good typist).

Cheers WT