quote:

Originally posted by Boomer187 theres a lot more nouns in your example that are not common in most speech. Whenever someone has to do linguistic reserch they have to find out hwo common words are...this is a huge task that is replicated I think every 10 years er so. SO I am guessing that uncommon words, woodchuck, groundhog, missouri, etc. will make this effect almost disappear. Notice when you rad there are certain parts that you can just skip over quickly, and some you slow down. This is also the basis of speed reading...they teach you to skip the easy parts and ingest the other parts.

Yea, and the original paragraph said that a study has discovered that you can take any word and scramble it, leaving first and last letter intact, and it'll be easy to read. Obviously not. I mean, that paragraph was also made for entertainment purposes, of course they put the most common nouns in there so everyone would go "oooh..." It's just that the first time I saw people freak out about that, I said nuh-uh, there's gotta be a catch. And there obviously is... it works to an extent, but it's not some crazy thing that works every time and flawlesly..

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax If that cambridge study where all the letters are mixed up but you can still read works so well...why do dyslexics have such a hard time?

I'm lysdexic and I resent that......

I seriously am actually, but I'm smart enough to compensate.

___________________
If you can read this, I'm seriously fucking bored.

haha youre compensating for something!

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Bliss Yea, and the original paragraph said that a study has discovered that you can take any word and scramble it, leaving first and last letter intact, and it'll be easy to read. Obviously not. I mean, that paragraph was also made for entertainment purposes, of course they put the most common nouns in there so everyone would go "oooh..." It's just that the first time I saw people freak out about that, I said nuh-uh, there's gotta be a catch. And there obviously is... it works to an extent, but it's not some crazy thing that works every time and flawlesly..

lol, nothing in this line of study works everytime. You can discount about 99.999% if not all research if you hold it to a 100% standard. What they do is test it to see if there is about a 96% chance that it didn't occur by chance. This could be a study that is from that 5% that lie. who knows.


You should also try to find the original journal article if you can. Usually descriptions of studies in news articles are pretty inaccurate.

60% of the time, it works every time.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax 60% of the time, it works every time.

Thats good enough to get published in some journals

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Bliss That Cambridge study is pretty much bs imo. The letters in that paragraph that everyone goes "wow" over aren't even that well scrambled, the word still bears a resemblance to the original word... and all the words were familiar and not that long... plus they never put letters together, which I hypothesize makes it easier to tell.... and a big thing is that it's much easier to read in paragraph form where you naturally and subconsciously anticipate the next word, which makes it easier to desipher. Words standing alone and scrambled the same way are really hard to decipher. There's a difference between recognizing this sentence, you can do that easily: Taody I wnet to garnmda's hsoue But can you get these easily on their own: sctiaonn tpelonehe nobeotok etc.

you forgot to scramble 'etc.'

you're welcome