Quote:
Originally Posted by anamardoll
Someone *did* imply that adoption of audiobook listening would bring down democracy, and also probably take up dirty dancing.
OK, maybe I made up the last one. 
Still, I see this as so much intellectual snobbery. Saying that "you read to learn" implies that one doesn't learn (or doesn't learn as much) from an audiobook. Since learning styles are subjective and vary from person to person, this is a meaningless statement.
The only thing you can say is that YOU don't learn as much from audiobooks. Which would be useful if this were a poll on learning styles.  |
I don't believe I said one reads TO learn. But learning is part of the package when you read.
It's not a matter of learning styles. You don't learn to spell by listening to an audio book. You don't learn punctuation by listening to an audio book. You don't absorb the way sentences and paragraphs are put together by listening to an audio book. You don't learn to write by listening to an audio book, and you don't learn to read by listening to an audio book. What you get from listening is content--the story. Is that all there is to reading? Then perhaps reading a Classics Illustrated comic of
Don Quixote is fundamentally the same as reading Cervantes, since both give you the story.
If you want to argue that some people learn "stuff" by hearing it, and others learn "stuff" by reading it, fine, but that's a completely different issue.
It's not a matter of snobbery. I'm just saying that listening and reading are not equivalent, and it baffles me that anyone is arguing that they are.
Come to think of it, a complete reliance on audio books probably would indeed undermine civilization.
Now I really should leave this discussion and go back to listening to the dreary doings of Jane Eyre on my mp3 player.