SOWPub Small Business Forums

SOWPub Small Business Forums (http://www.sowpub.com/forum/index.php)
-   Original SOWPub Forum Archive (http://www.sowpub.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   The human brain (http://www.sowpub.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5141)

Ankesh Kothari September 16, 2003 02:34 AM

The human brain
 
Isn't the human brain wonderful...and really, really smart.

Here's an example:
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


Food for the brains: wisdom

Garry Boyd September 16, 2003 08:07 AM

Interesting meme
 
This one has a definite air of Chinese whispers about it. Its popping up everywhere, and mutating as it goes. I tracked it back via a blog search at daypop apparently to research in the US in 1999, but it suddenly sprang back to life on the 14th September or thereabouts.
http://www.bisso.com/ujg_archives/000224.html

Theres even a perl script to create your own version of this vaguely Orwellian pig English:
http://www.jwz.org/hacks/scrmable.pl

# Premssioin to use, cpoy, mdoify, drusbiitte, and slel this stafowre and its
# docneimuatton for any prsopue is hrbeey ganrted wuihott fee, prveodid taht
# the avobe cprgyioht noicte appaer in all coipes and that both taht
# cohgrypit noitce and tihs premssioin noitce aeppar in suppriotng
# dcoumetioantn.


Sunflower Organics

Priya Shah September 16, 2003 06:03 PM

Re: Hi, Ankesh!
 
Hi, Ankesh!

Priya Shah from Mumbai here. Good to see you on this forum.

Its my first time here.

Regards,

Priya


Over 150 Free eBooks to download

Sandi Bowman September 16, 2003 06:21 PM

Re: The human brain
 
> Isn't the human brain wonderful...and
> really, really smart.

> Here's an example:
> 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

I had a terrible time reading it! It's probably because I was taught the old-fashioned (and better/more accurate) way using phonics.

People who were mis-taught (IMHO) using the Look-Say method probably won't have much trouble with it. They don't know what they're reading half the time anyway.

I live with a look-sayer and believe me, they really don't know, nor understand, what they're reading half the time. He's misunderstood more written messages than mere chance would allow...and the results are sad, frustrating, and sometimes just plain funny.

Even superior level intelligence can't overcome the handicap of learning to read???? with the look say method. It's sad.

Yeah, the human brain is very smart...and so under-utilized it's pathetic. Even the brightest among us use less than 10% of their brain's potential.

Sandi

Michael Ross (Aust, Qld) September 17, 2003 01:30 AM

Please explain...
 
What is the "phonics" system of reading?

What is the "look/say" system of reading?

> Even the
> brightest among us use less than 10% of
> their brain's potential.

Where did you hear/see/read this?

I am yet to find any scientific evidence that a test was carried out to determine how much brain we use. Let alone a test which was conducted which concluded we only use less than 10% - or even 10%.

To my knowledge the 10% thing was an off-handed comment made some 60 odd years or more ago, which was publicised by the media and which has since been proclaimed as gospel.

Michael Ross

Ankesh Kothari September 17, 2003 01:36 AM

Re: Please explain...
 
>> Even the
>> brightest among us use less than 10% of
>> their brain's potential.

>Where did you hear/see/read this?

Actually even I read about it - I think in a psychology101 book. They found out that only 10% of brain illuminated under some brain scanner. Dont remember the details.

But even though only 10% of the brain was illuminated, it still consumed 40% of all oxygen we breathe. So its not possible to start using more than 10% of the brain at one time.

I have heard that some people who do yoga know some way of breathing in and out slowly that reduces the amount of oxygen brain uses and so we can use more than 10% of our brains at one time. But am not sure if that is a rumour or if meditation and yoga helps. Haven't seen any scientific proof yet.

I too would like to know what phonics system of reading is.

Michael Ross (Aust, Qld) September 17, 2003 02:02 AM

I'm Like Harry Tasker's Boss
 
I want "hard data"

Not... vague recollections of where you (anyone) thinks they may or may not have read something.

We have all read - over and over - claims that we only use 10% (or less) of our brains. It is bandied about as common knowledge. Something that everyone "just knows." But NO-ONE can tell me WHERE they discovered this info-byte.

Where did you learn your 9 times tables? You can tell me. Where do you learn about the two opposing Axis in WWI? You can tell me. Where did you disect a frog? You can tell me?

Where did you learn we only use 10% of our brains? When was this "test" conducted and who conducted it? Where were their findings published? No-one can tell me.

Which raises an interesting point...

How easy is it to pass on false information as if it is true, and have everyone accept it without question?

Michael Ross

PS. Harry Tasker is a character in a movie (True Lies). Harry's boss is Charlton Heston. When Harry presented his findings to his boss, his boss said... "You're not blowing my skirt up... Harry, do you have any HARD DATA?"


We Swear This Brain Stimulant Contains No Illegal Drugs

Erik September 17, 2003 02:26 AM

Re: I'm Like Harry Tasker's Boss
 
> How easy is it to pass on false information
> as if it is true, and have everyone accept
> it without question?

I don't know about the 10% figure, Tasker, but I was thinking this exact same question while reading a news story about a researcher who claims that the position we sleep in is linked to our attitudes. I thought it was very interesting but very general and probably not done with enough subjects to make any hard conclusions.

Who knows (I don't yet)? But really, can anyone really sleep on their back like a tin soldier all night?

Going to sleep soon on my side,

Erik

Sandi Bowman September 17, 2003 03:17 AM

10% brain use, answers to questions.
 
> I don't know about the 10% figure, Tasker,
> but I was thinking this exact same question
> while reading a news story about a
> researcher who claims that the position we
> sleep in is linked to our attitudes. I
> thought it was very interesting but very
> general and probably not done with enough
> subjects to make any hard conclusions.

> Who knows (I don't yet)? But really, can
> anyone really sleep on their back like a tin
> soldier all night?

> Going to sleep soon on my side,

> Erik

Glad to answer the questions. About the 10%. I learned it straight out of my Psychology Studies textbooks. If you care to go back about 40 years you might be able to find the textbook. :o)

About Phonics. Phonics is the old-fashioned style of learning to read by sounding out letters and combinations. Accuracy is higher, as is retention and comprehension according to tests done by several universities when the controversy occurred over the 'new' (old actually) method of look-say teaching of reading occurred.

Phonics is the 'natural reader' method that people who self-teach themselves to read use unconsciously. I taught myself to read at age 2-1/2 years since I had already learned, like most children do, the sounds of the letters "A is like apple". It's a simple step to put sounds together and read.

Look-say is just what it says it is. The student is supposed to recognize words by their over all shape. I was investigating look-say vs Phonics years ago when I was trying to find a proper school for a youngster who wasn't doing so well in the public school system.

One teacher sat down and drew a bunch of triangles upside down and right-side up interspersed with a bunch of circles and told me what it 'said'. I asked her to explain and she couldn't. She said 'we just teach them to know what it says'. I asked what they did if they came across an unfamiliar word and she said they figure it out in context. Uh-huh. No, thanks!

My husband was taught look-say method and he often does not read what something actually does say despite the fact that he has come a long way since he's been trying phonics. Yes, you can teach an old dog new tricks but the real trick is to undo the habits of a lifetime.

An interesting point: in the post-cold war era it came out that both the United States and Russia had been doing experiments in ESP. The Russians began before the USA did and had progressed to doing lots of things like telekinesis and mind-reading experiments both with people and other animals.

Many Russians (and some US citizens) had been taught how to do certain types of extrasensory perception things. Even at the height of this the tests indicated that the brain was very minimally involved compared to its potential.

Oddly, the more highly developed the primitive centers of the brain are, the more accomplished people are at remote viewing, telekinesis, healing, and so on.

For all those who think space is the final frontier, you might like to look a little closer to home. What we DON'T understand about the human body, and the brain in particular, would fill a library and then some.

Hope this clarifies a few things. I don't have time or inclination to spend looking up very old references or even new ones but if you feel so inclined, please share with the rest of us.

Sandi

Garry Boyd September 17, 2003 06:19 AM

Hydrocephelic brain
 
Hmm, when Micheal asked the question, I remembered a doco I saw on hydrocphelics who had full function with only 10% of the brain intact. A quick google search turned up:
http://www.h2net.net/p/nslade/Papers/how.html
Hardly authoritive, and the fact it is 30 year old research does not inspire much confidence.

> Glad to answer the questions. About the 10%.
> I learned it straight out of my Psychology
> Studies textbooks. If you care to go back
> about 40 years you might be able to find the
> textbook. :o)

> About Phonics. Phonics is the old-fashioned
> style of learning to read by sounding out
> letters and combinations. Accuracy is
> higher, as is retention and comprehension
> according to tests done by several
> universities when the controversy occurred
> over the 'new' (old actually) method of
> look-say teaching of reading occurred.

> Phonics is the 'natural reader' method that
> people who self-teach themselves to read use
> unconsciously. I taught myself to read at
> age 2-1/2 years since I had already learned,
> like most children do, the sounds of the
> letters "A is like apple". It's a
> simple step to put sounds together and read.

> Look-say is just what it says it is. The
> student is supposed to recognize words by
> their over all shape. I was investigating
> look-say vs Phonics years ago when I was
> trying to find a proper school for a
> youngster who wasn't doing so well in the
> public school system.

> One teacher sat down and drew a bunch of
> triangles upside down and right-side up
> interspersed with a bunch of circles and
> told me what it 'said'. I asked her to
> explain and she couldn't. She said 'we just
> teach them to know what it says'. I asked
> what they did if they came across an
> unfamiliar word and she said they figure it
> out in context. Uh-huh. No, thanks!

> My husband was taught look-say method and he
> often does not read what something actually
> does say despite the fact that he has come a
> long way since he's been trying phonics.
> Yes, you can teach an old dog new tricks but
> the real trick is to undo the habits of a
> lifetime.

> An interesting point: in the post-cold war
> era it came out that both the United States
> and Russia had been doing experiments in
> ESP. The Russians began before the USA did
> and had progressed to doing lots of things
> like telekinesis and mind-reading
> experiments both with people and other
> animals.

> Many Russians (and some US citizens) had
> been taught how to do certain types of
> extrasensory perception things. Even at the
> height of this the tests indicated that the
> brain was very minimally involved compared
> to its potential.

> Oddly, the more highly developed the
> primitive centers of the brain are, the more
> accomplished people are at remote viewing,
> telekinesis, healing, and so on.

> For all those who think space is the final
> frontier, you might like to look a little
> closer to home. What we DON'T understand
> about the human body, and the brain in
> particular, would fill a library and then
> some.

> Hope this clarifies a few things. I don't
> have time or inclination to spend looking up
> very old references or even new ones but if
> you feel so inclined, please share with the
> rest of us.

> Sandi


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.