There's nothing wrong with listening to audiobooks as long as you're not multitasking
It only is when you're following along with the text
The point of audiobooks is that they enable multitasking.
sure, there is little difference if the book is very simple and has nothing difficult you need to sit with and digest.
>There's nothing wrong with not giving a book your full attentionRead less slop.
>>25544081Of course not. Listen to them all you want. Just don't go around saying you read the book later on, because you most certainly fucking did not.
>>25544081Retards seem to think the physical book is important not the words in the book. Guess what guys, it doesn't matter if the front cover is blue or red, or it's a hardcover or soft cover, or it's paper or an e-reader, or whether you listen or read the words. If you get the words in the right order, in your brain then you have read the book.
>>25544370No you didnt and you are fucking stupid if you think so
>>25544370Reading is the act of decoding symbols into sounds, then imagining those sounds inside your head without having heard them. It is absolutely not the same as listening to an audiobook. Would you say you've read the sounds of birds singing outside? Did you read the wind as it passed by? No, you did not. Because reading is a specific thing with a specific definition, and listening to an audiobook doesn't fit the definition.
>>25544387Literal 90 iq take, when I said I read a book. I am not simply saying that I took the symbols and turned them into internalized sounds. That's how a caveman would "read". When I say I "read" something, I mean I took the words and had some level of understanding or comprehension of them. If the words are verbal or auditory makes no difference, if you have comprehnsion of them. If you take 30 minutes, you can learn the sounds of the cryllic alphabet and be able to sound out any Russian word. You still can't read Russian, because you don't know what any of it means. I know you guys are very proud of the fact that you can turn symbols into sounds in your head. But the rest of us have passed the third grade and find that trivial. Not to brag or anything but seeing a word gives a very similar experience to hearing that word. In fact I find both to be of equal difficulty. It actually takes me no extra effort to read a word compared to hearing it, because again i passed the 9th grade.
>>25544441>seeing a word gives a very similar experience to hearing that wordI really don't think it does. Reading text on a page feels very different from having it read to you. Are you saying you don't feel that at all? Odd
>>25544450When I read, it feels like my internal narrator reading out to me. I can turnIt "off", if I want to read something fast and I still comprehend it. I think this is pretty normal no?
>>25544441What you say you do when you read is irrelevant. You don't get to redefine words just so you don't have to face reality. The word "read" has a specific meaning. It doesn't mean "consume a story".>desperate insultsNone of that matters. You are wrong and I am right. The word "read" has a specific meaning, and when you listening to a story, you aren't reading it. No amount of complaining will change that. It doesn't matter how it makes you feel, it doesn't matter how your brain processes the information, it doesn't matter what you can recall afterward. Reading is a specific action, and listening is a different action.
>>25544464This is just an assertion. Can you justify your claim? What normative authority do you appeal to? Can you read the room? This is dumb, so low tier.
>>25544370>or whether you listen or read the wordsYou were right up to this point. Notice how you had to say “listen or read” i.e. “x or y”? You had to say that because they aren’t the same thing. >If you get the words in the right order, in your brain then you have read the book.Except this is only true if you actually read the book, not if you listened to it.
shit that reminds me it's time to get in bed and listen to audiobooks, still listening to the one on enron gotta rewind tho cuz i kept falling asleep and now i'm not entirely sure what enron's innovation was, well i know one part was using an accounting gimmick to claim profits that were way in the future and speculative, but i think it was bringing contract like oil futures to natural gas? gotta relisten to the beginning
>>25544441>>25544465>reddit spacing>reddit seethe>What normative authority do you appeal to?Kekkkk. Just open a book bro. I hope you’re not out in the world LARPing as being “well read” because you half-absorb audiobooks you listen to at your desk.
>>25544465Sure. Nearly all dictionaries that contain a definition of the word "read" speak of the decoding of symbols to form sounds. None of them define reading as "like, you know, the vibe of the gist of the story, and stuff".Historically, before the age of intellectual disability, when people spoke about reading, they did so in the sense that I described, except when it colloquially meant something else (like reading a face). None of them would ever say they "read a news story" while listening to the radio, or "read a poem" while listening to music.I am not against anyone listening to audiobooks. But I am against this insecure redefining of words. Why even bother? Listening to an audiobook isn't worth less than reading a book, is it? If it isn't, then you have no need to redefine the word "read". And if it is you are being dishonest by trying to change the meaning of the word read to appear better than you are.Either way, listening isn't reading.
you dont even have to be literate to listen to an audiobook
>>25544464>>25544477Maybe you guys could audiobook something on the philosophy of semantics. Because you guys are getting absolutely filtered on the idea that people could use a word in a less than litteral sense.
>>25544485You have to be 18 to post here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYtC1iNys7Azased youtube algo dropped this fire rn
>>25544505oh shit i thought this was the write what's on your mind shit lmao
>>25544081Because I have a working faculty of imagination and prefer to come up different voices to the characters in a book
>>25544490But it isn’t semantics. You’re acting like two distinct actions are the same thing when they aren’t. It’s like saying drawing something with a pencil on paper is the same thing as drawing it in a program on a tablet. It isn’t. Reading a book takes more cognition than listening to someone else read it to you. Actually reading something forces you to engage with the material at a deeper level. They are entirely different methods of interpeting a text. You’re being disingenuous with yourself if you’re trying to cope saying they’re the same thing. They aren’t and they never will be.
>>25544486You want to pull this into a semantic game because you can't talk about the substance. >>None of them would ever say they "read a news story" while listening to the radio, They often did and still do. People say, I heard x from a friend, when there friend sent them a text message. Or they will say "did you see what Trump did with the tariffs?", when they could not visibly see Trump writing the eo on tariffs. Language is strange and is not always litteral. That being said when I say an audiobook is equivalent to reading. I am not confused about the what the strict dictionary definition of "reading" is. I'm saying that, in many cases an audiobook gives the same value as reading the book. And on the mind the two are essentially equivalent. (This is obviously not the case for complexe philosophy).Other people in this thread understand this.>>25544485>>. I hope you’re not out in the world LARPing as being “well read” because you half-absorb audiobooks you listen to at your desk.Here he claims you can't be well read by listening to audiobooks. Then he adds the implicit argument that that's because people who listen to audiobooks are just half absorbing them while they do something else. To this (probably) child's credit, he actually stayed far better on the substance than you did.
>>25544530The tablet versus paper analogy that you brought up is perfect. We very often call both "drawing" despite the fact that being on a tablet there is no pencil. In fact it's common to say that "I drew x with my mouse", despite a mouse being nothing like a pencil. Strict dictionary definitions don't always work.
>>25544545>You want to pull this into a semantic gameHere's a semantic game, the dumbest tribal african child could listen to a story being read to them and it wouldnt be any different from what your doing and claiming is 'reading'
>>25544578>> Proud of being able to readWhatever bro, I'm going to go fuck my hot Chinese girlfriend
>>25544587Put it in an audio file so I can 'read' it like you 'read' books, illiterate retard
>>25544578>wouldnt be any different from what your doing and claiming is 'reading'except one is actual reading while the other is listening to someone else read. How are you not understanding the difference?
25545163No you are not pretending to be retarded. You really think that way and do that.
>>25544530that's not even true. You can't engage intellectually with a lecture or sermon because you're using the wrong sense? you must think it's impossible to engage with a film until you read the screenplay. What a stupid cope. I understand you're very offended that people use the word read when they're no erm akschully technically reading words but it can be just as engaging as anything.
>>25544103No, the point is to listen to them. Duh.
>>25544081Does anyone actually sit down and listen to an audiobook? Lmao.
>>25545182I do prefer them while reclined when home or while walking when at the park.
>>25544587>Chinese girlfriendThat's genuinely pathetic to brag about, if you're white. It's like bragging about earning minimum wage, the slanteyes give it up as easy as breathing.
>>25545185You lazy illiterate fuck
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91gT68xeDMM
>> be 4th century greek person >> go to every lecture by Aristotle >>die >>go to heaven >> meet a /lit/eral retard >>"huh have you even read nicomachean ethics?" >>Yes I attended the lecture when he delivered the material >>"huh doesn't COUuNt, you didn't read it"
>>25545163Can you sub 90iq retards point out a single time anyone argued that listening to an audiobook is litterally reading? No one is confused about the definition of "reading", we are arguing that reading is roughly equivalent to listening to an audiobook.
>>25546142>Trust me bro, I’m just as focused on the material while in traffic or doing laundry as I would be if I was in person at a dedicated lecture of the author
>>25544578>>doesn't know what the word "semantic" means>>doesn't know that words can be used non literally >> thinks we are arguing about the definition of the word "reading" No wonder you hold so much pride in your ability to turn letters into sounds
I love listening to an audiobook as I sit outside and have a sesh on my front porch. IDC if that's considered multitasking or not.
Let's all agree that you are listening to me right now while I am talking to you.
>>25544081>never cared for audiobooks>my inner contrarian etches closer and closer towards wanting to do so due to all of the midwits bashing themthis is stealth marketing, innit?
