'Audiobooks are not cheating'

[ApK]

Originally Posted by issybird

Of course they will. But a narrator could easily influence a reader to interpret a text differently than the reader would have independently. I did say it wasn't necessarily a bad thing, but something's lost there that you get when the reader confronts a text cold.

Indeed, but the question was whether that alone is a valid reason to suffer the scorn of your book club.
"No, you're not allowed to have your perceptions influenced by anything!"
I don't think it is.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by ApK

If you are still trying to LEARN to read, and your teacher assigns you a book report, and you listen to it instead of reading it, then yes, you are missing out on the practice at the decoding part of reading, and "cheating" on your assignment. But for literate adults...no, and if your fellow book club members give you a hard time because you listened to rather than read this month's selection, then you can show them the study and tell them what they can do with it. :-)

I agree, it all depends on the original reason for reading. If you're learning the letters and words, it's important to see them. In that case, the story is only second to the learning the art of reading (second, but still important, naturally!)

If you're reading for pleasure, does it matter how you do it? You're most likely reading to broaden your horizon, to be able to transfer into the main character, to "see" what is happening in your mind. The story is more important, the way the story is told to you less so.

(though, you can get weird situations if you only read the audiobook... I have only listerend to the Game of Thrones and always thought one of the main characters name was "Geoffrey", so when the series came out (which I've never seen, only sometimes read about), I wondered who "Joffrey" was )

[meeera]

Audiobooks aren't "cheating" because reading isn't a competition.

As for "doing the work"? I find audiobooks much harder work, personally. Concentrating is more difficult, and listening takes far longer than reading.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by meeera

Audiobooks aren't "cheating" because reading isn't a competition.

Err...taxes and spouses aren't competitions either, but people still cheat on both of them.

Not sure if you seriously don't understand the use of the word here, or if you're playing a disingenuous semantic game, but the articles make the meaning pretty clear.

As for "doing the work"? I find audiobooks much harder work, personally. Concentrating is more difficult, and listening takes far longer than reading.

I guess you're posting only in response to my comment, not to the actual articles, because "the work" referred to is the specific work the brain does*, not about how hard you might find the activity in the course of your day.

ApK

*from which we supposedly get all the mind-enriching benefits that makes reading such a fine and noble way to spend time, rather than going outside, having adventures, playing sports, meeting people and dating

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

If you're reading for pleasure, does it matter how you do it?

Ha! That's the question, isn't it? Is your brain getting more out of it by eye-reading than by ear-reading?
The articles say "nope, doesn't matter."

[meeera]

Originally Posted by ApK

Err...taxes and spouses aren't competitions either, but people still cheat on both of them.

Not sure if you seriously don't understand the use of the word here, or if you're playing a disingenuous semantic game, but the articles make the meaning pretty clear.

I wasn't playing any games. Reading is something people do for pleasure, or information, or a combination. I don't see how someone can "cheat" on that. The concept makes no sense to me. With taxes you are cheating the government/your fellow citizens out of money lawfully owed to them, and with (monogamous) spouses you're breaking an oath. There are victims in each situation, just as there are with cheating in say a sports race.

Originally Posted by ApK

I guess you're posting only in response to my comment, not to the actual articles, because "the work" referred to is the specific work the brain does*, not about how hard you might find the activity in the course of your day.

No, I was responding to the WaPo article linked and pull-quoted from the original article:

“Cheating” implies an unfair advantage, as though you are receiving a benefit while skirting some work. Why talk about reading as though it were work?

In none of the above examples can I see a reasonable analogy to draw with simply listening instead of reading.

[ApK]

The question of cheating here is whether you are cheating yourself out of some of the mental benefits of reading. Perhaps 'cheating on your diet' is a closer analogy.

[latepaul]

One of the differences for me is focus. When I listen to something I'm usually doing other things. What I've found is that whilst this is OK for things like podcasts, I feel that I'm missing things with audiobooks. I find myself going back and rewinding a lot.

Reading is something I pretty much have to focus on solely by its nature*.

I do still listen to audiobooks but they're mostly consumed on long drives or flights etc.


(*OK I suppose I can and do eat and read, but that's usually a case of look at book, pause whilst I glance at my plate to grab another mouthful, look back to book so really I'm time-slicing not doing it at the same time. I can't read and do housework or read and drive)

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by latepaul

One of the differences for me is focus. When I listen to something I'm usually doing other things. What I've found is that whilst this is OK for things like podcasts, I feel that I'm missing things with audiobooks. I find myself going back and rewinding a lot.

I agree about focus. The multitasking that occurs with audiobooks is the reason I doubt they are as effective as eye reading for absorbing and retaining information. I can readily believe that in a controlled experiment where one group is reading and one group is listening, there may be no real differences in comprehension and retention, but in the real world, I would expect that most listeners are not simply sitting and listening, but are doing other things at the same time.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I agree about focus. The multitasking that occurs with audiobooks is the reason I doubt they are as effective as eye reading for absorbing and retaining information. I can readily believe that in a controlled experiment where one group is reading and one group is listening, there may be no real differences in comprehension and retention, but in the real world, I would expect that most listeners are not simply sitting and listening, but are doing other things at the same time.

I agree that I think the nature of the experiment influenced the results. I know anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all, but I also know that my retention rate is worse with audiobooks, especially for non-fiction. It's partially focus, but it's also as you said upthread; when I read non-fiction, I can flip back to verify facts, use the index, check footnotes and so forth. There's also the loss of additional visual information such as pictures, charts and maps. As it is, when I can, I like to backup a non-fiction audiobook with the ebook, so I can skim parts where I feel as if I've missed critical information. But I've made my peace with the experience, also; I'm so walking away with something, even if it's less than I'd have gleaned from the book. The defects of the virtues of audiobooks, but it's not an all or nothing situation.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I agree about focus. The multitasking that occurs with audiobooks is the reason I doubt they are as effective as eye reading for absorbing and retaining information. I can readily believe that in a controlled experiment where one group is reading and one group is listening, there may be no real differences in comprehension and retention, but in the real world, I would expect that most listeners are not simply sitting and listening, but are doing other things at the same time.

That may be true, but it may also be true that someone reading a book at bedtime, or while being jostled on the train to work may not retain and comprehend as well as some one who reads the same book at the library in a dedicated study session, or who choses to listen with attention and no multitasking. So while listening might provide additional opportunities to consume in ways that result in reduced comprehension and retention, I dont think that that makes the listening itself the cause.
Personally, because I find it exceedingly difficult to focus on eye reading at bedtime or on the train, which is the bulk of my available reading time, I get far more out of audiobooks. But by the reasoning above, I would not have interpreted that to mean that the listening itself gives one more out a book than reading.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by ApK

That may be true, but it may also be true that someone reading a book at bedtime, or while being jostled on the train to work may not retain and comprehend as well as some one who reads the same book at the library in a dedicated study session, or who choses to listen with attention and no multitasking. So while listening might provide additional opportunities to consume in ways that result in reduced comprehension and retention, I dont think that that makes the listening itself the cause.
Personally, because I find it exceedingly difficult to focus on eye reading at bedtime or on the train, which is the bulk of my available reading time, I get far more out of audiobooks. But by the reasoning above, I would not have interpreted that to mean that the listening itself gives one more out a book than reading.

It doesn't matter if listening per se is the cause, all that matters is that in the real world, concentrated listening is, I believe, a lot less likely than concentrated reading of text.

I am going with the presumption that when one is consuming material for entertainment/pleasure, either delivery system is probably fine and dandy, because careful focus isn't needed. But for learning, focus is needed, and in the real world it's easier to focus on reading the text than listening to it. Even if you aren't multitasking, when listening to an audiobook, as I said earlier, you can't highlight passages, or easily go back to find something or take notes. You can't check a source in an endnote.

Seems to me that reading along with an audiobook would probably work well for learning, because then you'd be concentrating two senses on the material.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Even if you aren't multitasking, when listening to an audiobook, as I said earlier, you can't highlight passages, or easily go back to find something or take notes. You can't check a source in an endnote.

Not every kind book requires such things, and not everyone does those things, even with books that are for learning and enrichment rather than entertainment.
Though, I'm not doubting that some learning is better visually. Even some audiobooks come with pdfs or other supporting material.

And, yeah, I remember being tought back in highschool that the more senses engaged in learning, the better.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by ApK

Ha! That's the question, isn't it? Is your brain getting more out of it by eye-reading than by ear-reading?
The articles say "nope, doesn't matter."

It depends on why you read those books.
I mostly read books to fire my imagination. I can get lost completely in the worlds the author describes. It's my main reason for reading: escapism. In that case, it doesn't matter if you read, or listen.
If you read to increase your knowledge of words, I think it does matter, at least for me. I will remember strange words better if I actually look them up, in the written word. It has the added advantage of knowing how to write it (the Geoffrey vs Joffrey).

I had some problem trying to remember how to write "favourite". I kept spelling it wrong (with two f's). Until my English teacher told me to look it up in a dictionary. I've never forget that lesson and you'll never catch me spelling it wrongly

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by ApK

Not every kind book requires such things, and not everyone does those things, even with books that are for learning and enrichment rather than entertainment.

They should. Then maybe we wouldn't have a nation full of ignoramuses who can't focus on anything that's more complex than a tweet or a meme.