On the chance that it might help, I think the funnel is something like:
-ideas/shapes which are always moving around->selecting the appropriate/better/good enough one out of these by focusing on it more. this always feels kind of like a sorter appraising different things bubbling up and sinking on the surface of a pool.
-this selected one at the fore gets structured to be said probably more precisely that feeling right before you actually say something. if this is going well, little is lost between the thought and what comes out of the structuring, but sometimes the thoughts are much worse from the process.
-this structured thing gets more concrete as I touch type it and somehow grammar and punctuation get in there.
-this gets a look over as it is coming out for errors. is it gibberish or not, is the grammar correct, do I like it.
Depending on what I'm concerned with different amounts of effort are going into those different sections. I think the error gets put in pretty close to when it gets typed out.
I think it helps that the process almost always feels like a cooperative enterprise. Injury of some sort or another definitely will effect it. Something is always in my head out there a bit ahead (sometimes only very little) of whatever my body is doing.
Maybe this is uncommon but I've never really gotten that impression from talking with people or other people's recitations of their experiences. I've never really talked with too many people about it though. "How do you feel your brain and body do things?" isn't exactly the kind of question one asks in the elevator, waiting in line, or on a plane.
A factory worker is more likely to learn the word from books, and so will probably write it correctly.
As an interesting side-note, I cannot recall the American equivalent of British tabloids. Are there any ?
American tabloids? NY Post? I don't know, I'm not American.
As an aside, someone once pointed out to me that the National Enquirer is distinct from the other trashy tabloids. They never have the wacky "aliens stole my lunch" stories. They're focused on the gossip/celebrity domain and do a good job of it, as measured by: (1) they almost never lose a lawsuit, and thus (2) they rarely get sued. This person argued that the difference between the NE and "serious" papers was not one of accuracy or quality (making allowances for the lowbrow material) but rather in their willingness to pay for stories and photos.
I've tested this theory many times since while standing in queues at supermarkets, and I must say it checks out.
Not very hard to believe. Nobel prize winners spell words wrong. Mensa members spell words wrong. Harvard professors spell words wrong...