<p>Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the human mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.</p>
<p>I don't think it's that amazing. It's logical that our brain processes words as a whole. Otherwise, people would so much slower. It's a bit like making a big deal out of how people look at a painting as a whole rather than observing every brush stroke.</p>
<p>"I don't think it's that amazing. It's logical that our brain processes words as a whole. Otherwise, people would so much slower. It's a bit like making a big deal out of how people look at a painting as a whole rather than observing every brush stroke."</p>
<p>Actually rocker, our brains are amazing simply because we only use at least 10% of our brains and if we were to use 100% of it (which probably won't happen in a million years), do you know the things we are able to do (according to studies)? I heard psychics and other people who perform supernatural things are able to use a larger percentage of their brains than the average human.</p>
<p>edit: Yes, I completely agree with you. The brain definitely is amazing. However, what you just wrote is completely irrelevant. I said that I don't think it's amazing that we read a word as a whole, not that I don't think the brain is amazing.</p>
<p>MannyS, are you talking about the letter 'q' in this sentence: 'I bet you missed the letter 'q' in the above sentence'? I copy-pasted your whole post into a word processor, and search for 'q', and the only 'q' I found was from that sentence.</p>