Have you ever read a dictionary cover to cover? Or an encyclopedia? A thesaurus? A car manual? A very niche magazine about tractor engines?

My mum tried to get me to read the dictionary cover to cover when I was a child, but I only got to the end of c before getting too bored. I did read an encyclopedia of the human body, though.

On flights I read the evacuation and emergency pamphlets cover to cover every time 🫡

Before using a new piece of equipment/machinery I'll literally read the manual cover to cover like a book before touching anything 😂

I don't know why this memory popped into my head this morning, but it made me think I would be interested to hear other people's stories. What is the funniest or most unusual thing that has happened to you or around you while reading a book?

Once, while reading Double Whammy by Carl Hiaasen, I started laughing at something he wrote. When I say I started laughing, I really mean I laughed so hard I started crying. I couldn't stop. I was too far gone. I woke up my wife. This should have stopped the laughing, but then I tried to tell her about what I had read. This made the laughing worse.

She kicked me out of the bedroom. The next night, a piece of paper was taped to the bedroom door. It read, This is a Carl Hiaasen free zone. Carl Hiaasen books are strictly forbidden inside this bedroom. While the note is no longer pinned to the door, the list has grown longer. No Terry Pratchett, no Christopher Moore.......

I would love to read your moments.

Maybe bcause I'm traveling right now, but I have read this like a dozen times and I don't understand. Someone help 😅 Long quote:

"In 2010, while driving on the highway, I listened to a fascinating episode of the NPR show Radiolab, called “Words.” The hosts described how the use of words—associating things with names—allows us to perceive the world in a completely different way than if we did not have words. They describe an experiment in which rats are placed in an all-white room with food hidden in one of the corners. The rat sees the food, but, before it can reach it, the experimenters spin the rat or otherwise make it disoriented enough to not remember which corner has the food. What the experimenters found is that the rats, in picking which corner to approach, approached each corner an equal number of times—in other words, it had a 25 percent chance of choosing the correct corner. When the experiment is repeated with one of the walls painted blue and the food always placed in the left-hand corner of the blue wall, the wall can then serve as a “navigational cue” to help the rats understand where the food is. But even with this new blue wall, the rats still only guess the correct corner 25 percent of the time. While rats can recognize blue as a distinct color and left as a distinct direction, they cannot piece these two bits of information together. “Left of the blue wall” is impossible for rats to grasp. In a similar experiment, children up to the age of six will behave as the rats did, likely because their spatial awareness (essentially the idea of prepositions—“of,” “under,” “on,” “through,” etc.) takes that long to develop. This experiment suggests that the use of words and the context they provide fundamentally changes how we can literally see the world. When one interviewer asked, “What is thought without language?” the other replied, “Well, I don’t think it’s very much at all.” The use of words to name things gives our world shape, depth, and perspective. Those who can speak or understand a language are inheriting with it the ability to see the world in a unique way, fundamentally informed by that culture. Different cultures will carry different contexts—as such, different languages will offer different perspectives and ways of seeing the world. There is a vast system of meaning, interpreting, and perceiving particular to each culture and language. Every language tells a different story."

The bold line is where my question comes in. How does an experiment about visual data using a critter we don't speak the language of show that words contextualize visual input? Like, I for sure agree with the overall point we are trying to make here but I cannot grasp why we are using rat eyeballs to make it?? When humans develop enough to be able to conceptualize left of blue are we saying that's because of language, which rats never develop thus left of blue never makes sense to them?