An Incredibly Simple Question, but with deep philosophical implications... (trust me)

[cnorman18]

(If you've already seen this, don't spoil it.)

How many F's are in this sentence?

"FINISHED FILES ARE THE RESULT OF YEARS OF SCIENTIFIC STUDY COMBINED WITH THE EXPERIENCE OF YEARS."

[madurobob]

Umm.. 6?

The effect may be diminished in these days of <cntl-f>. I probably would have skipped some of the two letter words if this was an old-skool written test.

[ThatSoundAgain]

Haven't seen it.

six?

ETA: Oh, dang my butter fingers, maduro!

So it has to do with missing the "of"s?

[Cello Man]

Deep philosophical implications, eh? I'm waiting.

[LibraryLady]

Which sentence? If it's the one asking the question, only one.

[Marquis de Carabas]

More than two.

[rocketdodger]

So what are the philosophical implications? That we process information in hierarchical chunks as opposed to at the lowest granularity?

Hmmm I can see where this is going.... we are unable to currently see God, because just like the "f" in "of" our minds skip over the evidence.

However, a better analogy with looking for God would be "how many times does the letter '^!:><' show up in the following sentence?"

[slingblade]

Is it like:

"Railroad crossing, look out for cars!"
Can you spell that without any Rs?

t. h. a. t.

[cnorman18]

You people are entirely too smart.

I wondered if this would work in a post, and it didn't. Oh, well.

Yes, when presented on a sheet of paper, most people fail to see "of".

I have to laugh at the guess that I intended to make a point about religion. The implications (had there been any results that could have had any) had more to do with perception versus reality. I suppose that could be stuffed into some kind of religious bag, but I think it's just about seeing what we expect to see and the mental habits that sometimes prevent us from seeing the obvious.

I suppose it should be no surprise that dedicated skeptics don't much suffer from that problem.

ETA: Hey, I may be Jewish, but that's not my ONLY interest. I build ships in bottles and collect pocketknives, too...

[That_guy]

Me, I'd have said none. Y'know, because "this sentence" has no effs.

[TX50]

Is it like:

"Railroad crossing, look out for cars!"
Can you spell that without any Rs?

t. h. a. t.

My grandma used to say:

"Round and round the rugged rock,
The raggedy rascal ran,
If you can count the "r"s in that,
I'll call you a clever man"

Answer: zero. There are no "r"s in "that".


A similar one to the OP is the following:

PARIS IN THE
THE SPRING


For some reason many people gestalt
"Paris in the spring" and don't notice the extra
"THE".

[wahrheit]

I don't get it.

You ask how many F's there are in that sentence, I count 6 of them, and then further down the thread it seems like you were expecting (most) people to count less than six?

There's six words in that sentence containing one F each. Doesn't take rocket science to count this, does it? Well, I guess I am totally missing the point here and shall shut up...

[LibraryLady]

You people are entirely too smart.

I wondered if this would work in a post, and it didn't. Oh, well.

Yes, when presented on a sheet of paper, most people fail to see "of".

I have to laugh at the guess that I intended to make a point about religion. The implications (had there been any results that could have had any) had more to do with perception versus reality. I suppose that could be stuffed into some kind of religious bag, but I think it's just about seeing what we expect to see and the mental habits that sometimes prevent us from seeing the obvious.

I suppose it should be no surprise that dedicated skeptics don't much suffer from that problem.

ETA: Hey, I may be Jewish, but that's not my ONLY interest. I build ships in bottles and collect pocketknives, too...

Do not underestimate us. ;)

[money]

I don't get it.

You ask how many F's there are in that sentence, I count 6 of them, and then further down the thread it seems like you were expecting (most) people to count less than six?

There's six words in that sentence containing one F each. Doesn't take rocket science to count this, does it? Well, I guess I am totally missing the point here and shall shut up...

To be fair, I have seen that presented in a social psych class in which at least half the class indicated they only saw 4 F's.

[wahrheit]

To be fair, I have seen that presented in a social psych class in which at least half the class indicated they only saw 4 F's.

I've done some reading on the interwebs regarding this topic just now, and I think I know the answer to my own question: Since English is not my first language, I scan the words and that sentence in quite a different way compared to a native speaker. That's probably why I simply counted those 6 F's and didn't comprehend what this was all about.

[slingblade]

I don't get it.

You ask how many F's there are in that sentence, I count 6 of them, and then further down the thread it seems like you were expecting (most) people to count less than six?

There's six words in that sentence containing one F each. Doesn't take rocket science to count this, does it? Well, I guess I am totally missing the point here and shall shut up...

It's a trick question, and depends on which sentence you think the word "this" refers to.

It could mean the sentence in which it appeared, and in that case, there is only one F.

Or it means the sentence following, in which there are 6, but it's likely you will skip over "of" and so miscount.

:)

[Marquis de Carabas]

It's a trick question, and depends on which sentence you think the word "this" refers to.

It could mean the sentence in which it appeared, and in that case, there is only one F.

Or it means the sentence following, in which there are 6, but it's likely you will skip over "of" and so miscount.

:)
Or it could be asking how many Fs are in this sentence, in which case the answer is 0.

[rocketdodger]

I've done some reading on the interwebs regarding this topic just now, and I think I know the answer to my own question: Since English is not my first language, I scan the words and that sentence in quite a different way compared to a native speaker. That's probably why I simply counted those 6 F's and didn't comprehend what this was all about.

Yes.

Originally I only saw 2, then upon intense scrutiny I saw 3. I totally glossed over the "of"s even when I went letter by letter in the sentence.

Human's process their native language (or others, if they are very fluent) in chunks of words, phrases, and sometimes even entire sentences. English speakers are optimized to not even consider "of", as evidenced by this little riddle.

Despite my earlier post, I have thought about it, and this is probably the best argument I have heard for the possible existence of god. However, like all such arguments regarding our limited capability for observation, it only shows that there might be something we are missing, and something != god.

[Marquis de Carabas]

It's not that we dismiss of. It's that it rings in the head like uv. There's no f there, phonetically.

[slingblade]

Or it could be asking how many Fs are in this sentence, in which case the answer is 0.

Oh, yeah, what he said. :)

[wahrheit]

Yes.

Originally I only saw 2, then upon intense scrutiny I saw 3. I totally glossed over the "of"s even when I went letter by letter in the sentence.

Human's process their native language (or others, if they are very fluent) in chunks of words, phrases, and sometimes even entire sentences. English speakers are optimized to not even consider "of", as evidenced by this little riddle.

Makes perfect sense, though the (or others, if they are very fluent) part really hurt. ;) j/k

It's not that we dismiss of. It's that it rings in the head like uv. There's no f there, phonetically.

of sounds like uv to you? Obviously, I am not qualified to speak about the English language, but your comment made me think you might be from the south of the United States.

Since you smart guys are around, I've got a question. What is the correct plural of 'F'? I copied it from the OP, using F's. However, this looks odd to me (can't do a plural with an apostrophe in my language), and the Marquis wrote Fs, without the apostrophe, and as far as I can tell he seems to have profound knowledge of the English language. So, what is the correct plural of the letter 'F'? Has the Marquis been right again? *shudder*

[Madalch]

of sounds like uv to you? Obviously, I am not qualified to speak about the English language, but your comment made me think you might be from the south of the United States.

"Of" sounds like "uv" to me, and I'm from neither the south, nor the USA.

A lot of my students (whose mother tongue is English) constantly write "should of", "could of" and "would of", because they never listen closely to "should have", "could have" and "would have" (although these are usually pronounced "should've", etc.).

[cnorman18]

Do not underestimate us. ;)

Believe me, I don't. From the very first, I've thought that this is far and away the most intelligent forum I've ever seen. I still do.

That's why I didn't think this thing would work, and I was right.

I love it here.

[Modified]

of sounds like uv to you? Obviously, I am not qualified to speak about the English language, but your comment made me think you might be from the south of the United States.

You would pronounce it as "uf" then? My guess is based on my knowledge of "Hogan's Heroes".

[wahrheit]

"Of" sounds like "uv" to me, and I'm from neither the south, nor the USA.

Then I was again wrong, I guess. Do the British, I mean the people living on that island north of France, also pronounce "of" like "uv"? (I assume you are a Canadian.)

A lot of my students (whose mother tongue is English) constantly write "should of", "could of" and "would of", because they never listen closely to "should have", "could have" and "would have" (although these are usually pronounced "should've", etc.).

I think this is quite similar to what I experienced in this thread. If you go to reddit.com or digg.com, you can find that "should of" or "would of" thing in every other post. It almost seems as if people are using phonetic spelling instead of English grammar. Makes it really hard to read those messages, since "should of" and "should have" makes a lot of a difference to someone who is used to a grammar-nazi language, where you could never write such things, even in a colloquial setting.

[TX50]

Since you smart guys are around, I've got a question. What is the correct plural of 'F'? I copied it from the OP, using F's. However, this looks odd to me (can't do a plural with an apostrophe in my language), and the Marquis wrote Fs, without the apostrophe, and as far as I can tell he seems to have profound knowledge of the English language. So, what is the correct plural of the letter 'F'? Has the Marquis been right again? *shudder*

Fs is correct. Use an apostrophe for a plural of a lowercase letter; no
apostrophe for an uppercase letter (or a numeral or symbol). Eg.

a's

Fs

F14s

The 1960s

&s

[rocketdodger]

It's not that we dismiss of. It's that it rings in the head like uv. There's no f there, phonetically.

Maybe... but I think this phenomenon has more to do with chunking than phonetics. This thread will be interesting... it should be moved to science and maths.

[cnorman18]

Just for the record, there was no trick question.

The sheet that was handed to me said that most people saw 3 F's. If you saw 4 or 5, you were pretty sharp, and if you saw 6 you were a genius.

Don't ask.

By the way, the proper plural of F has no apostrophe, but I thought it looked funny that way. Call me illiterate.

[wahrheit]

Fs is correct. Use an apostrophe for a plural of a lowercase letter; no
apostrophe for an uppercase letter (or a numeral or symbol). Eg.

a's

Fs

F14s

The 1960s

&s

Thank you, I definitely learned something new today. The plural depending on the lower/upper case of a letter. Never learnt that at school in English class. You've got one weird language, guys. ;) So I guess the Marquis was right, again. *sigh*

Also, please note that I spelled the word definitely correct. :wackynotworthy:

[TX50]

I think this is quite similar to what I experienced in this thread. If you go to reddit.com or digg.com, you can find that "should of" or "would of" thing in every other post. It almost seems as if people are using phonetic spelling instead of English grammar. Makes it really hard to read those messages, since "should of" and "should have" makes a lot of a difference to someone who is used to a grammar-nazi language, where you could never write such things, even in a colloquial setting.

I don't think it's "phonetic spelling"; I think it's just poor literacy. I've also
noticed that many writers on the intertubes regularly confuse "their, "there"
and "they're", and "it's" and "its" (both of which errors annoy the heck
out of me :mad: ).

[wahrheit]

if you saw 6 you were a genius.



Thanks, that's all I wanted to know. Next thread, please. ;)

[TX50]

Also, please note that I spelled the word definitely correct. :wackynotworthy:

I've noticed that one of the drawbacks of reading the internet too much
(present forum excepted) is that I start to doubt my own literacy sometimes.
Seeing "definitely" regularly written like "definately" can do that to you. Its
becuase people definately dont take care of there writing. They should of
worked harder at there schoolwork. :confused:

[TX50]

if you saw 6 you were a genius.


If you saw 9 you're dyslexic. ;)

[wahrheit]

I've also
noticed that many writers on the intertubes regularly confuse "their, "there"
and "they're", and "it's" and "its" (both of which errors annoy the heck
out of me :mad: ).


I don't know what it feels like if you are an English native speaker, but I can assure you that using "there" instead of "they're" or vice versa not only annoys the heck out of you but also renders the sentence completely incomprehensible unless you are used to internet speak. Especially for foreigners like me, since there is no way you could write such things even in your wildest dreams in many other languages, at least those I'm a bit familiar with.

Methinks those language thingies work very, very differently for everbody depending on his mother-tongue. I should have studied linguistics and philology.

[ThatSoundAgain]

I've noticed that one of the drawbacks of reading the internet too much (present forum excepted) is that I start to doubt my own literacy sometimes.
Seeing "definitely" regularly written like "definately" can do that to you. Its
becuase people definately dont take care of there writing. They should of
worked harder at there schoolwork. :confused:

The confidence in your literacy needs a jolt sometimes, at least mine does. As a non-native speaker/reader of English, I like the opportunity to look stuff up and learn. And maybe gloat a little.

My most recent favourite persistent error is beleave, courtesy of someone on this forum (we're not immune). That's almost so wrong it feels right.

[wollery]

Then I was again wrong, I guess. Do the British, I mean the people living on that island north of France, also pronounce "of" like "uv"? (I assume you are a Canadian.)More like "ov".

[Marquis de Carabas]

Maybe... but I think this phenomenon has more to do with chunking than phonetics. This thread will be interesting... it should be moved to science and maths.
I suppose the test would not be that hard to figure out which is right. Compose a sentence with three ats or ons or--probably the best case--ifs and see if people gloss over the consonants in those words. My money is that they don't because the consonants use the canonical sounds.

[Garrette]

Also, please note that I spelled the word definitely correct. :wackynotworthy:No you didn't. You spelled it correctly.

:)


I suppose the test would not be that hard to figure out which is right. Compose a sentence with three ats or ons or--probably the best case--ifs and see if people gloss over the consonants in those words. My money is that they don't because the consonants use the canonical sounds. I agree with the MdC on this. And, really, that should settle it for everyone.

[wahrheit]

No you didn't. You spelled it correctly.

:)


:mgbanghead :curse *insert vulgar expression here*

[J. Arthur Hastur]

Fail to see 'of'? Is that sort of like color blindness?

[rocketdodger]

I suppose the test would not be that hard to figure out which is right. Compose a sentence with three ats or ons or--probably the best case--ifs and see if people gloss over the consonants in those words. My money is that they don't because the consonants use the canonical sounds.

Hmmmm maybe you are right, now that I think about it. So we look for characters by searching for their individual sounds?

You know this thread was created to add momentum to some kind of proof of possible existence of god thing, but when you think about it, it shows that if there was a super-being, it would probably screw up all kinds of low level sh-- just like we are doing here. A consciousness on that level would probably gloss over entire planets like we gloss over the "f" in "of."

[Ladewig]

Fs is correct. Use an apostrophe for a plural of a lowercase letter; no
apostrophe for an uppercase letter (or a numeral or symbol). Eg.

a's

Fs

F14s

The 1960s

&s

Do you have a citation for those rules?

Your rule makes (1) hard to understand.

(1) Ms. Mississipi asked me to count the Ms.

(2) Ms. Mississippi asked me to count the M's.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Hmmmm maybe you are right, now that I think about it. So we look for characters by searching for their individual sounds?
I think it's more along the lines of our brain isn't always doing what we think it's doing. The exercise presents itself as a simple shape-matching exercise. Every time you see something shaped like F, you should add one to the counter. At the end, you spit out an answer.

But we have already trained our brains for years to recognise groupings of letters as words, not just groups of symbols. So our brain chugs along thinking of the words we are reading, and pulling out any Fs it "hears"*, rather than actually seeing the symbols and pulling out the matching shape. We are missing the trees for the forest.

I would be interested to know if anyone's ever tried this on very young children who have learnt the alphabet but are not yet readers. I would imagine they would tend to do very well at spotting the Fs.


*And F is a very good choice for this test. With the exception of of, it's quite a uniform letter. Every other time you see it, it makes the same sound.

[cnorman18]

You know this thread was created to add momentum to some kind of proof of possible existence of god thing....

Excuse me, but I started this thread, and I had no such intention. As I said earlier. I thought it was an interesting phenomenon of perception. I don't think it has anything to do with tne existence of God, and I think one would have to jump through several logical hoops to get to a place where it did.

I think you're confusing "religious" with "obsessive." I'd freely concede that there are many people for whom those words are synonymous, but with all due respect, I'm not one of them.

My remark about "deep philosophical implications" was intended to be facetious, and only added because I wanted to place this thread in the forum where I usually post.

In any case, I've never been here to look for converts anyway. I just enjoy debate and discussion, and I like to challenge my own beliefs.

If I wanted to recruit people for Judaism, I suspect that I just might be able to find a more promising place to look...

Don't you?

Peace,

Charles

[Showmeproof]

6?

[Taffer]

I saw 2 at first, then 3, then 6 eventually. But I have been teaching myself speed reading techniques lately, so I missed most of the words anyway. :D

[Taffer]

More like "ov".

This is how we pronounce it as well.