This has been going around the Internet:
AOCDRNDICG TO RSCHEEARCH AT CMABRIGDE UINERVTISY, IT DSENO'T MTAETR WAHT OERDR THE LTTERES IN A WROD ARE, THE OLNY IPROAMTNT TIHNG IS TAHT THE FRSIT AND LSAT LTTEER BE IN THE RGHIT PCLAE. TIHS IS BCUSEAE THE HUAMN MNID DEOS NOT RAED ERVEY LTETER BY ISTLEF, BUT THE WROD AS A WLOHE. IF YOU CAN RAED TIHS, PSOT IT TO YUOR WLAL.... OLNY 55% OF PLEPOE CAN.
After looking at the words more carefully, it started to dawn on me that something wasn't quite right. Here's my initial response to the person who posted the fascinating tidbit:
Vrey cevelr, but lkie the mairtjoy of uabrn leendgs, tllaoty irconcert. It semes to be ptetry esay wvnheeer the wrods are sroht, or wehn you cosohe the "ionccerrt" oderr of toshe ltreets emertlexy clefaurly. But as you can see, all it teaks is a few leongr wrods, or a lses convirted onderirg, and it bemoecs fartsnurtig and ducliffit to utsandnerd.
Like so many of the "facts" we find on the Internet, this one simply isn't true. Anyone who wants to "prove" an idea can invent studies and statistics, and it's usually not too difficult to create a supporting example or two. The time invested in the hoax pays off when it goes "viral" because people who find it interesting can spread the misinformation immediately and virtually effortlessly. My counter-example took a bit of work, and I'm not completely sure I caught all the typos, but I'm still snickering at fartsnurtig, ducliffit, and utsandnerd.
I won't go into all of the telltale signs of a hoax, but two glaring give-aways are a very vague citation of a reputable authority (Cambridge University, here) and an amazing statistic that makes you feel special or superior but simply doesn't make sense if you think about it:
Wait: if the oerdr of the ltteres doens't mtater, then why can olny 55% of plepoe raed it? Does taht maen the oethr 45% are illeritate? Or is it poorf that 87.6% of all statistics are mdae up on the sopt?
One of my favorite quotations of late is David Comins' observation that "People will accept your idea much more readily if you tell them Benjamin Franklin said it first." It's even more true if you butter them up and they trust you.
This is one of the simplest forms of social engineering: a technique for gaining control of something by cajoling or fooling the people responsible for it. Social engineering is disturbingly effective; it's behind phishing scams, identity thefts, credit card frauds, and corporate information leaks. We're bombarded every day by so much "information" that we can't possibly verify it all... and in most cases there's no reason to do so because it doesn't matter very much. But it's a good habit to "filter" the things you read or hear by asking yourself two questions:
- Does this make sense?
- What does the "informer" stand to gain if you accept the information as fact?
I almost closed this note by telling you that social engineering costs $3 billion in the US alone, and that 45% of corporate losses are due to some form of social engineering. But that wouldn't have been fair because you might have believed me, and I just made up those statistics. So, pelase, keep yuor eeys and yuor mnid oepn!
And remember: "Don't believe everything you read on the Internet." – Abraham Lincoln
