I received this from my beloved sister.
Only great minds can read this quickly
This is weird, but interesting!
fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too
Cna yuo raed tihs? 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 t aht 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! if you can raed tihs forwrad it
Is it recognition out of our words and passage?
Can you read other’s mind through such means?
suifaijohnmak
Hi John – Yes I can read this without difficulty and it raises for me again the question of how children learn to read. In the UK the government keeps changing its mind about the best approach.
Years ago children were always taught their letters and sounds first, with the view that they would then be able to decode words in order to read them. This mechanistic approach was thought to enable children to learn to read but switch them off enjoyment of reading.
Then there was an approch when all the words in the children’s books were spelled as they sounded. It was thought that children would learn to read quickly, enjoy it, and naturally begin to be able to read correctly spelled words when they were ready. Spelling was not taught and we ended up with a generation of poor spellers!
Then the ‘real books’ approach came in. Children didn’t need to learn sounds or letters. They should just be read ‘whole’ books so often that they would learn to recognise the words of the story through the pleasure and enjoyment of reading. Whilst this worked for the brightest children, it didn’t work for many.
Then the emphasis on sounds came back again. I’m not sure what they are doing now in schools as it is some time since I have been involved in children’s literacy, but your post has made me wonder at what point we learn to read for meaning rather than the words themselves.
I’m sure the children’s literacy experts would have an answer!
Hi Jenny, I could read it without difficulty too. The interesting concept behind is that we might already have a mindmap that put the letters into right order, like a jigsaw puzzle, when confronted with such patterns of jumbled letters.
As mentioned, so far if the first and last letters are in order, the rest of the word could be formed readily with our intuition.
The implication could be huge in that language literacy could mean a whole “word” learning, rather than just spelling or sound alone.
And similarly, could we relate this concept to the structure of a paragraph? We have learnt about the importance of the topic sentence and the last sentence of a paragraph. They represent the INTRODUCTION AND CONCLUSION. This means that we might be able to understand the overall meaning or key points of a paragraph by focusing on the topic and last sentences, and skim read the rest (the DEVELOPEMENT PART OF A PARAGRAPH) in certain cases. This is based on the assumption that most writers would adopt a linear INTRO – DEVELOPMENT-CONCLUSION approach.
Would this be the essence of speed reading?
My proposition is:
Such orderly approach might be used to sign post the overall meaning of a paragraph. This would assist the readers in deducting the meaning of the paragraph without even reading the details of it.
It would be interesting to learn from the language experts if that is the case.
Jenny, thanks again for your valuable comments.
John
Hi, John:
Interesting. I may think that the patern recognition of the pictograph of the word may work even if it is not respecting the secuencial order of how we have learnt and write it.
Regards.
Jorge
Hi Jorge,
Yes, that could be an interesting experiment.
set’l ese.
sdeo ti kwro?
I thought we could even try it with our CCK08 Community, by conducting a mini research. Wath od uyo inkth?
I have to say, i can read it without too much difficulty, although definitely at a slightly slower speed. I have always been slightly disadvantaged at spelling and a slower reader, but much better at maths.
Personally i notice i can read words with more each if i force myself to skim over them quicker. I think this forces me to guess the next word by context, and if what is on screen matches it to a degree then that is what i interpret it as that. However i think this happens on a more subliminal level and with a greater speed and ease.
I believe we do this on a day to day bases, gaining more familiarity with what we do regularly and becoming, quicker and more accurate at interpreting. This would be supported by the idea that silly mistakes are where we read it simply in context to be what we expected it to be. Possibly misreading a sentence which someone wrote to mean something else is where we found something else that when quickly interpreted results in something else which fits in the context of what we are reading, but could actually represent an entirely opposing view. This could be down them structuring there sentence in a way which we aren’t used to and didn’t ‘expect’.
I have to say, i have certainly read something and thought it mean something else then realised as i carried on reading that they can’t have meant that. Then re-read it to mean something else.
Zekian,
I agree that”This would be supported by the idea that silly mistakes are where we read it simply in context to be what we expected it to be. ”
Without understanding the context and the meaning behind a sentence and the passage AND the words, one may easily interpret the “pattern” to be what it is. Would this be simply thinking that we thought we could read somebody’s minds based on our projections? The intuition of “predicting” what comes next. Do you think this relates to the common practice that people used to guess other’s reaction in social networking?
Many thanks for your valuable insights into this.
John