# Reading "study", allegedly from Cambridge. Interesting. **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 25, 2003, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reading-study-allegedly-from-cambridge-interesting/203856 "2003-09-25T22:46:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Scruloose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e68b1a/32.png) [@Scruloose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scruloose)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reading-study-allegedly-from-cambridge-interesting/203856/1 "2003-09-25T22:46:29Z")
I was forwarded the following in an e-mail today: > [@](#): > > Aoccdrnig to a 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 huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe Naturally skeptic of anything e-mail, I’m wondering if this really was a study by Cambridge. However, I did find it interesting that as the message states, I really had no problem reading it the first time through. So, I guess my questions are this: Is this really a subject of study? Are the conclusions drawn in the message itself accurate, or is it something else? Maybe we’re somewhat conditioned to logically see certain words follow others in a paragraph or sentence, and can quickly deduce/descramble what the scrambled word is? Can most folks read that without much trouble? ---
**Author:** ![Skeptico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e19b73/32.png) [@Skeptico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skeptico)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reading-study-allegedly-from-cambridge-interesting/203856/2 "2003-09-25T22:50:13Z")
I read it without any troble. Got it on the first try too. This study, if real, is consistent with C. Shannon’s finding that English carries only 1 bit of information per letter – which is to say, very little. ---
**Author:** ![Rabid\_Squirrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Rabid\_Squirrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rabid_Squirrel)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reading-study-allegedly-from-cambridge-interesting/203856/3 "2003-09-25T23:04:17Z")
Sigh. It’s been posted on the board a few times already in the past few weeks. [Snopes article](http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/cambridge.asp). They also reference [this paper](http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~pssbab/papers/LCP.pdf) that may answer some of your questions regarding the area of study. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_great_unwashed/32/4791_2.png) [@The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Unwashed)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reading-study-allegedly-from-cambridge-interesting/203856/4 "2003-09-25T23:06:57Z")
Would you believe it, this is only the [tenth](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/search.php?action=showresults&searchid=903129&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending) time this “study” has been mentioned here, in the past _two weeks_. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Kentzel-Griffin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ccd318/32.png) [@John\_Kentzel-Griffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Kentzel-Griffin)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reading-study-allegedly-from-cambridge-interesting/203856/5 "2003-09-25T23:51:05Z")
There was a thread in MPMSIS about it. It even made trhaed sotpintg: [tihs is relaly wreid sutff](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=210913) ---
**Author:** ![Scruloose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e68b1a/32.png) [@Scruloose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scruloose)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2003, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reading-study-allegedly-from-cambridge-interesting/203856/6 "2003-09-26T00:53:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DrMatrix \* > \*\*There was a thread in MPMSIS about it. It even made trhaed sotpintg: [tihs is relaly wreid sutff](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=210913) \*\* Heh, serves me right for not checking first. No need to tax the hmsaerts, request you close the thread.