- Feb 8, 2008
- 3,963
- 10
It's amazing how the the human mind does not process the the fact I used the the word "the" twice each time in this sentence.
- Feb 8, 2008
- 3,963
- 10
It's amazing how the the human mind does not process the the fact I used the the word "the" twice each time in this sentence.
- Aug 18, 2009
- 3,473
- 36
Woahhhhhhhh!
- Aug 18, 2009
- 3,473
- 36
Woahhhhhhhh!
youmadyoubad
Banned
- Sep 1, 2009
- 2,996
- 12
youmadyoubad
Banned
- Sep 1, 2009
- 2,996
- 12
- Feb 7, 2008
- 67,698
- 37,747
- Aug 26, 2005
- 2,905
- 549
Or does it not work with got got
- Mar 2, 2010
- 3,305
- 10
Yup
- Feb 7, 2008
- 67,698
- 37,747
- Mar 2, 2010
- 3,305
- 10
Yup
- Aug 26, 2005
- 2,905
- 549
Or does it not work with got got
- Feb 8, 2008
- 3,963
- 10
Originally Posted by Jordan Novice
I got got
Or does it not work with got got
Information pours into our eyeballs at an unmanageable rate. Most tricks like this come from very low level unconscious preprocessing of visual information. What we perceive is a derivative of what we see. Our visual cortices discard what they deem as unimportant and fill in blanks with what it expects to see there. You have no control of this as it is a basic function of your eyes and your brain.
In this case, as your eyes are jumping from word to word as you read (this movement is called a saccade), it hits the word "the", registers it (barely) and jumps to the next word. Since the movement is a small one and the word "the" is something you see so often that your conscious mind essentially ignores it, your visual cortex figures your eyes just landed on the same place they were and instructs them to jump to the next chunk of letters. I doubt this would work with larger words as your brain would be less likely to think the large eye movement somehow ended up where it started.
Take this snippet for example. Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, olny taht the frist and lsat ltteres are at the rghit pcleas. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by ilstef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
Screwy, no?
- Feb 8, 2008
- 3,963
- 10
Originally Posted by Jordan Novice
I got got
Or does it not work with got got
Information pours into our eyeballs at an unmanageable rate. Most tricks like this come from very low level unconscious preprocessing of visual information. What we perceive is a derivative of what we see. Our visual cortices discard what they deem as unimportant and fill in blanks with what it expects to see there. You have no control of this as it is a basic function of your eyes and your brain.
In this case, as your eyes are jumping from word to word as you read (this movement is called a saccade), it hits the word "the", registers it (barely) and jumps to the next word. Since the movement is a small one and the word "the" is something you see so often that your conscious mind essentially ignores it, your visual cortex figures your eyes just landed on the same place they were and instructs them to jump to the next chunk of letters. I doubt this would work with larger words as your brain would be less likely to think the large eye movement somehow ended up where it started.
Take this snippet for example. Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, olny taht the frist and lsat ltteres are at the rghit pcleas. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by ilstef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
Screwy, no?
- Oct 10, 2009
- 1,450
- 18
Caught me off guard.
- Oct 10, 2009
- 1,450
- 18
Caught me off guard.
ginzo
Banned
- Jun 12, 2010
- 3,421
- 10
Originally Posted by neukicks
Originally Posted by Jordan Novice
I got got
Or does it not work with got got
Information pours into our eyeballs at an unmanageable rate. Most tricks like this come from very low level unconscious preprocessing of visual information. What we perceive is a derivative of what we see. Our visual cortices discard what they deem as unimportant and fill in blanks with what it expects to see there. You have no control of this as it is a basic function of your eyes and your brain.
In this case, as your eyes are jumping from word to word as you read (this movement is called a saccade), it hits the word "the", registers it (barely) and jumps to the next word. Since the movement is a small one and the word "the" is something you see so often that your conscious mind essentially ignores it, your visual cortex figures your eyes just landed on the same place they were and instructs them to jump to the next chunk of letters. I doubt this would work with larger words as your brain would be less likely to think the large eye movement somehow ended up where it started.
Take this snippet for example. Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, olny taht the frist and lsat ltteres are at the rghit pcleas. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by ilstef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
Screwy, no?
ginzo
Banned
- Jun 12, 2010
- 3,421
- 10
Originally Posted by neukicks
Originally Posted by Jordan Novice
I got got
Or does it not work with got got
Information pours into our eyeballs at an unmanageable rate. Most tricks like this come from very low level unconscious preprocessing of visual information. What we perceive is a derivative of what we see. Our visual cortices discard what they deem as unimportant and fill in blanks with what it expects to see there. You have no control of this as it is a basic function of your eyes and your brain.
In this case, as your eyes are jumping from word to word as you read (this movement is called a saccade), it hits the word "the", registers it (barely) and jumps to the next word. Since the movement is a small one and the word "the" is something you see so often that your conscious mind essentially ignores it, your visual cortex figures your eyes just landed on the same place they were and instructs them to jump to the next chunk of letters. I doubt this would work with larger words as your brain would be less likely to think the large eye movement somehow ended up where it started.
Take this snippet for example. Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, olny taht the frist and lsat ltteres are at the rghit pcleas. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by ilstef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
Screwy, no?
- Oct 7, 2005
- 2,124
- 44
This is 1990's material
- Oct 7, 2005
- 2,124
- 44
This is 1990's material
- Feb 26, 2005
- 295
- 10
- Feb 26, 2005
- 295
- 10
- Dec 9, 2002
- 36,428
- 30,714
cool.
- Dec 9, 2002
- 36,428
- 30,714
cool.
- Feb 8, 2008
- 3,963
- 10
It is, but some may not have had access to the interwebs back then, share the wealth. Some things need to be brought back up every now and again.
Similar threads
