I did ncotie taht mnay fo you a\'rnet dnoig it rhigt. The fsirt and the lsat letetr hvae to be in the rghit place. Taht mkaes diong one, two and trehe lteter wrdos aepapr namrol.

I\'ts a samilir mnid coitcreron as tihs:

\"If you cn\'at see the
the peoblrm wtih the
wnitirg in tihs praprgaah
tehn raed it aaginn\"

Wrdos taht bgien the smae way as tehy end (lkie \"Hnanah\") wuold olny look nrarmol if you wree writnig backawrds (\"hnanaH\"). Hevoewr, w\'ree not dniog taht. Wr\'ee jnilbmug the mdldie ltretes up in no caelr oedrr (Hannah)


Translation

I did notice that many of you aren\'t doing it right. The first and the last letter have to be in the right pace. That makes doing one, two and three letter words appear normal.

It\'s a similar mind correction as this:

\"If you can\'t see the
the problem with the
writing in this paragraph
then read it again\"

Words that begin the same way as they end (like Hannah) would only look normal if you were writing backwards (hannaH). However, we\'re not doing that. We\'re jumbling the middle letters up in no clear order. (Hnanah)

[Edited on 4-9-2004 by AirMan]

[Edited on 4-9-2004 by AirMan]

[Edited on 4-9-2004 by AirMan]

[Edited on 4-9-2004 by AirMan]

Tihs tpioc was certead to povre a pniot. The pniot has been poervd so, wehre deos the tpoic go form hree:conf:

It geos to plopee mnikag ctmemnos auobt the pevord pniot and plbsisoy sohw oehtr mnid cnorteciros inivovnlg wdros.

Aslo did anoyne ncitoe how it donse\'t wrok wtih legnor wdros, for elpmaxe: asinairatnemhsilbatsesiditnm?

Translation

It goes to people making comments about the proved point and possibly show other mind corrections involvind words.

Also, did anyone notice how it doesn\'t work with longer words, for example: antidisestablishmentarianism?

[Edited on 4-9-2004 by AirMan]

[Edited on 4-9-2004 by AirMan]

So we cna tlka liek tihs adn wnto gte banend? Ahhaha! tihs is ginog to bcemoe addctign!:lol:

Some of you don\'t really see the point of this. The point is to change the letters around in the word without changing the first and last letter.

Anyways, in the theory it says you can read words like that, but really when words start to get longer than 6 or 7 letters you really can\'t read it very easily. Test yourself and guess what the word is;

Psicoresun.

Tpenolehle.
Vlyallbeol.

I know I really could decode that, so I really think their theory only works with short words.

EDIT: Didn\'t really notice Airman had already said that before me. XD So anyways, kudos to him, that smart little bugger.

[Edited on 5-9-2004 by Gutter Mouth]

^Esya, loclege opelep hvea oto chum meit on teihr dansh

If ya think about it, you do it all the time but never really notice it.

Ie hd a tt. As te me ls cn be in ay or, do yu en nd tm? Cn yu rd ts wt te tn? Or do yu re te wd ao by is lh?

Translation in Soiler

[center]------------------------------------------------------[/center]

nthr thght. Y dn\'t nd vwls. Hnstly! Jst thnk f ll th s clld \"lmr spch\" tht s jst nrml spch bt wth th vwls mssng. Y cn rd ths, rght? t cms frm mrs cd s wll. n th dys f tlgrms bng th mst ffcnt wy to snd mssg. Whn ppl wntd t wrt s lttl s pssbl.


Translation in spoiler





[Edited on 6-9-2004 by AirMan]

The vowel thing is actually quite a bit harer though AirMan. BTW, nice to see you\'re back

Even harder to read. I think my thought on the missing out all middle letters was a bit wrond, though.

Off topic: Thanks! I was on holiday!

The missing vowels one is easier than the one with the missing middle letters.

Your brain takes in the whole word and unjumbles it. That\'s why we can read it.

NOTE: I know that this has already been explained!

O e! a aou ii e oa?

OE: I ot ee i o o!

Flare, I actually got that one.

I didn\'t. I believe it to be the dislexia in most of us to unjumble words. It\'s the same thing that makes us confuse words. If you can\'t read it, can you read well without confusing letters?

I usually don\'t bump topics this old, but, I have recently discovered the answer to whether or not Cambridge really did a study.

Typoglycemia

Typoglycemia is the lighthearted name given to a purported recent discovery about the cognitive processes behind reading written text. The name makes little sense as glycemia is the concentration of glucose in the blood. It is an urban legend/Internet meme that does have some element of truth behind it.

The legend is propagated by email and message boards and demonstrates that readers can understand the meaning of words in a sentence even when the letters of each word are scrambled. As long as all the necessary letters are present, and the first and last letters remain the same, readers turn out to have little trouble reading the text.

The phenomenon is illustrated by this widely-forwarded e-mail message:

I cdn\'uolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg: the phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid. Aoccdrnig to a rsceearch taem at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn\'t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Such a cdonition is arppoiatrely cllaed Typoglycemia :)-

Amzanig huh? Yaeh and you awlyas thguoht slpeling was ipmorantt.

In actual fact, no such research was carried out at Cambridge University. It all started with a letter to the New Scientist magazine from Graham Rawlinson in which he discusses his Ph.D. thesis:

In a puiltacibon of New Scnieitst you could ramdinose all the letetrs, keipeng the first two and last two the same, and reibadailty would hadrly be aftcfeed. My ansaylis did not come to much beucase the thoery at the time was for shape and senqeuce retigcionon. Saberi\'s work sugsegts we may have some pofrweul palrlael prsooscers at work.The resaon for this is suerly that idnetiyfing coentnt by paarllel prseocsing speeds up regnicoiton. We only need the first and last two letetrs to spot chganes in meniang.

And there you have the truth.