Am I being unfair by using my imperfect English here?

Post Reply New Topic

is this post a joke? obnoxious.

If you'd read the things that described why that stuff is easy to read with no slowdown or difficulty, you would understand why the claim that you only need the first and last letters isn't true. It's not that it's not readable, but rather that it's made in a uniquely readable way for such passages, and that the actual principle behind it does not hold up if you don't deliberately make it easy.

So taking this passage:

First off, here's the words in it that haven't changed at all:

I I I was The of the to a at it in the in a are the is the and be in the the can be a and you can it a is the not by but the as a huh and I was if you can it

48 words aren't changed (because they're 1-3 letters), and those are the little words most people don't notice reading, but that aid in figuring out the structure of the thing. (There's some kind of term for words like this, and for some of the four-letter words, but I don't know it. It just means they form an easy grammatical framework to hang the rest of the words onto.)

Then, here's words that have only flipped two letters around because they're 4 letter words:

taht waht mnid waht wrod olny taht lsat rset mses raed Tihs mnid deos raed wrod yaeh raed tihs
(that what mind what word only that last rest mess read This mind does read word yeah read this)

19 words only have two letters changed (because they're 4 letter words and only the middle changes), which is like reading through the most minor of minor typos. Some of these are still those words that aid in giving contextual structure to things.

cluod pweor hmuan oerdr tihng frsit rghit pclae sitll taotl huamn ervey wlohe
(could power human order thing first right place still total human every whole)

13 words have only 3 letters changed, still in the realm of common typos.

dseno't mtaetr ltteer lteter istlef awlyas
(doesn't matter letter letter itself always)

Only 6 words have 4 letters changed, and one of them has an apostrophe that makes it much easier to understand.

cdnuolt blveiee rdanieg ltteres whotuit pboerlm bcuseae Azanmig tghuhot forwrad
(couldn't believe reading letters without problem because Amazing thought forward)

Only 10 words have 5 letters changed.

aulaclty slpeling
(actually spelling)

Only 2 words have 6 letters changed.

aoccdrnig Cmabrigde iproamtnt ipmorantt

(according Cambridge important important)

Only 4 words have 7 letters changed. (One of which has a major context clue by capitalization and location next to another capitalized word.)

uesdnatnrd phaonmneal rscheearch Uinervtisy

(understand, phenomenal (spelled wrong), research ,University)

Only 4 words have 8 letters changed. (One of which has a major context clue by capitalization and location next to another capitalized word.)

So there's 106 words total. About 45% (nearly half) of the words are totally unchanged, and provide an easy contextual framework for the other words to be plonked down into (and are the sort of things most people don't even notice themselves reading, so they don't notice as easily how many of them there are that are not changed at all).

So there's really only 58 total words that are changed at all. Of those, about 33% (about a third) only have two letters changed, making them the tiniest of all typos. About 22% (nearly a fourth) have only three letters changed, also putting them into the realm of fairly easy typos to miss and read through as if they are normal. (So that's 55% -- over half -- of the changed words that are incredibly easy to read, and 75% of all the words that are incredibly easy to read, including those that haven't changed at all.) And even if you add the rest all together, it's only a little under half (45%) of the changed words (and about 25% -- 1/4 -- of the total words) that would, if truly randomized, be anywhere from a bit hard to very hard to read.

And that "if truly randomized" bit? The people who have studied this passage, have found that the letters in the longer words were put into some of the easiest possible orders that such words could be scrambled into and still be readable. They do things like preserve certain letter groupings that make them easier to read, and keep all the consonants in the right order.

They also try as much as possible to avoid ambiguous words among the changed words. For instance (from one of the pages), "patles" is a scrambled word that has three common possibilities (plates, pleats, petals) and two rare possibilities (palets, peltas). (That's from a guy who apparently tried to figure out the most ambiguous possible sentence he could come up with using this method, which was "The sprehas had ponits and patles". Which could mean, "The sherpas had pitons and plates",
"The shapers had points and pleats", "The seraphs had pintos and petals", "The sphaers had pinots and palets", or "The sphears had potins and peltas" -- and then you could mix and match the various words.)

Moreover, no such study even existed at Cambridge. No such study existed, period, and the only references given were one guy's thesis paper that was never published, and then the same guy writing an article for a magazine in which he referenced his thesis (none of which was peer-reviewed or anything). People have since done studies, and true randomization, while neither filtering out the hard and ambiguous words nor using mostly easy words, slows people down.

One guy I linked to also came up with three sentences that get progressively harder for most people to read, disproving the idea that it "doesn't matter" what order the letters in the middle are. "1) A vheclie epxledod at a plocie cehckipont near the UN haduqertares in Bagahdd on Mnoday kilinlg the bmober and an Irqai polcie offceir", "2) Big ccunoil tax ineesacrs tihs yaer hvae seezueqd the inmcoes of mnay pneosenirs", and "3) A dootcr has aimttded the magltheuansr of a tageene ceacnr pintaet who deid aetfr a hatospil durg blendur". Most people find the first one easiest and the third hardest. The same guy goes through the original text line by line and describes what factors make it easy to read. Also, think of the word pneaeonmhl, is it really as near-instantly easy to read as phaonmneal?

And then there's the fact that there are easy phrases ("phenomenal power of the human mind") in there that provide massive context clues because they're close to being cliches.

So basically there's a grain of truth in it, but the claims made about how reading happens are mostly false (first and last letters may be the easiest for people to pick up on, but the middle letters do matter), and the claims about the research at Cambridge are likewise false (completely), and actual studies show that order does matter (so the "order doesn't matter" thing is false, even though some scrambling of order in some contexts can still be readable to greater and lesser extents).

Which may be more than you want to know, but since you didn't click through the links and just assumed that if you could read it then the claims were true...

Last edited by anbuend on 16 Jul 2010, 7:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thanks for posting those links, anbuend. I've only had time so far to read the first one, and it was really interesting.

As far as the spelling and grammar thing goes, it has been my experience that some people only start to get picky when they realise that they are losing an argument.

Heh, yeah, I've noticed that. People don't tend to dictionary-flame unless they're upset or annoyed about something else. I may not agree with everything someone says, but I'm not going to use their spelling or grammar against them, of all things.

If something's unclear, and if I'm interested, I'll ask. If it's clear, I don't comment. What I dislike most are those situations where I'm pretty sure it was a spelling error, but not quite, and I feel like, if I say something, if I ask, it will be taken as a criticism instead of as asking if I understood right. That's forums in general, not necessarily here.

I've experienced this on several forums and have had to leave because of it. I don't mind people asking me if I could ellaborate or explain. I don't even mind so much if anyone corrects what I say as long as it's all in good form. I think what pisses me off is the intellectual snobbery that goes on in many of the boards. The "Are you that stupid?" attitude. If there's one thing I hate about the adult world it's the sophisticated means in which to bully. I've tried explaining to many "english" speakers that I have a learning disability in the grammar department. I've always struggled with the semantics and grammar in the usage of english. Most people will look at it as pure laziness or the inferior case of the My Fair Lady syndrom, unrefined and inferior. It's made a difference in the way I respond or post on both forums and boards. There does seem to be a lot of it.

Anyway at least you can back yourself up by telling these people you speak 3 languages!

I've had trouble asking before. I used to read posts by someone who put quotation marks around several words per sentence. I said something to him like, "I can't figure out the quotation marks. Could you tell me whether it means emphasis, or saying something isn't really real, or quoting something, or what?" In response, the person accused me of being unfair to neurodiverse people. Even though I wasn't telling him to write different, I was asking him how I could read different.

That's when I mostly stopped asking people what they mean by something. Even when it comes to word meanings. I either look it up online, or just muddle through.

Of course, I didn't read all this.... But since this is practically about me, I'll address you, Boo.

I sense some genuine feeling to this question, Boo. I think you misunderstood me again. This is actually what I was talking about in the first place.

First, I'd really like to point out that I'm not a grammar nazi (again.) I don't spend my time editing grammar mistakes, or picking at someone's arguments via the words they used or whatever. I really dislike it when people ignore the obvious message of a post and do that. I'm not a spelling nazi, either, and frequently try to remember what proper NZ English is because my spell-checker is American...

I am a truth and reason nazi, though. I'm always getting up in peoples business about truth and reason. That's why I criticized and corrected your ideas, and that's why I mentioned your grammar. You said you read a lot. Reading usually improves grammar, so to me it looks like you're either not really reading much, or you might be limited to material which is easy to read. This was important to the argument, because as you were trying to tell people that they didn't really have Asperger's, just other disorders, you said it was because you hadn't seen enough research to support the idea that Asperger's even exists. So given that you had trouble writing very well, and that your whole argument just seemed entirely uninformed, it seemed like maybe you just didn't read that much, and thus you saying that you read a lot was in fact a lie, or a gross overestimation of your own habits.

Since I am definitely a truth and reason nazi, I really needed to point that out.

My problem with you is not that you might be a "grammatical eyesore". I don't mind that at all. You actually put your ideas forward well enough that I can follow them, and indeed criticize them! I never suggested that you go away, or that you should be banned, but that you practice self-awareness when engaging with others. From one person who is reasonably "OK" with English, to someone who is learning, that was my advice to you.

I don't care if you or anyone has trouble with English, as long as they don't get mad at me when they inevitably misunderstand me. I believe everyone should be responsible for their own perception issues. I really.... really don't like it when people who can't read get mad at me online. It is really.... really annoying.

For this same reason I do not go around getting mad at people IRL all day, because my RL perception is very weird. I stand the hell back and just try to observe and learn as best I can. I can't go around saying everything I want to and I accept that, because a lot of what I'd say would not be relevant to that world at all. I get a lot more out of communicating online, because reading and writing is something I am good at, even if I do continue to miss jokes and stuff, it's really not so bad compared to talking in person.

So please do not think I am just being petty or offhand with you. This is something I am entirely serious about in my own life as well. Please, just be aware of your own limitations. That doesn't mean shut-up, it just means maybe read REALLY carefully, with the new knowledge that you might not be as proficient as you had presumed. Maybe ask a friend who is very good at reading English to read something before you respond to it, to see how close you were to understanding it properly, and to avoid making unnecessary arguments.

And seriously... you need to read more about Autism before you try tell Aspies that they're not Aspies. I am only one of many who also have Autism as a special interest, so you really need to either match that level of obsessive research or be prepared to BURN.

Edit: I just want to make sure this is understood, so I put the part most dear to me in bold. Then I italicized the parts which need to be understood as conflicting: not being able to read very well / getting mad at real people online.

English composition is my natural aptitude, but I'm sensible enough to realise that not everyone has my ability in this area. I admire bilinguals who speak/write in two or more languages; the most I know is a tiny bit of French:

Bonjour, jem appele Simon = Hello, my name is Simon

Un Coca = Coke

Des Frites = Chips

Merede = s**t

Wow... I just read the whole thread...

All that boasting...

Wow...

I take it back. This wasn't a sincere question in this least. That was really sick of you, trying to get people all upset over nothing. Especially all those poor people who really do just have dyslexia (like my best friend tyvm) or other problems, and who do feel ashamed sometimes. Screwing with them is just sick. And then just milking them for compliments on your skill with learning languages? Yuck.

This is the reason I took you on in the first place. You are not a very good/sound person.

I know that this response is all you're looking for, because I ignored you in the last thread, this is your way of "punishing" me. OH BURN.

And I know you really want to hurt and embarrass me, make me mad or something, and the sad thing is, you probably even think you're capable of it. Well -- yuck -- no. Sure, your existence offends me, because you sort of smell like rotten stuff from here. And I don't even like talking to you at all because it means remembering you exist, and that is unpleasant for me. But besides that, no. 'Ewwwww yucky person is yuck!' is the most you will ever get from me.

No, I and many others here understood you very well. I posted the link to the whole thread in order to not be accused of being selective.




Fine, then why you've said this:



and this insulting comment:




Please ,stop disrespecting my intelligence.







*sigh* This is worse than what I thought then. Even worse than a grammar nazi.


Look , when I first decided to tell my parents that I have completely lost faith in their religion (Islam) and as a result became an atheist, my parents and many others told me that I might misunderstood the Qur'an hence misunderstanding the whole "Truth".

"You need the help of a 'Cheikh' (cleric) in order to understand the Qur'an ."
"You didn't read enough about Islam"
"You are not intellectually mature enough in order to understand Islam"

Those few of the things that I was told by my parents and others. I was patronized by almost every Muslim who knew about my lack of belief , even once by a teen girl.


I was even accused of being a liar when I told them that I've read the Quran and many hadiths , just because I don't agree with this sense of this religion , the prophet and his ways.

When my mom asked what made me lose my faith in Islam, I showed her violent and bloody passages in the Qur'an in the three languages and their interpretations from the most reliable Islamic sources.

I even showed her the verses that indicate religious discrimination and sexism.

I showed her the passages that contradict the modern science and common sense.

I showed her weary passages in Mohammad's biography , passages that prove how bloody, cruel and great deceiver he was.

I showed her passages indicates strongly how he used many of verses for his own personal interest, I even pointed out the verses that solved personal problem in Mohammad's life and how "chronically" appeared those verses (they have always appeared after him facing some problem).

My mother was surprised the data amount (docs , ebooks about Islam ..etc) I read and saved on my hard drive and the extensive research I made about it, she had no idea what I was doing or reading on the internet all this time and far I went in Islamic knowledge , nor of the e-books that I have purchased and downloaded.

Now, even my parents are bit doubtful of Islam's validity.


Funny the things that I was told by my others while none of us can prove or disapprove the validity of Islam or any religion or even God's existence himself. However, them telling me that I didn't understand Islam enough doesn't really add anything to the validity of Islam , nor their insistence of its validity adds anything.


So Apx, just because I've come to conclusion different than yours doesn't mean that I understand less English than you, Especially if it's regarding a subject which is still scientifically unproven, highly controversial and not very clearly and unanimously defined. It doesn't even prove that I am ill-reasonable or less rational than you . My point of view is different that yours regarding Asperger, that's all.


Apx, I don't have any lack of intelligence nor and I have any significant lack in English that prevents me to understand written English. I do not need the help of a friend or of anyone else in order to fully understand a book written in English.

Neither I have to prove my knowledge about Asperger nor I need to prove to you how many articles , wikis , studies , researches I read about Autism and Asperger. Truth is , that this particular subject had been my narrow interest for a couple of years , i have read a lot of articles and studies that were posted here , I also read e-books and many researches done by .


In fact, it would impossible to prove it to you, how can you be so certain that you know more than me about this subject? How can you assume that you have read more than me? Have you read this research for instance : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11411788 , not just the abstract but the study ? Have you read L'Infantile autism and the controversies it caused afterward?

Why I achieved this conclusion is a very very long story.

It's my turn now to question you how obsessively wide (different than 'how obsessively deep') you went into your research regarding this subject.


By the way, don't ever think that I feel happy for my conclusion , when I first realized that I am convinced of Islam's invalidity , I cried , because religion was some kind of a relief to me.

I cried as much the second time when I realized that I am not anymore convinced of the genetic nature of Asperger, the Asperger label was also some kind of relief to me, I thought it explained the whole crap I passed through childhood and the my lack of social achievements.

But that's the way I am , I cannot believe in something that I am not totally convinced about, even if believing in that thing -whatever it is- might boost my happiness and self-worth, I just cannot...

So, please do not judge me like this , because I sleep every night while not wanting to wake up and I wake up every morning wanting to die. Burning sounds very painful though.

Regards,

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 23 Jul 2010, 12:41 pm, edited 3 times in total.

hehe, ok, I am not being grammar nazi here, but since you are admitting a tiny bit of French then I doubt that you would be offended.

'Bonjour, jem appele Simon' should be 'Bonjour, je m'appelle Simon' - I strongly think this was accidentally a typo tho.

Merede is actaully written Merde.

I am not going to reply this before you read my first reply to you here. I am giving you another chance before I officially declare a forum war on you (and you are already losing before it even began).

ps: I don't care how you think about me ,or how dead you want me be.

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 18 Jul 2010, 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I don't see how you're being unfair at all. Many posters here rarely make a spelling mistake, but mistakes are hard to avoid when you forget the entire list of rules that apply to the English language.

I'm not one to correct others except in my defense towards stupid posts, in which case it's more ammo for my arsenal as long as the message gets across, even if there are a few mistakes, it should not be a problem to anyone. If it is, best to be mature about it without going all grammar Nazi on them.

Generally, as long as the message is clear, I'm happy. But I'd rather it were easy to read and divided into appropriate paragraphs than all lumped together, written (for no apparent reason) in verse, excessively cryptic or whatever. Good grammar and orthography make for easier reading, but I understand not everyone has the time or capacity for that.

People are free to post as they like on this forum (certain rules notwithstanding), but if they don't make ANY effort to help me understand them, if they can't meet me half-way, as it were, I'll probably move on to the next post.

I admit I'm often bothered by bad grammar/spelling but I also think it's rude to correct others so I don't, even if I have a hard time understanding what they say (so boo to you Boo for correcting EnglishInvader ).

Such a rule would be especially absurd on a forum where many members have dyslexia or other learning disabilities.

Whenever I see someone correcting a non-native speaker I can't help wondering how many languages do they speak