JesusA (imported) wrote: Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:29 pm
Olny srmat poelpe can raed tihs.
I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch 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 huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt! if you can raed tihs psas it on!!
Jesus,
This is the kind of rotten-assed thing that the proponents of the "whole word reading theory" have done for years.
The problem with this type of reading is decoding.
What I am trying to say is that the decipering of your written message only works if you have a sufficient vocabulary to have experienced each word before.
Here, try reading some medical jargon scrambled in the same manner for an example...
The atinro-presotoir proitcejon of the cseht reavels a shligt pmueno-trhoax in the rhigt sprua-hlair rgeoin wtih dsiialys cthateer at the rghit autirm. The edno-tcaahrel tbue is peonitisod 2.5 cnteemeetrs bolew the cnaria in the rgiht mianetsm bhonrucs.
(Yes, I can read this scrambled message easily after almost 40 years in the medical field, but can you if you have little or no medical experience?... Probably not...)
You see, IF you, as I believe, most likely have little medical vocabulary experience the task of descrambling the words in this common example of a medical report is probably quite beyond the capabilities of even your superior intellect.
The point is, that we DO NOT LEARN to read or gain vocabulary easily using a whole word reading method. Rather, this is facilitated by decoding letters into sounds to see if we have knowledge of the words that we have heard or spoken. Failing in this, we, if we know how to phonetically sound out the word we can attempt to give it meaning by its contextual use.
You know how it works. If you take a text, any text, and remove every fifth word, it still retains 90+ percent of its meaning if you read at the vocabulary level at which it is written. It is that sort of thing. Once our vocabulary is estabilshed then the recall of words as we read for meaning switches from a decoding mode in our brains into something that uses memory and place markers much the same way as we learn our way around a neighborhood without a map by memory. Even if everybody parks their car in a different spot, we still know where we are and where we are going. It is a similar thing as reading music verses playing by ear. Everybody can sing yankee doodle, but few of us can play it on the piano if we have not got it memorized.
In short, the whole word method reading has empoverished academia to the point of criminality. This, I FIRMLY believe in spite of ALL of the PhD thesis that have been awarded for seemingly "brilliant" work in that area. Much like Global Warming, it is a SWEETHEART of a scam that is perpetrated upon those who should really know better by a Liberal elite who are basically too fucking dumb to actually DO something, so they hide behind Plato and claim that theory is superior to practice and then go about poo-pooing those of us who actually work for a living teaching reading. You know the drill...
Oh yes, the medical...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Translation?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Anterio-posterior projection of the chest reveals a slight pneumothorax in the right suprahilar region with dialysis catheter at the right atrium. The endo-tracheal tube is positioned 2.5 centemeters below the carina in the right mainstem bronchus.
...better pull the E-T tube back out 3 cm so the left lung can work too. O.K.?
...Later, my friends...
LOL Which is also true.