Can you read this?
Can you read this? Give it a try.
I am hoping that you play my game and try to read the text above. Go ahead and try before you read the answer below.
This is a rock from the Musée de Minéralogie in Paris. This has nothing to do with this post except that it prevents you from inadvertently seeing the solution to the scrambled text. And it is a striking piece of nature.
How’d you do? I am betting that you did just fine. Maybe you had some problems with neocortex, or maybe not. Here is the un-substituted text:
Here is the text which was scrambled to produce the image at the top.
How did you read the scramble? Are you aware of how you figured it out? Or did you just “see” it? Do you think there is a rule to the scramble or do you think errors were inserted randomly? Make a guess. As you’re guessing, let me give you some numbers.
The proportion of letters changed per word is shown in a running average (over 3 words) from the beginning to the end of the text. Most letters were changed throughout.
Overall the average proportion of changed symbols per word was 61%. That means that on average, only 39% of the symbols in each word were correct. As it turns out, there was a rule. The substitutions were A-4; E-3; I-1; O-0; S-5; T-7; and every N was written backwards.
What does our ability to read text that is not actually there tell us? Once again it re-emphasizes how inaccurate perception is. We are not cameras. I am betting that even if you had trouble with the scramble, you thought that there was a message in there, which on a literal level is incorrect. Put another way, let’s say that you fed this text into an optical character recognition (OCR) program. I predict that gobbledygook would emerge. Once again, that free brain of yours would outperform the most sophisticated, costly computer.
So how come the human brain, the neocortex to be specific, out-performs OCR and speech recognition (speech to text) programs as well? Because so much more than optical signals from the retina (or auditory responses from the cochlea) feed into perception. In this case, we use context – this is a blog about the brain; the lengths of the words, their relative placements, and simple grammatical rules. Non-sensory clues help the brain interpret sensory input. When expectations and sensory input conflict, which goes out the window? The sensory input. Every time.
I want to hear from you. Please let me know:
- Could you read the scramble without looking at the solution?
- Did you think there was a pattern to the scramble?
- Were you aware of what the scramble rules were?
As I wrote in a recent post, I am working on the 2nd edition of my textbook. I will be using this blog to try some ideas out. As a consequence, blogs will be occurring more frequently. In addition I really want – actually need – your feedback. For example if most people can’t read the scramble above, I need to know that. So please comment here, on Twitter, or on Facebook.
Categories: Brain Function, Perception, Psychology
The brain is sooooo cool! 
I could read it without looking the solution. I did not see the pattern and was not aware of the words
LikeLike
Errors in answer. I could read it without looking at the solution. I did not see the pattern and was not aware of the scramble rules
LikeLike
I could read it easily and was immediately aware that 4 was an a. the letter n was backwards, and at some point 7 was a substitution for t, and that there were other patterns of numbers as symbols for letters.
LikeLike
I was able to read this in the first attempt, albeit with some effort. However, what I noticed on some reflection was that sub consciously as I was reading this my mind tended to replace the symbols with letters of the English language in order to make it more logical and readable. So I am curious, if the mind has the capability of inserting letters to give a complete readable sentence which is scrambled, does it also have the capability to insert other stimuli (from past experience) in order to fill up and complete a picture of whatever stimuli we experience? If so, it can lead to a philosophical question, how much that we experience is actually real and how much that we experience is just a construct of the mind i.e. in layman terms “a figment of our imagination” ?
Anyways, I do admit to be ignorant of the rules of the scramble and did not really give much attempt at trying to figure out if there was a pattern in figuring out the pattern in the scramble.
Ah, the magnificent brain, a beautiful mind.
LikeLike
It’s a really good question Jaleed. One without an answer in my opinion. I lean toward the construct of the mind side fairly heavily. The magnificent brain indeed.
LikeLike
You might want to dig into the idea of a holographic universe to answer the question posed.
LikeLike
I might pick up Michael Talbot’s book. A quick search after reading your comment popped up his book, “The Holographic Universe”, what do you think? Is it a good read and blend of neuroscience and cosmology?
LikeLike
I could read the scramble – I didn’t realize that there was a pattern, however I have seen something similar before and find it amazing! I was reading out loud – kind of slowly, which actually didn’t make me feel very smart.
LikeLike
Yes, having seen the similar one that has made the internet-rounds does make it easier.
LikeLike
I could read it perfectly after just a sec (or perhaps millisec). I noticed the pattern only at first, because it’s similar to the pattern I use when generating passwords for myself. But after briefly noticing the pattern, I didn’t have to think about it again. Struggled briefly with neocortex but quickly figured it out, because I took your class and know what you teach!
LikeLike
I could read the text, the only word that made me pause was “neocortex” then I noticed that all the n’s were turned around and the word “the” was consistent so I reasoned that there was a pattern or code.
LikeLike
I was able to read it easily and quickly…just as if it was normal English. I did not distract myself with concern about what pattern might be at play…I just had fun with the game! I knew it wasn’t real English, but decided to have the fun of the experience. Fyi…I completed the awesome MOOC with you so I trusted this would be fun.
LikeLike
Hi Lynn, Thanks for the “awesome MOOC” bit. You made me smile.
P
LikeLike
Yes, I read the passage without reading the solution. As I read it, I thought there was a pattern. I knew 3 = e and 4 = A. The words fell into place then.
LikeLike
Interesting that you saw the code. Are you a native English speaker?
P
LikeLike
Like Kivrin, I use this sort of trick for passwords, though they tell me the hackers are onto it. I am an early and constant reader, most recently reading about the neocortex and general brain pathways. I had no trouble reading the passage and can generally read handwriting that’s a bit nonstandard. I was an English teacher for ten years in the days when kids wrote script. I myself was a “sight reader” from the beginning, though my brother had to drill on phonics a bit before he could read. I didn’t see the code, but could have worked it out with little trouble. I’m 76 and beginning to mis-read words a bit.
LikeLike
Thanks. Maybe I should make a more difficult one. ???
LikeLike
It makes the point. I suspect people who had difficulty just didn’t tell you.
LikeLike
Madam,
My three answers first.
1.Yes, partly using bits of uncoded words.
2.Yes
3. No.
I wish your text book redefines the subject and sets a new benchmark for colloborative writing with novices like us.
LikeLike
I have seen some of these before, so ‘practice makes perfect’. I was able to read it fluently, and rather than reading each word separately I see phrases & sentences, so I’m taking in context too.
I could ‘sense’ there was a pattern but didn’t take the time (or need to) in order to make sense of the paragraph.
LikeLike
1) Could you read the scramble without looking at the solution?
Yes
_____
2) Did you think there was a pattern to the scramble?
Numbers are similar to the letters and “N” is reverse like Cyrillic “и” (Latin “I”)
_____
3) Were you aware of what the scramble rules were?
The rules were intuitive and reading has become smooth from the second line with no need to memorize matches
LikeLike
I have seen some of these before, so ‘practice makes perfect’. I was able to read it fairly fluently, and rather than reading each word separately I tend to take in phrases, sentences, so I’m taking in context too.
I could ‘sense’ there was a pattern but didn’t take the time (or need) to work it out, in order to make sense of the paragraph.
LikeLike
Apologies for double posting – WordPress Grief ……..
LikeLike
At first I couldn’t read the first line but the second line was easy so I reread the first line and voila – I got it. As to a pattern, I was vaguely aware of it, such as the backward N, but I was too busy concentrating on reading to stop and analyze the code. While reading, I felt like I was running down hill, with the images going by so quickly that I couldn’t stop or else I’d fall down. As long as I read quickly and didn’t stop to think I could read the text. Even got neocortex because of the reason you said. Cheers! This is fun.
LikeLike
I love your image of running downhill. And it’s true. Not thinking about how you’re doing something automatically is the best strategy. Thinking about it consciously slows you down and introduces errors in my experience.
LikeLike
I agree with Laurel. I just started reading and went from beginning to end very quickly…just like going downhill. I was not aware of any pattern, probably because it was so easy for me to read. I also had no trouble with neocortex. Add me to the list of people who took your wonderful course!
LikeLike
Thanks Laurel !!
LikeLike
This experiment was fun; thank you for sharing it with us.
To answer your questions:
yes ! – Could you read the scramble without looking at the solution?
yes! – Did you think there was a pattern to the scramble?
intuitive yes, but the “thrill/fun” of it precluded me from wanting to know for sure – Were you aware of what the scramble rules were?
I agree with Laurel’s observation that I too wanted to press ahead and simply read and not “figure out” any rules since I was having child-like fun and did not turn this experience into a task.
Thanks!!
Paula
LikeLike
I could read it fairly easily with the exception of the word neocortex which I had to really look at to get. I figured there was a pattern but did not decipher it while reading.
LikeLike
It’s not the first time I see this puzzle, but I don’t think the prior practice helped a lot, the first line I just “read” without understanding, and then suddenly something like “toggles on the translator” and it’s easy. I must admit that (probably because I am not a native speaker of English) _short_ words can give me some trouble, and in this case that something “toggled off” momentarily while I was reading “you’re unlikely to be” – I just couldn’t figure out what “70 B3″ was 🙂
As for the pattern — I guess it is not a rule that our amazing brain is figuring out, but “the amount of effort” required to get the meaning. I actually read “ISOCORTEX” there, which equally makes sense, but it is a different substitution: И = I (i’m Russian, so it makes perfect sense), and 3 = S ( 3 is as similar to S as it is to E). And only when you mentioned this in the text I realized I read “iso”.
So I bet you can change the rule as you go through the phrase gradually, or make a complete mess of the rule, and it’ll still be readable
LikeLike
I agree. I think there could be missing letters or non-rule substitutions and it would still be comprehensible. Very impressed at all you non native English speakers. I couldn’t do this in a different language.
LikeLike
Peggy – I’ve been reading your posts with great interest. I could, indeed, read the text but what really impressed me was your comment that perhaps neocortext caused some trouble which was exactly my stumbling point. I’m assuming that’s largely because it was a word I didn’t know. I didn’t think about looking for a pattern or a code at first because I’ve seen some challenges like this before, but by the time I got to the end I realized the 3 and 4 substitutions, which I’ve used myself in other contexts. Thanks for sharing your writing; you do fascinating work.
LikeLike
Hm, I could read it quite fluently, and it was more of a whole body experience than an eyes-brain-figuring-it-out thing. I did notice part way through that 7’s were the T’s and that there were backward N’s, but had a feeling that if I stopped to think about that too much I’d lose the flow, and I was enjoying the gut instinct feel of the flow, so chose to stay with that mode of perception….I think a few variations could have been thrown in and once I’d found that flow state, it wouldn’t have mattered too much. But if I’d gotten stumped, my guess is I’d have to go and do something els and come back to it afresh to get the flow happening again.
LikeLike
I agree Dame Hilary. Could have been harder. Fun game nonetheless.
LikeLike
I could read it after an initial difficulty with the first line. I had to reread it to figure out the “trick”, namely that digits were replacing letters. I didn’t consciously notice that the N were backwards ^^
Once the trick was figured out, I could read the text without paying attention to which symbols were replacing which letters. It was a bit like reading a new handwriting, maybe. And it became easier as I went indeed.
It all went spooky when I reached what you wrote afterwards which *exactly* described my experience 😀
LikeLike
I could read it after an initial difficulty with the first line. I had to reread it to figure out the “trick”, namely that digits were replacing letters. I didn’t consciously notice that the N were backwards ^^
I wasn’t specifically aware that there was a pattern, maybe I sort of just assumed so because that’s the easiest way to jam the text. So I wasn’t really aware of the scramble rules either, except for those which helped me get started (T and A). I might have guessed the rules because they’re fairly common, except for the backwards N: I probably would have said that the only substitutions were digits for letters.
Once the trick was figured out, I could read the text without paying attention to which symbols were replacing which letters. It was a bit like reading a new handwriting, maybe. And it became easier as I went indeed.
It all went spooky when I reached what you wrote afterwards which *exactly* described my experience 😀
(And sorry for the double post. You can remove the previous one if you wish.)
LikeLike
My daughter (15 years old) read the text at an amazing velocity like there was no substitution in it. We guessed that there was a pattern in changing the letters but we had no idea of it when we were reading the text.
LikeLike
Young people have fewer entrenched habits. Would not be surprised if they were faster than adults. Thanks for pointing that out.
LikeLike
I also had no difficulty reading it; however as the substitution used is extremely similar to the substitution parts of “L33t Sp34k” used heavily by pirate software traders in the 80s-90s (although by no means exclusive to that domain), it more or less just brought back a lot of interesting nostalgic memories!
If you’re not already familiar with it, you might find it interesting to read about as it takes advantage of the same kinds of perceptual matters, but evolved somewhat organically rather than being deliberately “invented”.
Some details on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet
LikeLike
Thanks. Don’t know about it. I’ll check it out.
LikeLike
Yes, I was able to read it and the speed did increase as I went along. In fact it seemed to get easier when I stopped focusing on every symbol and simply tried to read it as quickly as possible. I also (incorrectly) read “And do you notice that reading this” as “And do you notice that you read this” and thought there was an “as” missing between “that” and “you”. I don’t know if that makes any difference but now I can pat myself on the back for giving science an assist. Thanks for the opportunity to help and for all of the great information you put out. K33P UP 7H3 600D W0RK…
LikeLike
Touché. I love your example. Biology is about getting the gist. Textual exactitude just makes no evolutionary sense. Thanks for that anecdote.
LikeLike
I saw from the word amazing that it was a normal text, recognized the n, and the a as a 4. You use the word amazing quite often( one of the things I like about you) so that was easy. Reading fast worked best, not pondering over each seperate word. I mirror things quite a lot by accident ( looking at a clock for instance ten past seen as ten before) so I did not even notice that the N was spelled backwards, I just read it.
LikeLike
So funny. When I was in high school Hilla came as an exchange student. By the end and still to this day she speaks Peggy-high school American. Lots of excellent-s back then.
LikeLike
I found this fairly easy to read, and speeded up rapidly towards the end. I paused at “neocortex” and so looked back at the previous text for a pattern, but as soon as I recognised the first two letters I got what the word was and just kept going. This step only took me an extra second or two. I felt that there was a pattern from the start, but didn’t consciously notice the rules until asked to look for them at the end of the task.
PS your MOOC was fantastic, and I will definitely be buying the second edition of your book as soon as it is published. I hope we won’t have to wait too long, as I’m now addicted to my fixes of neurobiology!
LikeLike
Thank you Paul. 2nd edition =2016. But 2nd session with new week on vestibular system =2/23/15.
LikeLike
I could read it I did not need a pattern, but I can’t spell very well so not constrained by convention
LikeLike
Not being constrained by convention works. :>
LikeLike
So happy to have gotten to spooky prediction.
LikeLike
As you commented it took a few minutes, but once I started it became easier and quicker to read. That is very interesting how the brain can adapt.
LikeLike
I took some words out of the context, coded words like “this, minority, neocortex” fooled me big time! But reading it for the second time was simpler.
(not really an excuse, but english is my second language)
Looking forward for next MOOC, its only 15 days away! thanks Professor Peggy for this play time 🙂
LikeLike
I really love this, it was a bit difficult to read ( English is my second language: being Dutch and living in Spain!)
LikeLike
As I said before, impressive that you can do this in a second or third or… tongue.
LikeLike
Yes, I was able to read it. Kind of like automatically unscrambled the pattern when I discovered I could read more than 80% at first go. You were right that neocortex was the stumbling block initially. I had to go back on the rest to figure out the pattern before I could decode this word.
LikeLike
Could you read the scramble without looking at the solution? Yes, I could read it without looking at the solution.
Did you think there was a pattern to the scramble? Yes, I initially recognised the pattern with the E’s. The more I read the more patterns I recognised (for example, the A substitutions).
Were you aware of what the scramble rules were? Yes, I used the rules to figure out words I didn’t immediately recognise.
LikeLike
I did read the message when first presented here, and by the end I noticed some patterns, substitution of e, t, s. But I had experiences that helped me: for people who have to change passwords regularly, one of the recommended ways to make the password stronger is to change letters for numbers, it could be phonetically (“to” gets coded as 2) or it could be by similar shapes (E coded as 3, S as 5, etc. as in this piece of text).
LikeLike
Clearly all you password-saavy folks had an insight into the substitution scheme.
P
LikeLike
I could not read it at first but was able to once I read the deciphered first line. Still could quite read all of the words. Did not look for a pattern,
LikeLike
Once I decided not to struggle, it was easier. I think there were a couple of words I just brushed over (one was a “that”, I think). I was able to read it the first time through (did spend a bit of time on “neocortex”! 🙂 ). I thought there were rules — I caught the 3 for E and the backwards N — but I did not spend time consciously translating. So that’s “yes, I believed there were rules,” and “I noticed what some of rules must be”, but just reading rather than trying to understand every word was smoother and worked better.
As I read it, I was thinking “No ordinary program that reads can read this!” and “Here is a situation where our difference from a straight-up recording system really shines with advantages!” 🙂 Our ability to see 3 as E … makes it seem to me that we must be considering alternatives to what we see all the time, imagining that those alternatives may make more sense than what we really see? So that when we do see something like that paragraph, we are able to imagine and extrapolate and make sense, where a more literal device could not.
Sooooooooooooooo cool, indeed. 🙂
LikeLike
Glad that you and I are thinking along the same lines, Vicki in Michigan!! As usual.
P
LikeLike
Able to read it rather easily for it is like postmodern visual poetry, which like the brain, is very cool.
All my best wishes with your projects!
Stephane
LikeLike
I’m liking it. Brain, perception, poetry links.
LikeLike
I read it easily from context, I had seen something similar years ago. I could not read the word neocortex because I did not expect it.
I did not bother deciphering the rule.
Another issue in my case: I could not read articles or connectors (a, the, and) if they were at the end of the line without context (unless I tried to decipher the code).
(English was not my first language, but is my main language)
LikeLike
Thanks Maria,
The meaning came through even in the absence of the articles I am sure. It is a funny thing. As a writer, I obsess over word choice all the time. A vs the can occupy an embarrassing amount of my time and attention. And yet, we don’t need them for at least the first pass meaning of any text. I am reading a book in French and there are lots of words that I don’t know. Nonetheless I can read several paragraphs without looking any word up and still get where the story is going and what is happening.
Gist gist gist.
P
LikeLike
I was able to read it fairly easily. I wasn’t aware of, or looking for a pattern of substitution. What I noticed was that the substitute numbers were close enough in shape to the letters that they evoked the appropriate letter—a “3” is a backwards “E,” a “7” has a somewhat vertical line and a horizontal line like a “T.”
I recently watched a very short video of Moshe Feldenkrais—”Learned skills can be done in many ways.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2WdXBFsM3Q
He talks about the benefit of challenging fixed patterns in terms of neuroplasicity. Although this would apply to all habits, he focuses on new movement patterns and being able to read upsidedown.
discussing the ability to read upside down—
LikeLike
Thank you for sharing that link, Martha! It was fun reading from all directions and not hard at all. I’ve heard a lot of good things about Feldenkrais, but I think I will spend some time looking into his teaching now. Thanks again.
LikeLike
This is Sharon, actually. I was able to read the text, except the neocortex part. I was unaware of the pattern. I kind of unfocussed my eyes, like if I were skimming a page for content, and I didn’t try to decode it carefully. It reminds me of when I was studying Hebrew, and after I learned the alphabet and was trying to read, the teacher encouraged us to move beyond a letter by letter approach and begin memorizing the shapes of whole words. That’s probably what we do in English too, but we’re so used to it we don’t notice.
LikeLike
Hey Sharon. We do for sure read words phrases rather than letters. Thanks for playing.
LikeLike
I was able to read part ofthe text. I also found it much easier to make out complete words if I scrunched up my eyes to deliberately put it out of focus.
LikeLike
Could you read the scramble without looking at the solution? – i only tried for about 30 seconds and did find that as i tried to read it became clearer as i went along.
Did you think there was a pattern to the scramble? NO.
Were you aware of what the scramble rules were?
LikeLike
Interestingly, when I read the text, I was cognitively brain dead….meaning my ability to focus and “try” was gone (it was after a long day at work, etc). So I gave up quite easily. And while I thought there may have been a message in the text, I wasn’t 100% sure.
LikeLike
I was able to read it, except for the “neo” part of “neocortex.” I figured that there was a pattern, but I didn’t take the time to think about what it might have been. If I had, I probably would have quickly guessed at least the vowels.
LikeLike
Easy enough to read. I noticed that the substitutions were approximately the same shape, and went from there.
It reminds me of a phenomenon I experienced, as did my friends, when I lived in a remote village in the 80’s. For months on end, we mostly saw the same people, over and over. My brain (I suppose) got used to being able to recognize everyone I met, as there were only 200 people there, and I knew them by sight.
But when I went to the big city, I would keep seeing people I thought I knew – my poor mind thought I had to put a name or at least something knowable to each face I saw, and only when I understood what was happening, and told my brain to “stand down”, that they were strangers, could I stop the feeling. It was not pleasant. I have never seen this written about, but when I shared it with friends and family from the same village, at least half told me they experienced the same thing.
I suspect modern technologies might have eliminated this, as we had no TV there, and of course no internet, and only saw faces we knew. (Here because I’m trying to sign up for your coursera course. Nice to meet you!)
LikeLike
Dear Marilyn,
What an interesting story and idea!!! I would interpret what you experienced as a perceptual habit. Habits are fast processes that are outcome-independent. So washing your hands to get dirt off is a goal-directed action with the goal being filth removal. But washing your hands for the 20th time in a row is a habit. The goal was long ago achieved and now the action is simply happening over and over with no dependency (or contingency as scientists like to say) on the hygienic state of the hands. Both goal-directed actions and habits have their advantages. Habits are far faster and take less processing. Goal-directed actions make no assumptions and are useful in new circumstances and therefore may be more accurate.
Perception is similar to action with respect to habit vs not. If you see the same people over and over, one glance at even the most minimal portion of the person’s face (or even a glimpse of their stance or gait) is enough to identify them. Why go through the more prolonged neural process of detecting the person from the ground up so to speak, without any assumptions? It would be much faster to simply get a touch of information and then make a habit perception, which in the case of the 200-person town, is likely to be correct. I suspect that is exactly what you and your friends were doing in your small village. Then when you went to the big city, the habit just didn’t work. You eventually extinguished it and learned to perceive people with fewer assumptions and more time.
Thanks again for your great story and looking forward to hearing more from you in class.
Peggy
LikeLike
Glad you find it interesting. It seems that you’ve described it pretty well, but another aspect I didn’t go into was that slightly anxious-making feeling it caused. The one where you know that you know the person, but you don’t know who they are. My brain was convinced I knew whoever I could find a rough match for and I was actively searching for the name in my brain. It was 30 or so years ago, but the feeling was so disconcerting that I remember it well today. Each time I went to the city, I had to go through the reminding-myself process. And it was pretty amusing to observe in myself.
LikeLike
Your mentioning the anxiety associated with your perception that you know strangers, reminds me again of something that I have experienced. I don’t know how this relates or even if it does. But I was strongly reminded of this as I read your original comment and again when I read your reply. Which is that after someone I know dies, I am very likely to be reminded of them by strangers’ faces on the street or other public locales. I don’t have that before they’re dead. I am thinking as I write this that perhaps it is simply due to the person being on my mind. Memories are flooding my thoughts and priming my perceptions.
Keep in touch, Marilyn,
P
LikeLike
Yes, I read it quite easily, and the less I thought about it, the easier it got (so yes at the end I was reading at a normal rate). I did get stuck at the 4 followed by minority: got minority, but because 4 was by itself, I read it as 4 rather than A and stopped and tried to figure it out (unsuccessfully) then plunged on. I didn’t stop to wonder about whether there was a pattern to the substitutions. I tend to be a speed reader, so I just read it as usual, except, as noted, for the “4.”
Looking forward to a rerun of the MOOC, although I won’t have much time to follow it as closely, but I’ll be keeping up with your posts. And one of these days, I am going to send you some photos of a very cool neuron sculpture that I took for you.
LikeLike
Yes Allyson,
The lack of context for the 4 made reading it very difficult.
Really looking forward to the pic of the neuron sculpture!!!
P
LikeLike
Hi Prof. Mason,
I could read the scramble, perhaps 90% of it anyway, with some effort. It required some persistence, as I was used to seeing other scrambles that you can read almost instantly (for example, there was one which removed all of the vowels). This took longer, and I thought briefly about giving up. But I didn’t see patterns or substitutions, nor was I looking for them, as I knew in puzzles like this, it is best to let your brain ‘automatically’ tackle it.
-Charlie
LikeLike
I had to look at the whole item for perhaps 5 seconds, then it became very clear and easy to read. I thought there were rules, without really thinking about it, but I wasn’t aware of what the rules were. They would have been easy to figure out if I’d wanted to. Doubt my experience differed much from that of others.
LikeLike
1.Could you read the scramble without looking at the solution?
Yes, pretty easily – but I didnât see the words âmajority of theâ for some reason. I could read everything else, and it did get much easier as I went along.
2.Did you think there was a pattern to the scramble?
Definitely. I could tell that numbers were being substituted for letters which they physically resemble. Interestingly, it seemed like I could feel my brain doing something different than usual, like when I used to study Spanish lit (in Spanish). Spanish is not my native language, and when I was not âin the zoneâ it seemed that I could feel my brain doing something special â reading Spanish words with Spanish meaning which was analogous to English words and English meaning, but not identical. Or maybe I was imagining that part. ??
3.Were you aware of what the scramble rules were?
Yes, you stated clearly âGo ahead and try before you read the answer below.â So thatâs what I did.
LikeLike
Hi Dr. Mason
For the first trial I could read the entre sentence without much effort, but faltered for the word “isn’t” and could not read the word Neocortex (my brain could not predict it). When i went back to read the sentence again, its only then I could see the rules followed eg. number 4=A etc. I think when the letters were replaced with the closest looking letter or digits (eg. E = 3) in the word, making the word more or less similar to the correct word, I could read without much effort. It looks like the specific neural networks associated with the correct word gets activated when I see the approximation of the correct word, hence making it easier to read the sentence. Certainly similarity and familiarity plays a significant role in reading this sentence. Loved to think about it. Thanks so much for this. looking forward for more exploration
LikeLike
Yes, I can read it.
It was a little bit hard in the beginning as I am not a native English speaker. I was trying to look for the rules or the codes to start with, but as I moved to the second line, words just jumped out and I had no problem to figure out the rest.
I thought it’s a good way to exercise the brain, so I invited some of my clients, native English speaker, aged from 80 to 90 to play this game. A lady aged 80 did very well. I was surprised that she could read it without any pause on her first try. The others also could read it but with some troubles with the words such as “neocortex”. We all had fun. Thank you.
LikeLike
It is fun isn’t it? And good brain exercise. Thanks for sharing this with others.
P
LikeLike
Bit late here!
I read it pretty straightforwardly, like some people pointed out: less focus better, downhill sensation and also the similarity to texting and so on. Context definitely a factor and style of content.
I am also one of those that does passwords this way. That could have contributed to it being easier, though they are usually single words and not phrases?
What I did notice was that the 3 = E substitution produced a mental “stubbing a toe” or jolty sensation and kind of inturrupted the flow. When I stopped and thought about it it seemed that the left side open seemed to be the problem – kind of grabby 😮
Maybe I am e-centric in my recognition habits?
Btw is it possible to just follow the second run of the course? Actually that’s kind of a rhetorical question… I already know the course is way too interesting to just dip in to 🙂
what I mean is to sign up without doing the quizzes and such?
LikeLike
Dear Janet,
Yes yes yes yes, absolutely!! I only make the quizzes for those that want them. One of the great things about MOOCs is that you get to be the boss of what you want to learn and how you want to learn it. I am setting your table. You get to pick your own dishes.
Hope to see you in class,
p
LikeLike