An Ode to the Lamen:

[detrop]

Something someone gave me:

"I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulacity uesdnatnrd waht I was rdgnieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to rsceearch 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 human mnid deos not raed ervey lterter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig eh? And I awlyas tohghut slpeling was ipmorantt…! And for toshe of you wtih mroe tmie tahn ohrets you wlli ntocie taht not olny are msot of the wrosd a mese but smoe of tehm are cpmlpoetley msis seplt awslel…!"

[recently editied heavily…I forgot a sentence. Please read it again…sorry bout dat]

[arendt]

If I’m not mistaken, it might have something to do with the phenomenon of perceptual familiarization or perceptual generalization. The theory explains how our mind (brain) self-corrects, so to speak, what we see and tries to fit it into a “familiar and normal expression”. This happens because we have a strong tendency to “see” what we anticipate or suppose to see. We have prior exposure to the words (objects, things, concepts, etc), so we form expectations.

A variation of the example is something like this: If we take a quick glance at, say, a sign, we tend to see only the “corrected” version of the statement, or words:

TRACKS
IN THE
THE SNOW

[Rounder]

Hey Detrop, Your post is all jibberish Were you drunk when your wrote that?