I genuinely do not understand the vitriol regarding the statement "audiobooks count as reading." Your brain is still processing language, story, and themes. You’re just multitasking while crushing your TBR. Efficiency and literacy win.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
I can never concentrate on an audiobook. I would love to multitask like that. So kudos to those that consume information that way. I’m a good, old fashioned book worm. 📖
It feels like a move toward imprecision and away from clear communication, sort of the opposite of how language typically evolves. If I can read an audiobook, can I read a video essay on YouTube by looking away from the screen and consuming only the audio? Can I read a podcast? I don't see the line.
“Count” as in “earning merit?” Or as in “counting calories?” I read fiction & poetry with my eyes because it’s more immersive and contemplative. I listen to nonfiction audiobooks because I absorb facts and information better that way.
I was an avid reader from the age of 6, and have always loved audiobooks. A really good audiobook is easier to get lost in, sometimes, as it frees more of the mind to visualize the content. That's my anecdotal dos centavos.
I am diffrently reading abled . It take about 5 min to read just like 1-2 sentences for me (and even longer to type) so audyobooks really let me expand my mind and became an engaged citizenry
DaHaene’s research demonstrates that the brain doesn’t care how the information arrives to the brain. The brain will process it whether arriving through eye-reading or ear-reading. Audio text is necessary for some!
I was a complete a-hole to a colleague of mine about a decade ago. He said he was reading the same book. He said he was listening to it on his way to work. I said 'Oh - "reading"' and I airquoted. He said "that's pretty much a dick move dude." I immediately rethought my position on the matter.
Feel like Audio Books count, same for Graphic Novels (Comics). That being said - my rule as a parent is to make sure my kids can still read a book (no pictures).
100% - they tear through both #DogMan and #MaxMeow can’t wait to upgrade them to #Bone 😀 It’s also amazing to see how much gaming also contributes. #MarioRPG and #Pokemon were both helpful
And seriously, who cares. Some people read voraciously … some don’t. Some people listen to audio something all the time … some prefer silence. Are we seriously debating whether someone’s choice of medium is acceptable or not? I hope not … Bluesky is better than that.
lol if you want to start a fight on bookish social media, all you have to do is say that audiobooks are/are not reading. The angry people will come out of the woodwork to fight you.
Two lines though, right? 1) it's not as valid a way of consuming the information 2) it's a stupid word to use. I love listening to audiobooks but I don't think "read" is an appropriate word, there are better words to use. I don't "read" single narrator podcasts, so why would I "read" an audiobook?
It just screams pick me, besides it’s like those people completely forget that some people are blind or have other things making it difficult to consume literature in the written text form. It’s just a weird superiority complex they have honestly.
Because they are literally not reading and the way it's delivered (repeating the incorrect statement multiple times ending with an ellipse) is patronizing. There's also the very real and concerning issue of the illiteracy epidemic that that sentiment just hand waves away
For example: you wouldn't call medieval peasants literate, because they literally could not read. But by your standards here, they must have been literate because priests would read the Bible to them. It's just a very weak argument on its face if you take one second to think about it
I read about a book a month, non-fiction paperback.
I read 2-3 books a week, fiction e-reader.
But on audiobook? I can read a book a day.
Children listen to books being read to them. It's really no different for adults. Sometimes it's just nice to listen to someone read a book to you.
No vitriol here.. I think it depends on what you consider "reading". In terms of brain activity the act of reading words in a page is completely different compared to listening to an audiobook.
However, if "reading" is considered the act of consuming written literary works, then sure, it counts.
Well I guess it's the one that analyzed semantic processing while silent reading vs listening... that's bc they're specifically analyzing word processing, which yes, should be the same in both modalities for most ppl.
That's not all that happens in the brain in either modality though.
There would be no argument if ya'll phrased it as "audiobooks count as experiencing the work." But ya'll insist on saying you're reading despite reading and listening being different actions.
“But the literal definition—“
No one cares, the experience is the same regardless of if you use your eyes or your ears. If there was a way to convey language through smell, I’d call that reading too.
I mean, no vitriol, but it literally isn't reading - on both a superficial and fundamental level. You don't read an audiobook any more than you look at a track on Spotify.
I don't read one word at a time. I'm picking up on the structure of the sentence, the layout of the paragraph and the page, the implication of a colon versus a comma. I can see where in the current "thought" I am, like a progress bar. This context is absent in an audiobook.
Also I can't imagine characters and how they talk with the same freedom in an audiobook. I enjoy audiobooks, but to me they fall between reading and a TV adaptation.
Everyone is different, some prefer audiobooks, others books. I like both and depends on what mood I am in and what I am doing. Personally I find when I am listening to an audiobook I drift off or tune out. I am fully immersed in a book. Does depend on the book, like everything - nuance, no judgment
I don’t get it either. I don’t give a shit if you read it in a book or listen to an audiobook lol. We are not at a point in history where semantics matter. The content of what you are absorbing by whatever means is more what matters lol
Exactly. The only pro audio audio books don't have is seeing words spelled correctly and imprinting that, but really with how easy it is to look up words nowadays it makes it less of thing
Audio books are vital for people with dyslexia, vision impairments, etc. In this way their condition does not prevent them from learning new vocabulary, facts, ideas, ...
It's a valid way of learning, but I still don't know how to feel about calling it "reading."
I do know that seeing folks calling it "ableist" to make a distinction between them gives me a similar irritation to the folks saying that "dismissing Ai art is ableist."
Audiobooks keep me company and are much easier on my 20/400 eyes. BUT-I do notice that it feels like different parts of my brain are engaged, depending upon which I use.
I love audio books! I spend a lot of time in the car and I love listening while I’m driving! I still feel like I’ve accomplished something when I finish one.
This discourse is so full of posturing and defensiveness that literally no one is actually talking about how reading and listening are processed in different parts of the brain. It's fine to listen to audiobooks but saying it's literally the same is just inaccurate. It's different but fine.
YES! My brain no longer allows me to read long form text. I can force it and very slowly read but I would rather enjoy the experience of a book. It is so crappy to be shamed for, if I understand correctly, making books accessible to me.
I can focus on some things some days, one or two things others, but long form text is what I have not been able to do reliably for years. When I do sit down to read a book (even my absolute favorite novel), I read the same paragraph over and over, it is not enjoyable and to me, defeats the purpose.
I genuine don’t understand the vitriol regarding the statement “audiobooks let you listen to a book”. There’s nothing wrong with listening - it’s great, it’s not less valuable, it’s just a different way of ingesting words. So why try to redefine ‘reading’? Is because people think reading is better?
If you read a translation, are you reading the author or the translator?
“I remember how many times I tried to read War and Peace until I got the Constance Garnett translation.” ― Ernest Hemingway, A Moveable Feast https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/11/07/the-translation-wars
#BookSky
I think if the media was designed for me to consume a book through it using a single sensory process - it’s reading. Whether that’s print/ebook, audiobook, braille - it’s media design to consume a book.
Literature professor here. Listening to audiobooks is 100% reading. Reading is something done only with the eyes is a new concept. Many great Works of literature, like the Iliad and the Odyssey, were only recently written down because they were intended to be heard.
I'm not entirely sure either. Other than the principal. By definition it's listening. Unless an argument can be made for it reading.
Which I suppose if your considering reading as processing incoming information the argument is there.
But some of us like making new concepts that way
So likely some people are upset because the proving or disproving of the processing modes or methods of the brain actually does have some serious impacts for some research fields.
Plus, you have the added bonus of knowing how names and places are correctly pronounced. (Double bonus if the characters occasionally speak in a different language.)
I love audiobooks with French and Spanish in them because I get to practice my languages. Huge benefit as reading a foreign language is easy but hearing it is far more difficult.
On the other hand, I don’t know how names and places are spelled. 🫤
I agree because it also expands vocabulary development with the added advantage of correct pronunciation. Another plus is the ability to mentally visualize the actions and descriptions, which is necessary to halt cognitive decline.
Think of reading to a two year old. They hear the story but aren’t reading it. Same thing with an audio book. You don’t even have to know how to read so not reading.
Because if you’re not reading it’s not reading. It’s not different than being in college and listening to lectures or work seminars. They’re informational but aren’t reading. Learning and reading aren’t intermixed as the same notion. You can learn without reading and read without learning.
I haven't seen any of them but I'd guess it's because to them it'll be listening. But well, when someone *reads* you a book, despite your action being listening it's exactly the same as if you were the one doing the reading, so yeah.
This. Because the amount of folks who copied and pasted the literal definition of reading in my comment sedition earlier this week was insane. There's more to reading than the literal Webster's definition of reading. It goes deeper than physically using your eyes. But I think they know that.
*section. I swear, the older I get, the worse it gets. This is one of the more hilarious typos though. It's about time to update my glasses prescription 🤓
"they". Maybe I'm making that word do too much heavy lifting but suddenly you made it sound like a very adversarial debate. So we always have to be on one side or another?
Are people arguing about this, seriously? I just finished the audiobook of Matt Haig’s The Midnight Library, read beautifully by Carey Mulligan. It was delightful, and it’s absurd to say I haven’t read it. I don’t multitask while listening though.
Yeah, I don’t quite understand it either. I get everything from the book as if I were reading a physical copy or listening to an audiobook. With two young children under five, I don’t have much time to read books. Audiobooks allow me to still immerse myself in a story while doing other things.
Or just relaxing while listening,or like my mother in law unable to read because she is blind but still ‘reads’ her books via audiobooks. My son can read very well but chooses not to but loved stories. His teachers complemented him on his excellent and widespread vocabulary- invaluable!
I even treat the audio like a book: I don’t like abridged or “stage productions” and I listen at a comfortable reading speed for me (1.5x) which would be silly if it were normal listening. And the scenes are unfolding in my head the same way as when I read.
If one is an insomniac, audiobooks are great because you can listen to them without needing light. You can listen to them in the dark. If you fall asleep, you're happy. If you make way in the book, you're happy. It's a win-win. I just finished Patrick Stewart reading A Christmas Carol that way.
i read about three times faster than most audiobook readers narrate, and since I have an auditory processing disorder I can't really listen to an audiobook and do much else at the same time. so for me reading a book and listening to an audiobook serve wholly different purposes
i can't multitask while listening to an audiobook, except for extremely rote things like washing dishes. anything that requires concentration or cognitive attention is out. for me listening to an audiobook is an immersive activity, demanding my full attention and is a form of relaxation
this means i do need especially mellifluous and even-tempered readers. @tessirondale.bsky.social is superb in this regard. i can't say exactly what it is about her voice that makes her exceptionally easy to understand and pleasant to listen to, but that's how it is
Totally agree that books can be consumed however you want. For me, I wouldn’t have time to read 1/2 the books I do (which is already 1/2 what I want) without listening in the car & while doing chores. I listen to enjoy, e-books for smut, a physical book and highlighters for learning.
puritan, "we can't have you only half reading a book. You have to read it all to get the full experience. " lol
It takes me ages to get through a book because of dyslexia (auto spell). It is much more enjoyable in audio book.
There are loads of edge cases though that cloud it. What an an excerpt from a book in a podcast? It's splitting hairs, but I think that's the point... it's just a bad word to use as it means something else. No judgement in any direction, but reading is not listening.
Not all edge cases need to be explored in every conversation. The thesis here is "Listening to an audiobook is reading the book." Outside of books and audiobooks, the conversation divolves into pointless murkiness
I mean listening isn't reading, so listendimg to an audio book is not reading a book. But it is effectively the same as having read a book and important for people who can't or have difficulty reading or those who don't have time to sit down and read through a book.
Audiobooks are my joy. I run an animal sanctuary and I can listen to books while scooping poo and taking care of everyone. I can get completely lost in a story while still being able to work. Love audiobooks so much!
I audio book when I am at work doing mind-numbing work, when I do laundry, when I wash dishes, when I am driving, when I go for a walk or a run. I audio book when I can’t hold a book. Sometimes I have a physical book and I both listen and read-whatever gets me the content makes me content. 🤪
I drive for a living and am an avid reader. The only way I can keep up on my reading, realistically, is audiobooks. I have ‘read’ a ton of books this way instead of listening to the radio or other stuff. I have a library of actual books too… but life… Fuck the elitists.
I can’t hold a book most of the time & my vision is unpredictable. I had to let go of so much when I got sick & audiobooks meant I didn’t have to also let go of my love of reading. Feels very strange to justify how I read, but sometimes I need to. What an unnecessary thing to be judgy about
I agree and it doesn’t matter if you believe it counts or doesn’t. I love all forms of reading, and will continue to do so. These opinions are as useless as pizza-pineapple arguments.
I agree totally, as long as attention is actually given to the audio at the same level it would be to the printed page. Distracted listening is NOT reading. And it's really, really easy to become distracted while experiencing audio books....and you're less likely to go back and catch up.
Reading is being focused on nothing but what you're reading. The very fact that you're multitasking while listening to audiobooks demonstrates the difference.
The "vitriol" is likely due to your incorrect assertion of the word's usage. There's nothing wrong with "listening" to an audio book but it's not "reading". Why isn't it reading? Reading requires someone to interpret letters and the words they construct. It's not a complicated concept to understand.
It’s about learning and processing style. Some people are visual learners hence prefer written books, for those with an auditory learning preference audio books are a great choice.
Absolutely no issues with audiobooks. I just like to recommend https://Libro.fm or their library’s app instead of audible so people can separate themselves from Amazon as much as possible.
Lately when I try to sit down with a book, I get distracted and end up on my phone. But I can listen to an audiobook for hours while I walk the dog, pull weeds or fold laundry and escape into another world! Maybe my brain is broken. I mean hell, I know it is. I’m so grateful for audiobooks!
Listening to audiobooks doesn't let me stress about not understanding something and keeps going so I can get more information. Best way to "read" my pop science books
You're consuming the content either way. It's just that if I'm listening, the story continues without me when I doze off. A printed book kindly waits for me to come back and continue.
Both engage similar areas of the brain responsible for language comprehension and meaning interpretation, meaning there's significant overlap in brain activity between reading and listening.
I have access to two visual impairment specialists who would assist in that, most likely acquiring the texts in Braille or accommodating what sight they have.
Did you also want to throw in students who are allergic to paper? Those who have an aversion to ink? Students who can’t stand prepositions?
I had a cataract surgery and couldn’t read for a few days, I started listening audiobooks. I enjoyed a lot, but the feeling is not the same as when you are reading. But still okay.
I think it goes back to AR and the general concept of reading as an achievement. Audiobooks are often seen as an easier version of consuming books, and just like in the gaming world, some people get very angry when someone takes a path they have deemed as easier to the same end goal.
I'm in a book club that deep dives into every book we read. I sometimes listen, sometimes read on Kindle, occasionally read a physical book, and even rarely read the whole book on my phone. My comprehension and ability to fully participate is the same. Reading comes in many forms!
I feel like everyone who says no is just a discontent English teacher, I know teachers want students to be reading actual books to make sure the know how to read but you’re still processing book with audiobooks
i just don't understand that if audiobooks are reading, then are podcasts reading too? isn't it basically the same thing? i don't look down upon audiobooks or anything, but i always thought that reading was like... an activity. that's not the same as listening.
I prefer reading physical books by a large margin, but after almost dying, a long hospitalization, and a severe visual processing problem, audio books were a huge blessing.
I'm sorry to hear about your hospitalization, but happy you're still here with us. I prefer physical books over audiobooks as well. I just don't understand the anger and vitriol.
Multitasking is not a thing. When you put your blinker on you skip out if the story for that fraction of a second. The beauty part is, the story doesn’t need you to pay attention to every fraction of a second.
We process information differently. For many, audiobooks unlock worlds that might otherwise be closed. Processing a story through your ears while your body moves is just as valid as through your eyes while sitting still. It's about the story reaching your brain, not the path it takes to get there.
No it isn't. You're just trying to make the people you disagree with look evil to prevent further discussion which would invariably prove you wrong. Audiobooks are literally not reading
Let me ask, who would it harm to call audiobooks reading? But look at it the other way, call audiobooks not reading when it makes reading accessible for some who would not otherwise be able to read, does that not do some harm?
We are currently going through an epidemic of illiteracy and audiobooks not only do not help the issue, they may be making things worse by providing a crutch, harming them in the long run. Reading is a skill and you're devaluing that skill for the sake of social media points
If you're saying it helps you consume a story or some information, then fine, I'll buy that. But reading is a very specific visual/tactile exercise (yes, braille is reading) that uses your brain differently and more actively than listening
Why is this an issue? Just do what you like, what makes you feel great, no matter what others say about it. If you get value from listening to an audiobook then that’s what counts.
There's a ton of elitism around reading, lots of folk who use it as a way to feel superior to others. I prefer reading a physical book, but my friend struggles to read quickly so audiobooks make literature more accessible to him. I think that's a good thing and he's still consuming the same content.
Helen Keller comes to mind... she did quite well with Braille. and her quite well developed hand signing.
I'm not opposing the notion that audio books constitute reading, but it's processed in the brain much differently than visual or tactile comprehension. This is indisputable, imho.
1. I absolutely love your BlueSky name. 2. There are countless scholarly studies that suggest that the cognitive processes involved in listening to audiobooks & reading text are remarkably similar.
I hear text in my voice and my mind paints a visual picture. I hear text read by someone else and my mind paints a visual picture. Pedantry helps no one in this case. Let people access books in the way best for them, amirite?
And even if they weren’t similar, is the idea that brain processing type 1 is “better than” brain processing type 2? What is the scale used to measure “better”?
There isn't enough research into this question. Some, like Beth Rogowsky, claim there is little difference in comprehension. David Daniel, on the other hand, thinks there is.
But, as I explained in a way too long reply to someone else about this issue, life pushed me to giving audiobooks more of a try and once I did, I became a convert.
Obviously, the best scenario is that we are all literate, but given that nearly 1/2 of Americans don't read...
Just adding: my Nana went blind late, she never got to learn to use braille and her father also went blind and did not know braille (he was too poor). So audio books = friens. Esp for elders.
My Nana read THOUSANDS of books and it's one of the reasons why I have read so much. She had a grade six education and was born in 1927. Had to work young. Reading allowed her to educate herself.
Any use case that facilitates the reading of books is a good use case. I’m not blind, but I read far more books than I would otherwise because streaming audiobooks are available to me through the library.
For concerts providing sign language (a great practice), are the deaf attendees ‘listening’ or ‘experiencing’. Are the blind ‘reading’ or ‘experiencing’ the written word via audiobook?
I take this as a semantic argument as to whether the word ‘read’ implies use of eyes or not, not whether or not audiobooks are a valid way to experience language and ideas set to words.
Yeah, this drives me nuts. Life gets busy and there are times where, for me, I can’t spend hours physically reading a book. But I can listen while getting other tasks done or exercising and it’s great.
Audiobooks are a great resource and make literature accessible. But what’s with this obsession with efficiency? I think there’s something to be said for sitting down and focusing on a single task.
It’s just a stupid semantic argument. It’s like saying there’s a difference between driving a car and riding in a car, there is - kind of, but both people ultimately traveled by car.
I say this as someone with a disability who worked with children with disabilities, including vision impaired individuals.
I’m not ableist. I believe listening is different from braille/reading because you actively interpret symbols as opposed to passively listening to words.
I wonder though, why is it so important to so many to make that distinction. For those of us who can’t physically read a book it comes across as ableist and gatekeeping of the greatest hobby in existence.
Also, when I’m talking about books with people I absolutely say, “oh yeah, I read that last year”. Seems too much info to explain how I digested said book when the point gets across. Does that make sense?
I would say "I read that last year," and "I listened to that last year" are the same amount of information, so I don't really see the issue. Using more clear language is almost always the correct call.
My question is, why argue? Why not say “whatever makes y’all happy” and move on? I don’t get why people feel such a need to correct others (when they do so, I get that you were asked).
I assume because, let's face it, it takes a lot more effort to read a book than to listen to one. I can navigate thru city traffic while listening to Tolstoy. I couldn't do that while reading him.
I don’t listen to books while I’m multitasking for just that reason. When I go to bed at night I listen while mindlessly playing mahjong so I’m focused on the story.
I only recently got into audiobooks. Now I get to experience books in 3 ways. I find with audio I can visualise the story better. It’s great revisiting long time favourites this way
I would t call it reading, because reading doesn’t entail listening, but it absolutely counts as much as reading. People def take in language in better ways than others. My hearing/listening sucks. I prefer reading. But listening to an audio book is absolutely as valid.
I refuse to shame, or enable folks to shame others simply because they learn better from another format. They are STILL learning. Soon to be a revolutionary act.
2/2
I ain't gonna complain one bit about anything that exposes more people to books. I'm not an auditory learner. I even use close captioning on TV because my brain processes print better. I'm glad no one is shaming me for that.
1/2
To state the bleeding obvious, nobody who says "audiobooks count as reading" is making the literal claim that listening to an audiobook is identical interpreting symbols as language.
"Audiobooks count as reading" is a claim about the value of listening to audiobooks.
It's certainly just as valuable as reading in my view. It isn't literally reading in a rigid sense but if I've listened and attended to an audiobook then I have no problem saying I have read it, partly as there isn't a simple and widely understood alternative.
2/2 they wanna know if you learned & can discuss the book's ideas. And if you've listened to the audiobook, you can. So following gatekeeper logic, you should tell that person "NO! I know everything about it & can discuss it all day but I definitely didn't read it!" This is what makes sense to you 🙄
(1/2) and touching, smelling & tasting! There, now we both said something irrelevant. Each of you gatekeepers is being dishonest and pretending you don't know what "read" means in real life. "Have you read X?" has never been a question about what your eyeballs did while hovering over the pages...
Its completely relevant. Yall want to argue it's not reading when in every definition that matters it is. Your brain doesn't care eaithet way. Eyes or ears doesn't make a difference.
Comments
You can read a book, you can listen to a book being read, but they are different things. Both are equally valid ways to consume literature.
Reading a book and listening to someone reading a book are just not the same thing. But both are GREAT.
Audiobooks *are* reading, I agree with that, but my brain will not process words unless I can physically see them. 😭😭😭
Damn you, ADHD!!! *shakes fist at own brain*
I read 2-3 books a week, fiction e-reader.
But on audiobook? I can read a book a day.
Children listen to books being read to them. It's really no different for adults. Sometimes it's just nice to listen to someone read a book to you.
There's nothing wrong with it, but it is not reading.
However, if "reading" is considered the act of consuming written literary works, then sure, it counts.
That's not all that happens in the brain in either modality though.
No one cares, the experience is the same regardless of if you use your eyes or your ears. If there was a way to convey language through smell, I’d call that reading too.
Then again I just read the entire Beatles catalog so what do I know 🤷🏻♂️
I think this has to be clarified.
I do know that seeing folks calling it "ableist" to make a distinction between them gives me a similar irritation to the folks saying that "dismissing Ai art is ableist."
“I remember how many times I tried to read War and Peace until I got the Constance Garnett translation.” ― Ernest Hemingway, A Moveable Feast
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/11/07/the-translation-wars
#BookSky
Which I suppose if your considering reading as processing incoming information the argument is there.
But some of us like making new concepts that way
So it may be a way to farm Argus for such a theory.
On the other hand, I don’t know how names and places are spelled. 🫤
Btw does vitriol mean hate? I'm outdated. 👀
It takes me ages to get through a book because of dyslexia (auto spell). It is much more enjoyable in audio book.
Are audio books legitimate? Yes
Are listening and reading the same thing? No
Where are y'all seeing these? Not saying they don't exist, I just haven't seen em.
Fills the space but was it actually nutritious?
If you’re comprehending a book, it’s reading.
It’s like, literally listening.
Unless you are in a classroom learning the myriad of skills involved in reading, it doesn’t matter.
But audio vs visual IS different.
Did you also want to throw in students who are allergic to paper? Those who have an aversion to ink? Students who can’t stand prepositions?
I'm a voracious reader... of print, ebooks, and audiobooks. The joy I get is the same, regardless of format.
It is not entirely clear, however, that listening to an audiobook utilizes the same brain processes as reading a printed text.
However for fiction, I see almost no difference in the way my brain consumes & retains it as an audiobook vs as a printed book.
I'm not opposing the notion that audio books constitute reading, but it's processed in the brain much differently than visual or tactile comprehension. This is indisputable, imho.
I think it depends on the brain in question.
As a big reader, I was a snob about audiobooks...
https://time.com/5388681/audiobooks-reading-books/
Obviously, the best scenario is that we are all literate, but given that nearly 1/2 of Americans don't read...
https://bsky.app/profile/posthypnoticpress.bsky.social/post/3lblgoq2ss22b
How do they think blind people read before audiobooks?
I’m not ableist. I believe listening is different from braille/reading because you actively interpret symbols as opposed to passively listening to words.
"Audiobooks help me comprehend the book," or "an audiobook counts as experiencing a book" both work without getting into this arguement.
Their are dozens more studys and articles saying it activates the same regions of the brain.
I refuse to shame, or enable folks to shame others simply because they learn better from another format. They are STILL learning. Soon to be a revolutionary act.
2/2
1/2
"Audiobooks count as reading" is a claim about the value of listening to audiobooks.
It's like saying you're driving a car that's fully auto pilot. You're not. You're being driven.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326140#:~:text=Written%20by%20Catharine%20Paddock%2C%20Ph,processing%20difficulties%20such%20as%20dyslexia.
ALL this is saying is that your brain processes the symbolic meaning of the words the same. It says nothing about brain activity more generally