Ages old debate of reading vs. listening to books

[HarryT]

It's well-established that different people absorb information best in different ways, some by listening and others by reading. I'm very much reading-oriented myself - things I listen to tend to just wash over me without sinking in. Others, though, learn better through listening than reading. We're all different.

[Ozymango]

Originally Posted by Tarana

I think listening to audiobooks is wonderful, but unless you are vision impaired, shouldn't be your only way to consume books.

Is it still on topic to say that I hate hate HATE the phrase "consume [book/tv/movie/news/etc.]" ;-)

Me, I read. I READ. If I'm reading a story that really grabs me then I LOVE reading. If I start going "meh" or my eyes drift too often I'll put the book down, maybe temporarily, maybe forever.

For some reason I can't listen to audiobooks, that is, they don't penetrate my ears into my brain -- there's a different connection in my own head between stories that come through via words on paper (paper paper, e-paper, whatever), and stories that come via being "told" a story. Now I really enjoy a good storyteller (in person) who's not reading from a book, but just really and truly interacting with the audience (there's a difference, you can feel it), and I love a good "radio" show (really really love the old CBS Mystery Theater), but those are more like plays than books. A book is ... well, just different for me. I've tried a few audiobooks and my brain just always starts to drift.

P.S. Don't listen to anybody tell you what or how you should or shouldn't read anything. And if anybody tries to advise you on the best ways to consume media, feel free to stuff a rat down his or her shirt. :-)

[sealbeater]

Originally Posted by meeera

Show me the science you are basing this assertion on - specifically about audiobooks, not video. We are not discussing movies, TV, or even radio plays. We are discussing audiobooks.

Well, the previous conversation was discussing movies, TV, radio plays (which I personally quite like) etc. If you want something specifically scientifically negative about audiobooks, I have nothing to show you. My feelings on audiobooks have been made quite clear in the past. If you like them, more power to you.

It's obvious that this is a "which is better, cats or dogs?" kind of question, but for me, audiobooks are a big NO! I just love reading, but cannot get into audiobooks at all. They frustrate and irritate me, and I can never get the sort of immersion I want from my fiction reading. The only audiobook I ever mildly enjoyed was Obama's first, read by him. THat made sense and broought the memories and recollections to life, for the obvious reason that they were his own. Other than that, nope, nlpe, NOPE. As Ozymango says, there's no "right" or "wrong" way, but since this thread is about personal preferences, I have no qualms in saying that listening to audiobooks is like haveing fingernails dragged across the chalkboard of my soul.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by sealbeater

Well, the previous conversation was discussing movies, TV, radio plays (which I personally quite like) etc. If you want something specifically scientifically negative about audiobooks, I have nothing to show you.

You were responding directly to "I think it’s a reasonable presumption that any participant here that says they “read” a book they actually listened too....is already in the “it doesn’t matter” category. ". Which had nothing to do with movies/TV.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Tarana

Sealbeater isn't wrong and does make a good point. The ability to write good sentences, spell, and arrange words is very dependent on the ability to read and read regularly. Very darn few people would even maintain these abilities if all they did was listen. AND of course, your point is that if you don't read GOOD material, it doesn't matter. True enough.

What research backs up your assertion? Is there even any anecdotal evidence to back up your assertion? I listen to audiobooks all the time and I assure you, I still know how to spell and write grammatical sentences.

Originally Posted by sealbeater

Listened to. I don't know if someone can forget how to read. I do know a large portion of the population doesn't read and hasn't practiced their ability to read and it's a loss. As I said...I think it matters. Listening and watching is passive in nature, the brain just lets the info wash over it. There's no need to engage the imagination when viewing video. No building up of the scene in your mind based on words. You are basically given the director's vision, not your own.

You're lumping together listening to an audiobook and watching a video, which is absurd. A print book and an audiobook are both primarily sending words into your brain--the same words in different ways. Watching a movie is an entirely different kind of experience.

[sealbeater]

Originally Posted by meeera

You were responding directly to "I think it’s a reasonable presumption that any participant here that says they “read” a book they actually listened too....is already in the “it doesn’t matter” category. ". Which had nothing to do with movies/TV.

I think you would do well to go back and re-read the thread before you end up being the 2nd person to illustrate my exact point.

Oh wait, too late.

>> OMG - what does it matter? Read a book, listen to a book, watch a damn tv show.

(But I'm sure that has nothing to do with movies/TV.)

That was the comment I directly responded to with:

> I think it matters. Literacy is dropping, in the US at any rate.

We then got a response of:

"I think it’s a reasonable presumption that any participant here that says they “read” a book they actually listened too....is already in the “it doesn’t matter” category. "

To which I responded:


> As I said...I think it matters. Listening and watching is passive in nature, the brain just lets the info wash over it. There's no need to engage the imagination when viewing video.

Shall I go on? What exactly are you trying to say other than you are unable to follow a written conversation? Is it not clear that I was speaking of A/V not just A?

Do you need me to tell you what the word "and" means? Obviously I was referring to the youtube and tv show comments as well as audiobooks but not audiobooks specifically and only, and that was entirely in context since TV shows were previously mentioned.

If I had said "listening *or* watching is passive in nature" then maybe your imaginary bone would be able to be picked.

You have to consider the total context of the conversation. Picking sentences out of context is not how one successfully reads.

And yes, listening is passive in nature. I don't have to do a thing to listen to anything. I can tune out for whatever period of time and my ears will still pick up sounds but when I read, I have to read.

So, I hope I've made clear exactly why I think reading is fundamental.

[sealbeater]

Originally Posted by Catlady

You're lumping together listening to an audiobook and watching a video, which is absurd.

What exactly is absurd about it? The conversation the OP and I were having was about audiobooks and watching video. Would you like me to quote the relevant lines, again? Do you think "Ted Talk" and "YouTube cat videos" referred to audiobooks? Please, inform me of the absurdity, I would sincerely like to know.

Originally Posted by Catlady

A print book and an audiobook are both primarily sending words into your brain--the same words in different ways. Watching a movie is an entirely different kind of experience.

Again, I respectfully disagree. I know you will probably find this absurd but the way I see it, a movie is also sending words into my brain. Both aurally and visually since I often watch movies with subtitles. As for audio, I can turn that on and tune it out. If I'm listening to an audiobook and something distracts my attention from it for a moment, what? The audio will go on, my brain is no longer paying attention but my ears are still picking it up but its tuned out. That never happens with reading. It may be the same words reaching my brain but in this case, means matter.

Speaking solely for myself which should be obvious but I can see that needs to be pointed out here.

[sealbeater]

Originally Posted by Catlady

What research backs up your assertion? Is there even any anecdotal evidence to back up your assertion? I listen to audiobooks all the time and I assure you, I still know how to spell and write grammatical sentences.

Why would someone need research to make a assertion? All of us see things in our day to day lives that we collate into conclusions which we then assert to others. As for evidence, there's some in this very thread if you look closely. As for you listening to audiobooks all the time and knowing how to spell and write, we only have your self-reporting on both scores and even if so, you don't prove the rule. How exactly did you learn how to spell and write proper grammar? From listening to audiobooks? That must have taught you the difference between two, to and too. Not to mention break and brake and flair and flare.

[leebase]

Who needs science to know that one can learn via any modality? Do you not know from personal experience?

I’m in IT and that’s a career that requires constant learning. I used to only learn via books. Now tech is changing too fast for books. I’ve turned a great deal to learning from YouTube tutorials or Udemy video courses.

In addition to my audiobooks for pleasure, I like to listen to histories. If I needed to study a topic to pass a test or write a thesis, I don’t think I’d use audiobooks. But I have increased my knowledge and understanding of history via audiobooks.

I also learn by doing, of course. Learning in isolation of doing isn’t nearly as effective. And I learn from teaching. As I’m about to do today when I teach a technical workshop. The professionals in my class will be learning from watching and listening to me and asking questions.

I see nothing that reading has a lock on. It’s a great venue for learning, multi most used. But even as I am a person who can learn very well via reading, others not so much. Why should learning be withheld from them just because reading itself is a stumbling block?

And none of this applies to entertainment outside of childhood. Sure it’s my opinion, but it’s superior to your opinion lol! You are deluding yourself if you think your vampire love story book reading is making you a better person more than if you were listening to them or watching them on tv

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by sealbeater

What exactly is absurd about it? The conversation the OP and I were having was about audiobooks and watching video. Would you like me to quote the relevant lines, again? Do you think "Ted Talk" and "YouTube cat videos" referred to audiobooks? Please, inform me of the absurdity, I would sincerely like to know.

It's absurd to think watching a movie and listening to a book are equivalent, which I'm sure you know.

Again, I respectfully disagree. I know you will probably find this absurd but the way I see it, a movie is also sending words into my brain. Both aurally and visually since I often watch movies with subtitles. As for audio, I can turn that on and tune it out. If I'm listening to an audiobook and something distracts my attention from it for a moment, what? The audio will go on, my brain is no longer paying attention but my ears are still picking it up but its tuned out. That never happens with reading. It may be the same words reaching my brain but in this case, means matter.

Speaking solely for myself which should be obvious but I can see that needs to be pointed out here.

You are being anything BUT respectful, and I'm sure you know it. Pseudo politeness isn't respectful.

Originally Posted by sealbeater

Why would someone need research to make a assertion? All of us see things in our day to day lives that we collate into conclusions which we then assert to others. As for evidence, there's some in this very thread if you look closely. As for you listening to audiobooks all the time and knowing how to spell and write, we only have your self-reporting on both scores and even if so, you don't prove the rule. How exactly did you learn how to spell and write proper grammar? From listening to audiobooks? That must have taught you the difference between two, to and too. Not to mention break and brake and flair and flare.

Why are you deliberately skipping over the previous posts that took care to point out that once someone has learned the basics of literacy, audio or visual format doesn't matter?

If someone says flatly that spelling and grammar are eroded by disuse, yes, I want something to back it up.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by sealbeater

And yes, listening is passive in nature. I don't have to do a thing to listen to anything. I can tune out for whatever period of time and my ears will still pick up sounds but when I read, I have to read.

Huh. The experience of reading when I suddenly realize that I've been reading for paragraphs or even pages and taken in not a thing happens to me all the time. I can zone out visually as well as audially. Admittedly, it's easier to go back to where I lost the thread when reading, but otherwise I don't see the difference.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by issybird

Huh. The experience of reading when I suddenly realize that I've been reading for paragraphs or even pages and taken in not a thing happens to me all the time.

Same here.

[jandrew]

Originally Posted by Catlady

It's absurd to think watching a movie and listening to a book are equivalent, which I'm sure you know.

And, it's absurd to think listening to a book and reading a book are equivalent.

[GreyWolfsGhost]

Listening is not passive. Hearing is passive but truly listening requires focus the same as seeing the words on the page is not the same as reading them.