THE SPELLING BEE RETURNS

*Sings* Me: I'm back yo, you like it... LML: (Shui shi zhen zhen MVP)

Okay...The above was uncalled for, yes, but I just had to type it in anyway. Haha. I'm back blogging!!! I took a hiatus from blogging and it has been two months ever since. I've been really busy with tuitions. The September-October period is examination period so I was pretty much stressed up. Fussing over my kids, making sure they pull up their socks, put their best foot forward while I struggle to even complete my tutorials or rather assignments. If only I would practise what I preach, if only...

That aside, I went for ESAP lecture today and he showed as something that I thought was rather interesting. Here it goes...

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.

Quite interesting isn't it? This isn't the first time I'm coming across this passage and I believe quite a number of people would have seen it already since there was a hype about it in 2003 when the phenomenon was first brought to view. (There is a name for it although I'm not too sure what.) My point here is not to dive into a linguistic discussion about how easy it is to just read a word in it's entity while not being too concern about how it's spelt. Rather, I would like to point out how it's apt an analogy it is to illustrate what a cognitive short-cut is. (i.e The frequency or likelihood of an event based on how quickly instances or associations come to mind.)

At many times, we judge the people around us by associating them. Pretty much like how we associate the formation of letters to a certain word in our vocabulary by just looking at the first and last letter. We then assume it to be correct and it doesn't take long before we reach a conclusion. We do not look at each and every one of them as an individual. As a result, it becomes easy to fault and dislike a person just by associating them to a certain category. (For illustration purposes, perhaps a Chines speaking guy with long hair and tatoos is associated with an Ah Beng* so on and so forth.) I wonder if disassociation would make us learn to like a person more and hence view each individual as a more unique and special being.

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;- thou art thyself though not a Montague. What's Montague? It's nor hand, nor foot, nor arm, nor leg, nor any other part belonging to a man. O, be some other name! What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet; so Romeo would, were he not Romeo called, retain that dear perfection without that tile: - Romeo, doff thy name and for that name which is no part of thee, take all myself. -William Shakespeare. Romeo and Juliet. Act II Scene II.

Love this quotation. (Pardon me if there's misquotation 'cos my memory sometimes do fail me.) Sometimes what we're associated with will just make a difference. That is perhaps why many people spend time shaping themselves to be in a particular 'category' they would like others to see themselves in or as. Take all of that away, you're still an isolated being. As an individual isolated being, do you think you're any more or any less likeable? Hmm, just pondering out loud... :)