A proof reader’s job is more difficult than it looks. Much more difficult. In fact proof reading is an art. Proof readers need to know the language thoroughly. Be proficient with all the language’s nuances and quirks. But remember always that proof reading demands that you don’t read the text in front of you.

Because the art of proof reading lies in dividing bodies of text into clusters and then looking at those clusters visually resisting the temptation to actually read the text. Because it has been proven that when we read text a kind of predictive mechanism takes over and we begin to anticipate words and virtually ‘fill in the blanks’ even before the blanks appear. For example if we see the phrase ‘The grass is’ we most often read it as ‘The grass is greener on the other side’ whereas the text could actually have a typo and read ‘The grass is greener on uther side’. Whereas if we stick to purely visual perusal of random clusters we would have been able to spot the typo immediately because it would stand out in the crowd of familiar words.

I think reading people also follows a similar pattern and demands that we don’t read them in a linear fashion but in a random cluster way.

Let me elaborate.

When we read people we normally have a story in mind.  He was born in such and such place. In so and so year. To such and such people. He went to this school. He partook in these activities. He graduated from this college. And started his career with…he married…you get the idea. Now when we read this person conventionally and follow the logic of linearity we tend to come to several obvious conclusions. Which may not always be right.

Whereas if we had instead divided our knowledge of the person into clusters and did a random scan of the data we could perhaps come to conclusions based on truer instincts.

Try it out. I have. Where normally I would give weightage to several facts like family background, educational background etc., I found that I was letting in a certain amount of bias into the equation. However when I looked at a person as a cluster of unconnected realities my instincts kicked in faster and resulted in more unbiased opinions. And I concluded that the rules of proof reading could be applied to several disciplines. Art, to start with. The proof reading method gives a painting or a sketch a whole new perspective. And similarly, design. Even science. And especially mathematics.

That’s when it hit me that I was but treading paths that had been walked on before. Much before. By the ken of people like that great intuitive mathematician Ramanujam Acharya. They were obviously proof readers. But history calls them geniuses!!!