Not Praanmoral, but irntesteing

[Purple Tentacle]

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. **** is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.

[Nucular]

bhlsulit! :wink:

[reprise]

Originally posted by Purple Tentacle
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. **** is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.

The system which I used to teach my children to read was based on this theory. My son is now 23 and kits produced especially for the "Teach Your Baby to Read" programme were on the market when he was still an infant. I notice that the same method is now used in kindergarten (first year of primary school) here.

[Nucular]

No but really, it's true that there is a huge amount of information redundancy in the written word; and it's also true that reading, when we're good at it, is a 'top-down' process from perception of form, not analysis of construction. But this is old stuff.

We already know that people can usually solve simple anagrams, given time; and we have the additional cue in this case of first and last letter, and grammatical/semantic context. So I'd have thought it would come down to simply 'are we as quick to read these words as non-mangled ones?' - I'd guess that that's not what the study looked at, because I think it likely that we would take longer to read the mangled ones (I did).

So I'm not really sure what they mean, or what they think they've added.

But then I haven't read the study...

Maybe I should shut up until I have :rolleyes:

[Nucular]

Hmmm... two identical posts (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870090161) by two different people on the same subject... what are the odds?

[Purple Tentacle]

Originally posted by Nucular
Hmmm... two identical posts (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870090161) by two different people on the same subject... what are the odds?

it'd have to one in a BILLION :P
he he he:wink:

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by reprise


The system which I used to teach my children to read was based on this theory. My son is now 23 and kits produced especially for the "Teach Your Baby to Read" programme were on the market when he was still an infant. I notice that the same method is now used in kindergarten (first year of primary school) here.

It sounds like you are talking about the ' Look - See ' method of reading, which I believe was experimented with quite a bit in main-stream school systems. I also believe it produced a large number of people who really couldn't read very well.. Although, I'm sure there were some exceptions.

If they are still teaching children to read by this method, where you are, I would be very concerned..


Unless you learn phonics, words you have not learned (memorized ) before ,are unpronounceable and most likely not defined. ( for the reader )


The exercise above works if you have already learned to read, but would be almost useless for the purpose of learning to read english.

As far as the original post:
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. **** is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.


I found it very tedious to read this. When I read proper english, I find it to be very easy, if not pleasant. Reading this example was ' work '...

[scribble]

Originally posted by reprise


The system which I used to teach my children to read was based on this theory. My son is now 23 and kits produced especially for the "Teach Your Baby to Read" programme were on the market when he was still an infant. I notice that the same method is now used in kindergarten (first year of primary school) here.

I have to ask:

Are your kids awful spellers? Seriously.

I had no problem at all reading the first post in this thread at full speed. But I can't imagine teaching a child to read by using this knowledge - how exactly is this taken advantage of in the teaching?

-Chris

[scribble]

I was just thinking... when I play at anagrams, I have a real hard time keeping myself from trying to use the first letter as the first letter. Doubtless related.

[Iamme]

VERY interesting, Purple. I read that spiel as fast as I would have of anything printed the right way. Neat!

[EdipisReks]

i konw, its rlaely qitue fscaninatg.

[Iamme]

That one TOO! This is fascinating.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Iamme
That one TOO! This is fascinating.

Try this one..

Elingsh an mttaer a wrod oredr iprmoetnt rghit to at , ltteers waht it lsat the ltteer olny the in a are, tihng deosn't pclae the is uinervtisy taht frist and at Aoccdrnig is rscheearch the .
How's your speed now?


This was pointed out by Deetee in this thread..Spllenig (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870095715#post1870095715)

With the words out of context, it is harder to "read" .....

[exarch]

I wonder if this is what a text looks like to a dyslexic person?

Either way, I found the example stated much easier than some of the other efforts people posted on this subject. I think it's possible to scramble the words in such a way they're still more easily recognised than if it were truly random.

Some observations:
EdipisReks' i konw, its rlaely qitue fscaninatg. had me stumbling over really, which I first recognised as rarely.
Also, fascinating has 2 i's, which his scrambled version does not, yet that was no problem.

I think it's easier when the vowels are already in the right order (which is clearly the case in the example text).

All of this also explains why you so easily overlook spelling mistakes or typo's

[Starrman]

Holy carp!