First: I wanna clarify this. I know that loads of people read like 100 books a year, or read all the time. I know these people exist. I’m asking about people that are like… average. An average american who just… reads. Doesn’t track everything or sets goals of like 100, or never stops reading… Anyway, I’ve been searching this up, and i find answers like 15-50, even 100. I find this highly unlikely, especially for average US citizens. Half the people i know don’t even pick up 5 books a year, let alone 15! I just don’t believe these stats. I read somewhere that people read 8 a month on average? That can’t be right for an average person. That’s like 2 books a week… I know people do read this much, but still… For an average person? So be real… how many books do people actually read a year?
For me it’s because audiobooks are consumed by listening. You objectively aren’t “reading” anything, the same way you aren’t reading a song when you listen to it. I get different mental stimulation from actually reading a book than listening to an audiobook, so audiobooks don’t count.
The reason you’re not reading when you listen to a song is because it’s a song, not a book. They are two different forms of art. Whether you consume a novel or book with your eyeballs or your ears, you’re still reading. Do you also think blind people, who can’t visually read, aren’t reading when they listen to audiobooks?
Do you read podcasts?
💯 I feel the same way but you put it into words that make perfect sense.
Last I checked, studies have shown audiobooks literally activate the same parts of the brain as reading
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/audiobooks-or-reading-to-our-brains-it-doesnt-matter
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326140
Cool, i read the new Chris Brown song on the radio yesterday.
Jokes aside, the guy said that to him personally it doesn’t feel the same, so i don’t see why you felt compelled to go “well actually hurr hurr”.
It’s less about me trying to change his mind about how he feels and more about me injecting current scientific findings in the conversation for other people witnessing it.
That and being super busy in life means I can only ‘read’ at the gym or on the road. Otherwise I’d never have time to read.
Reading is a process where one must decode a symbol (written letters and words) and translate it back into its natural language form, and then it is consumed as language. Listening is just language. Therefore it is unsurprising that reading and listening would have considerable overlap in the parts of the brain that are used as they do require the same thing. However, reading requires that extra step of deciding which language does not. Therefore - both written language and Braille are “read” but audiobooks are just listened to. This is not a judgment on anyone, it’s just a fact your brain has to do an extra step becuaee reading is not pure language. Moreover, obviously reading and listening are different because reading is a learned skill - one that humans cannot learn without being taught. Language, in contrast, is “acquired” and never needs to be explicitly taught. These are widely accepted facts in the fields of linguistics, psychology, and psycholinguistics. People just get real weird when they feel others are policing how they consume books. I don’t care how you consume books at all, and it’s a shame we don’t have a better word to describe consuming audiobooks but “reading” isn’t exactly correct, and seeing the same brain areas light up doesn’t mean it’s the same. It’s obviously not the same.
I can agree with what you say broadly, and yet - as far as the tested science goes, the difference in how a text is ingested (decoded or merely listened to) does not seem to actually matter to your brain as far as processing the information in the text goes.
I agree that there is literally a difference in the act of reading a book versus listening to an audiobook, but the message/text/story itself seems to be absorbed the same regardless.
If you’re aware of studies that suggest this isn’t the case, I’d be more than willing to hear them out. Otherwise this debate is mostly people talking about how they feel about the different acts, or their general vibes about how they’re obviously different. So far, science says otherwise when it comes to what actually matters - digesting the text.
This is exactly what science is for, isn’t it? Actually testing our biases to prove them correct or incorrect?
The tested science actually repeatedly finds differences between reading and listening. A quick Google scholar search revealed a lot:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11145-018-9924-8
https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/bjep.12009?casa_token=FgUE_74hwsYAAAAA:xaurr1KAYGhAd11iQ68-sl8YcvKydsDZgpRwek9LVDqJJJMAvIK1v7zrSAAlNRxUOFpdKRVNRt0yUgem
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758/BF03197498.pdf
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00593.x?casa_token=-sF0g9-zu-gAAAAA:-08bj-lyy65I4o0PGXxJVio-YO9BnJkXHfee6FAZWQSNPH70NG04ciEuCsTFq3WukVX2sNvtOJNI1kNo
These are all about comprehension of text. I think a discussion about whether reading text versus listening to text allows you retain information better is a little different than what we’ve been discussing, personally.
Then can I count meetings and presentations where I’m not a vocal participant as short stories or novellas?