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 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!
2 comments:
Yes, I can read it! However, it is not dyslexia (which as you know I have) that allows one to read the words. In fact a dyslexic like me cannot make much sense of ANY word without a bit of effort (whether the spelling is correct or not).
I first saw this post on Facebook. It is more of an 'urban myth' than a fact. You will probably find that just about every person who sees this will be able to read it. It has to do with the manner in which the brain processes symbols. We do not relate to letters first, since letters are meaningless digitization's of analog realities.
For example, the word DOG has very little to do with the actual animal, rather it is the function of creating a neural connection that tells the brain when you see the letters D, O, G together they are likely to spell either DOG or GOD. If they are jumbled GDO then the brain automatically jumps to the next highest level of meaning, the sentence, to place the letters (as symbols) within their true context.
However, the one bit that is absolutely certain about what you've said, is that spelling is NOT crucial!
In Kantian terms, spelling is construct, not an apriori fact...
Or at least that's what I tell myself!
aazmnig sutff: I ddi nto udnersantd a wrod fo waht Doin siad.
Post a Comment