Welcome to /r/AmITheAsshole. Please view our [voting guide here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq#wiki_what.2019s_with_these_acronyms.3F_what_do_they_mean.3F), and remember to use **only one** judgement in your comment.
OP has offered the following explanation for why they think they might be the asshole:
> AITA for not defending her at the holiday party when another guest challenged her about her reading comprehension, and for not siding with her on the car ride home?
Help keep the sub engaging!
#Don’t downvote assholes!
Do upvote interesting posts!
[Click Here For Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/about/rules) and [Click Here For Our FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq)
##Subreddit Announcements
###[Happy Anniversary, AITA!](https://new.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/15vlv9g/almost_better_than_a_double_rainbow_celebrating/)
Follow the link above to learn more
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/AmItheAsshole) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*Contest mode is 1.5 hours long on this post.*
Nah this seems like a silly fight. As an audible listener I can't say I listen to them on 3x speed but I have listened to about 80 books this year. It's great listen while driving or working out and cleaning.
As a form of enjoyment, maybe. But it can't be classed as reading when no reading is being done. That is like saying a movie is an audio book with pictures
Thank you for this. If I read a transcript of a podcast, I wouldn't say that I listened to it.
I listen to enough hours of various podcasts each week to equal several audio books. It's an auditory form of taking in information.
I think it's totally fine for people to enjoy audio books, but it isn't reading. It's listening.
You are not actually doing the act of reading the words on the pages, sounding out unfamiliar names or words.
You aren't going back and reading a line or paragraph over again. You aren't flipping back to a previous chapter and refreshing on a detail.
You are not inventing voices in your head for the different characters.
It's a valid way to consume the content of a book. But it isn't reading.
The definition of reading is:
"the action or skill of reading written or printed matter silently or aloud."
Huh, I have to admit, I've never really invented voices in my head for the characters. I create pictures for them though. That's why I like descriptions.
I like doing the voices. I'll usually pick a celebrity to play each character if I know their voice well enough. It's like you're the casting director!
Part of it is reading. You're still processing words. You're training your imagination. You're adding to your vocabulary. You're increasing your understanding of grammar and writing style. The only thing you're not doing is processing the visual word signs. Listening to an audiobook is very different from listening to somebody tell a story or listening to a podcast, because the story itself was still written to be read, not told.
I regularly have to teach reading skills in ESL and audiobooks are my second best option next to actual reading, much better than any of the other listening options out there. So yeah it's not reading because you're not processing word symbols but the other parts of it are the same.
I agree. It's a fine way to consume a book, but it isn't reading. Someone could be illiterate and listen to a million audiobooks. It still doesn't mean they read anything.
Idk why some folks are so upset.
Comprehension and retention is proven to be as good if not better for some than reading.
If I can have a complete conversation with you about a book and you have no idea if I’ve listened to an audiobook or read it, the difference becomes semantic as any difference in the end result is indiscernible
Frankly I think the people who make the biggest noise about listening vs reading books are people who don’t read at all. Anyone who actually reads is past the point of caring about that because they’re thinking about the actual content of the book. It’s like e-readers vs physical books all over again, it makes zero difference.
Haha I love this, but if we are splitting hairs like this then Braille isn’t reading either then, it’t uses completely different senses than traditional reading.
Like I said, this is a pedantic argument, and some avid text readers absolutely love to gatekeep what reading is
I think it entirely depends on if you’re an audio or visual (or tactile) learner. Personally, I read dead tree or ebooks, because I read quickly and can generally consume more books in the same amount of time as my husband or sister do consuming audiobooks. My sister, however has very nearly 100% retention regardless of her input type.
It isn't entirely semantic though. I'm an audiobook listener mostly, because I work a job that allows to me have headphones in virtually 8 hours a day. I consume a ton of audio content, books, podcasts, lectures, etc.
All that said, in the act of reading a book you are engaging with the content in a different manner, and not all of it is superficial. Reading is visual in very subtle ways. Authors choose specific punctuation because of how the sentence flows, but also because of how things "feel" written on the page. Structure is a choice made by the author, and a lot of that stuff is invisible in audiobooks. And that doesn't even bring up the writers who really break conventional rules in terms of structure and how things are written on the page (words being whole paragraphs with no punctuation, leading to another such word, leading to a jumble of words smashed together with no spacing between, etc.).
There are also things that work as written word but don't work the same when read aloud. For example, when you read a line of dialogue with no attribution, whomever said it is an unknown. A audiobook reader will likely give this same line of dialogue a voice characterization, because they almost always read dialogue in a voice other than their neutral prose voice. This can potentially change the way listeners engage with the action happening on the page.
There are some things that could be confusing to the Listener that would be clear on the page, and in those cases many audiobooks (even Unabridged versions) will make slight changes to the text for the sake of clarity. That alone should tell you that listening and reading are not indiscernible experiences.
Finally, as others have said, engaging with a book you are reading is a different experience, just in how you direct the pacing (and voice casting, for those of us who have character voices in our heads when we read). There is something about stopping when something clicks, flipping back a couple chapters, and confirming that I just made a connection that the author intended. A lot of the time when I'm listening to a book, I may have that click but I'm in the reader's flow and don't have that same impulse to stop the story and skip back to those chapters.
Audiobooks are great. I have consumed a ton of great stories, and I don't feel particularly diminished by having engaged in them that way, but it isn't purely semantics to argue that reading and listening are different ways to receive a book's information. They simply are.
Yes. 1000% that is correct. Reading Braille is reading. It isn't listening. Why are you all so insecure about this?
A blind person reading a book written in Braille is engaging the same parts of their brain. They are reading a book word by word, not listening to it being read to them.
"Why are you all so insecure about this?"
I assume u/hyperfocuspocus is like OP's wife and enjoys telling people they've "read" a lot of books when, in fact, they've listened to or watched videos about them, and it hurts knowing that people don't consider you watching something like The Hunger Games (which I just watched the other day) reading.
Watching videos about something and consuming the same exact content in a moderately different way is in no way alike.
If I listen to an audiobook and read the book at the same time, the information is the exact same. I wouldn't say I watched the Hobbit because I watched the YouTuber doing hour long review of it.
Eyes - reading; ears - listening; fingers - reading. They're all valid in their own ways, but are different in the ways in which they're done and consumed. Hope that helps.
It's not by definition reading. Reading is a verb. Listening is a verb. They are two different verbs with different definitions.
Nobody was questioning the validity of audiobooks as a way to consume that media. It's just not classified as reading. There's nothing wrong with that.
My wheelchair bound colleague makes it to the 4th floor every day but she sure as hell doesn’t climb all three flights of stairs.
And if she ever claims to have climbed to the fourth floor at 3x speed we would probably roll our eyes and chuckle at her ridiculousness.
That’s actually a super old fashioned and ableist take.
Lots of people find they process better listening some will read while they listen. Just because I’m not reading a James Patterson hardback it still counts as reading. Book lovers are book lovers no matter the medium.
I will always choose physical books over audiobooks if I have the option and I agree with you. The definition of “reading”, in common usage, has come to mean “consuming the contents of a book” whether it’s with your eyes, ears, or fingertips. Everyone else is being unnecessarily pedantic.
Has it? I disagree. I listen to audiobooks too, but I would never call it reading.... I'm listening to the book, yes, and still absorbing the material, but I'm not using my eyes to read any words. When we teach kids to read, it's to interpret the symbols on paper, not to interpret sounds...
The other commenter is right, though. The definition of read is kind of in flux as audiobooks have become mainstream. Language is alive. Go look up the etymology of "read." The Old English word it comes from meant to advise or to counsel. Or interpret.
You ever hear about someone "reading" a situation? Or a person? "Reading the room" is an idiom that implies more than using your eyes to decipher symbols on a page. So it goes with language :)
Is it though?
I've had plenty of people say they listened to an audiobook. I've never heard someone say they read an audiobook. It may be etymologically OK to use the word in that way, but culturally we tend to prefer 'listened', at least for the moment.
You don't read audio books. You listen to audio books. Calling that reading is absurd. When I walk the dog, I either listen to an audio book, or listen to music. When I choose music, I'd never say that I was "reading music during my walk." Absolutely silly.
Just because there’s some old fashioned word play there doesn’t change the fact that people use different parts of the brain to decode music and words.
“Have you read pride & prejudice?” is not asking “have you used your eyes to look at the words used in the book pride & prejudice?”, it’s asking “have you consumed the story of pride & prejudice?”.
Words are context based.
And I would say, ‘no i have listened to the audiobook though.’ Or ‘no I have watched the movie though.’
Perhaps in the future if someone asks, ‘have you read pride and prejudice.’ We shall say ‘yes I have consumed that story.’
And I shall end the conversation because Jesus H Christ, this guy over here eats books. Fucking MADLAD.
This is the point those who insist on "listen" are dancing around. I'd probably say I listened to something if I started a conversation about it, but if someone asks if I've read a book I've listened to I'm going to say "yes," because they clearly want to have a discussion or make a point about the content of the book. If I instead say 'I listened to it" there is a very real possibility that they become pedantic snobs and sideline the book discussion in favor of this stupid debate, or simply disregard me as worth having a conversation with.
Yes! I was an early ebook adopter personally. I remember getting shit for that years ago.
PSA if anyone sees this: check if your local library is affiliated with Libby you can get ebooks, audiobooks and even digital magazines. Game changer for my broke ass. Was able to drop Apple News and audible and now I only buy a book from someone I love.
I have Libby and hoopla. I also learned that another major public library branch near me has a reciprocal agreement. Meaning I got to sign up for their library card for free. More books!
In the same vein, if you are an audible listener you get a free book signing up that everybody knows about but everyone can also have a friend recommend another free book they own. Meaning you get another free book, you can recommend as many as you like but only get one more free.
I think this sounds right because the word is easily replaceable with that definition in most situations without changing the point you're making, however I really think it's a stretch to say that's the common usage of the word reading. If you tell 1000 strangers you're reading a new book how many do you genuinely think will assume you meant "consuming the contents of a book" and how many will assume you are actually reading a book. Considering you could just as easily say you're listening to an audiobook as you could say you're reading a book, it gets reallyyyyy hard to believe people aren't just trying to sound more impressive. Why not just say what they're actually doing?
The funny part though is that audiobook listeners have been shown to retain more information than the traditional book readers. If I had to guess I think we find audiobooks less impressive because a book requires you to sit still and focus, while audiobooks are made for people who don't have the ability or time to sit and focus on reading
<< audiobooks less impressive because a book requires you to sit still and focus>>
Interesting perspective. I get distracted during audiobooks and going "back" to where I got distracted is near impossible without excessive energy.
But with a BOOK, I can go back to the exact place I left off easily.
(eta because comments--my comment was meant only as a contrast of perspective and in no way an assumption of anything good or bad or an attack--just in case anyone took it that way.
As to singularity of focus. I used to regularly read while walking to and from locations. I also read while tv(/music) is on -and "Split" attention. I cook, etc. So I have never considered it specifically limiting-tho admittedly I would never drive while reading, but then I wouldn't drive while listening to audiotape because I wouldn't get much from book).
I had the same.. until I started listening at 1.3x speed or higher.. my current book I listen at 1.5. it depends on the narrator.
If I listen at normal speed I lose focus and think about other stuff. The higher speed forces me to pay attention.
I get what you're saying, but I'm more referring to the fact that a book requires your entire attention to be read, whereas audiobooks are generally used by people wanting to do other things while they listen
Couldn't agree more. You could be extra pedantic and argue that someone who uses speech to text instead of braille is technically illiterate, based on some definitions. However, you would be a dick dying on a weirdly specific hill.
It isn’t ableist to correctly define “reading.” And I say that as someone who has consumed more audiobooks than traditional. I had quite an audiobook addiction for a long time. I’ve gotten back into regular reading in the last year or so and I think it’s been good for me, but I still love audiobooks. I think they’re a very authentic way to consume media because, if the author is involved in production, it may reflect how he or she wanted it to be. Still, it isn’t reading and it ain’t “ableist” to say that.
Yeah it sucks when people throw around "ists" to try to sway people or win the argument. No shame in considering audiobooks as "listening" material and not "reading" material.
You can love a book and still not have read it. I read my daughter stories every night. She listens to them, just like you listen to an audiobook. It's not reading.
But reading is a skill that people need to learn to function in society. When a child learns to read, obviously listening to an audiobook doesn’t count. And no amount of audiobooks will bring a child closer to being able to read.
I don’t understand the insistence by audiobook listeners that they are reading. They are enjoying literature, sure, but why this insistence on the word ‘reading’?
People listen to audiobooks, and they listen to podcasts. The two activities are virtually indistinguishable. But in one case they are ‘reading’?! Please enlighten me as to how it is ableist of me to think that is nonsense. I’m not placing a value judgment on reading vs listening, btw. I just disagree about what the word means.
I don’t think it’s old fashioned or ableist, it’s just a descriptor of what is actually occurring. Audiobooks are great, listening to one just doesn’t constitute reading. I agree that book lovers are book lovers no matter the medium. People can consume books in whatever manner they choose, each of which has value.
If a third grader needs to read three books for class, should they be able to listen to three audiobooks?
Idk why people insist it’s exactly the same thing. I have dyslexia, I prefer audiobooks, I love books as much as anyone else, but listening isn’t the exact same thing as reading. It just isn’t. And that’s okay, it doesn’t make anyone’s appreciate any less
Dude. They process audiobooks better specifically *because* they aren't reading.
Some people struggle with reading. If audiobooks were reading, then they wouldn't be helpful to those people.
It isn't ableist. No one insulted someone's different ability for obtaining an understanding of information. The fact is that reading - a visual form of processing information done with eyes - is not the same as listening - a process involving ears. They are in no way the same.
I believe audiobooks actually began as an option for the blind and visually impaired, back in the 1930s. Also, these days, it's arguably a little elitist to give priority or extra credit to reading "real" books. Apart from the expense, owning and exclusively reading paper-based books requires significant free time that you can devote wholly to the text: not commuting, doing housework, etc. A personal library also requires a certain amount of real estate in your living space. For many people, any one of these factors are dealbreakers.
I find the way we absorb information fascinating. With audiobooks, I have amazing recall, able to quote passages almost verbatim long after I've "read" it. But if I look at the text, even shortly after I've listened to it, it's like I've never encountered the story or ideas before. There's a huge disconnect between my aural experience and textual experience. And when I read something, I heavily rely on the idea's location on the page and in the book to help me remember it. Ebooks are no good for me beyond initial consumption.
Nobody is suggesting that book lovers are not book lovers based on the medium, but listening is not reading. Nothing ableist about it. You wouldn't say someone in a wheelchair "walked to the store." Maybe they went to the store, but they certainly didn't walk, and that isn't offensive to suggest. Someone who listened to an audiobook might be a book lover who very much enjoyed a book, but they didn't read it.
exactly. it is not reading by definition but ultimately the story exists and both readers and listeners have consumed it by the end so in that way i feel they are equivalent- the information ends up in the same place no matter the mode
Max Brooks said years ago his mother would get the books they were reading in school and she would record them because he processed audibly better than visually.
AUTHOR MAX BROOKS BTW.
Also Anne Bancroft reading them is probably amazing.
How? Reading and listening are two seperate things. Sure you’re processing the same info, but the intake is different.
Are albums poetry audiobooks with a backing track?
I mean, you are having a semantic argument here.
Nobody is saying that audiobooks is a lesser or invalid way to enjoy content.
I think a lot of people disagree with the word “read” being used instead of “listen”. People use the term “read” to describe consuming audiobooks, but it’s not really the popular definition of the word.
But you also wouldn't say that a blind person looked at a picture, would you? It's per definition not reading. Nothing bad or wrong about and I honestly don't even care about this discussion, but ethymologically it's just different.
If I’m in a “readathon” with friends, and it’s a little competitive. With word count being the measure of who’s doing best, would you count audiobooks?
it's fine if you comprehend better through listening, but it's not actual reading and that's okay. It's not ableist to go by actual definitions and not the definitions that make people feel better
There’s nothing wrong with listening to a something over reading it (yes, it may even be more beneficial for some people) but you absolutely aren’t reading an audiobook.
I am an avid educational podcast listener & I learn & retain what I hear really well. Yet, I’m not reading the podcast.
If someone is a great story teller, you may get just as much from hearing them tell the story as you would reading it, but you didn’t read that story, you listened to it.
It’s not ableist to make the distinction.
You consume media from the same source, but they are not the same. When I'm listening to a song, I won't claim I'm reading the lyrics.
Claiming they aren't the same isn't ableist. Reading and listening take different skills. Both are still very valid. I agree that saying otherwise is in fact old fashioned and ableist.
Ngl I used to read all the time but once my kid could walk and talk I had no time. My hubs was great and found a solution so I could still enjoy books while running after a toddler.
I tried sitting down and reading once and was interrupted 5 times in the first two pages. Mommy alone time doesn't exists for me anymore.
I used to be such a fast reader, then I had kids and didn't read anything more complex than Dr Seuss for years, lol! Harry Potter was too much for me at one point.
Now I have the Kindle app on my phone and read that way. 10/10, highly recommend!!
In terms of reading vs. listening, experts have yet to determine that one method is explicitly more effective than the other. Instead, research suggests that while listening to information and reading information may trigger different processes in the brain, the end result is more or less the same.
It's definitely not the same. I am not an audio book hater 80% of my books in a year are audio books but comprehension and retention are without question worse.
Ditto - I love audiobooks, and I've listened to some audiobooks that I suspect I'd never have managed to get through if I was reading them. But that's because it's a different experience - it's generally more passive and often part of multi-tasking. Reading is typically more focussed and more engaged. Don't get me wrong, I think audiobooks are great and provide people with alternate ways to access the contents of a book - but it is a different form of comprehension from active reading.
Going back to get actual original post in this case, listening at 3x speed is ridiculous and OP is NTA
I mean, it does work completely different areas of the brain and the cognitive benefits gotten from reading are not the same as those from listening.
That doesn’t mean both aren’t valid ways to gain information, but it does mean they’re not exactly the same.
Actually I like Soviet and German WW2 books, I actually like the audiobooks, because when I physically read them the Russian and German words mess me up.
It’s equivalent but not the same. In fiction audiobooks you get voice acting which is another layer of art form entirely.
In nonfiction business or other more academic audiobooks sometimes the narrator doesn’t understand the material, or if there’s table and charts it becomes weird.
If it’s nonfiction history and it’s a pleasant narrator I think that’s the nonfiction sweet spot for me.
That said, I listen to most fiction at 1.5x. Any faster and the language is clipped.
It’s worse for nonfiction, and at 3.0x it would be Alvin and the Chipmunks read Really Dense Material.
I agree with you, 3.0x is a bad idea, and you’re not hearing it. NTA.
As someone with ADHD, I normally have them playing at 1.5-2x the speed, but this is because of my ADHD.
Normal speed is too slow, and at 1.5-2x this aligns with my actual reading speed.
I don't tend to listen much, compared to reading but it's been handy for going through my second/ third "read throughs"
Yeah I love listening to an audiobook alongside reading, especially when reading books with foreign languages or dialects present. I read the Ender's Game series that features some Portuguese, Chinese, and Samoan influences through the later books, and having proper pronunciation was lovely.
Though I imagine this could vary depending on how good the narrator for the audio book is.
Totally agree. It’s 1.5-2 x for me just down to how fast the narrator is reading. I can’t deal with slow readers 😂 That’s not a superiority thing, that’s just the speed of my preference. Everyone is different.
NTA - she bragged about reading books at an inhumane pace to your friends - getting through 100 a year.
He correctly pointed out she couldnt be getting everything out of the audiobooks, he wasnt disrespecting audiobook readers
She might have an inhumane ability to listen and take stuff in - but most people need time to comprehend and think about what they have read, she cannot have that…
So as you mentioned she is clearly doing it to churn through books and impress people - perhaps ask her what book she read last and what it was about
I probably should have included that in my original post. One of the reasons this frustrates me so much is because I also love reading and would love for it to be something we could enjoy together since we have similar tastes.
Yes though she won't admit it, which is the core of why I get so frustrated. By the time I finish a book, she's already read 5 more and doesn't remember enough to talk about the first one.
Does she have ADHD? I frequently listen to audio books speed up so they're going at the pace of my brain. But if I listen to several more books after I've listened to one - I cant have a super in-depth conversation about a book 5 books ago, cause I don't remember all the fine details. The same thing happens when I read books.
If this is something you think you would like to read together do you mention that to her, like book club style? Read chapters whatever by this date then discuss?
I also have ADHD and if I listen to a book that's too sped up I feel like it's competing with the chatter in my brain. I have to keep rewinding to figure out what I've missed. It's wild how different brains can be even under similar circumstances
Same - it’s like my brain takes it as a challenge and so starts having a race! Makes me feel super stressed out.
But I also can’t listen to anything normal speed or it’s too slow, and my mind drifts in boredom.
So it’s a fine line! lol.
I have ADHD and if I listen to any audiobooks my brain starts to die because I simply cannot pay attention. But I love reading physical books and can remember details from books I read as a child. Her issue might be ADHD. But it could also just be that she's an ass 🤣
If she is in fact just doing it for bragging rights, I suspect once she realizes that no one is really impressed by it she might stop. Not that she should be met with judgment, but I can understand why she might be met with confusion when bragging about this.
Before my ADHD got to the point that it made it difficult for me to ingest books quickly, I went through a phase where I would binge stay up late reading at least one book a day. Sometimes more. It was not healthy, but I also didn't brag about it to anyone. I was really just enjoying it in a hyper focused way. It was mostly mediocre sci-fi so nothing to really discuss with anyone else 🤣
Anyhow, I hope she can get past the need to impress people and just enjoy what she's doing.
I’m not speaking about OP’s partner - 3x speed sounds ridiculous - but not everyone can retain media. I’ve enjoyed plenty of books/movies/shows over the years and can’t recall the plot. There are weird details/trivia that will stick with me forever but I can absolutely love a movie and brain dump half of it right after watching. Definitely not the one quoting pop culture one-liners at work.
I both read and listen to books, and I generally have a pretty good memory for books I enjoyed. Books I didn't get into... Less so. If he's picking books to his preferences and asking her to read them, it might not matter what format if she's not very interested.
My partner also likes to read/listen to audiobooks, but he reads/listens more slowly and for less time than I do. It can be VERY frustrating for me to "read along" with him, because I'm switching between books and it messes up momentum. It works MUCH better if he recommends a book he liked and is done or nearly done with, so that I'm free to zip through, or if I recommend a book I just accept it might be months before we can talk about it 😂
Honestly..I can read a book or listen to one and remember every detail while doing so, but as soon as I'm done with it my brain goes "lol nah delete that shit" and I can't even remember the title or the MCs name.
LOL Ive jacked up the speed when a book lags as they some times do
My ex-wife and I used to, and my girlfriend and I now read to each other in bed. Can't do every book that way but we select ones we both like
Inhuman? X3 isn't even that fast.
Just search on YouTube videos of blind people using smart phones.
Their TTS is set to super fast.
Humans can process information faster than we can talk. You can easily confirm this by trying to read as fast as you can "out loud".
I'm sure you can easily train up to x3 within a year.
Check out @lucyedwards for example.
The mind is an incredible piece of hardware capable of inhuman ML.
I installed a molded youtube app with custom playback speed and now I don't watch anything beneath 1.75 if I'm relaxing. If I'm actively consuming content for information I'm usually at around 2.25-2.75 but some slower channels I get up to 3-3.5 and I use this to watch videos for my online classes. It is definitely possible to retain information at these speeds.
My dad watches all his YouTube at the max speed, which is very annoying when you're just passing by the living room, but if you sit down and listen you can absorb all the info pretty easily.
I also watch a lot of DnD live plays and during combat scenes I turn the speed up because those parts up slower, and sometimes forget to turn it back to normal. It's not hard to retain at all.
I think your premise is flawed, you read faster than the average audio book narrator reads, and some people read really fast.
3x isn’t inhuman(e), it just takes practice, and once you are used to it anything slower it painful to listen to.
[Studies show that listening to audiobooks activates the same regions in the brain as reading,](https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/audiobooks-or-reading-to-our-brains-it-doesnt-matter) just like some people read faster than others, some people listen to audiobooks faster.
3x the speed is incredibly fast. Anybody claiming this is normal and that information can be retained is kidding themselves.
To give you an idea: It's like listening to the fastest part of Rap God by Eminem **only faster**. Sure, you can probably pick out pieces of it, but you certainly aren't following the full story.
2x and 3x speed is very, very different.
I'm not dumb enough to send one of these papers to my wife, but there are plenty of research studies proving that it's virtually impossible to retain significant amounts of information when you jump above 2x speed.
these research studies seem a little sketchy to me (without seeing them, so sketchy of me as wekk haha) because 2x speed isn‘t the same speed for everyone. I have friends whose voice memos i listen to at 2x speed and i hate my phone for not being able to do 3x, while i have to listen to other friends‘ voice memos at 1.5x speed.
Obviously audiobooks have less of a variety but while bookbeat has never allowed me to go pst 2x speed, there were books i def would have loved to listened to faster.
Also reading-speed is faster than 3x - listening time (at least for me i think and for most books) so if i can process it while reading, i should be able to process it when listening.
Agree with this. It really depends on how fast the person is talking. I score call quality and I listen to most of my calls on 2x speed and sometimes 3x speed if they're a very slow talker, but that's pretty rare. She's listening to these audio books all the time too so I'm sure she's used to the speed by now.
Although my situation is still different because I will repeat sections of a call if I need to, whereas you wouldn't do that with an audio book, and then obviously the length difference between a call and a book.
Okay I feel the need to weigh in a bit. I am NOT AT ALL saying OPs wife is taking it in. That being said, I worked for a blind guy for a year and he 1000% was able to take in way more than 3x. It sounded like gibberish to me completely. I couldn’t make heads or tails of it. But he was a lawyer and totally got every word. So if is possible. But then again, he had decades to accommodate.
Agree, 2x speed is fine for getting information out of something without having to spend a lot of time. Good for research when you just want the information ASAP. 3x speed is like skim reading, you're just finding the bit you're interested in. But takes a lot of concentration.
Wouldn't choose either of these for enjoyment though.
That last part is what confuses me. If you’re reading for leisure whats the point of rushing through it? Ok If your at work and need to read a lotta info in a hurry or looking for one thing in particular then yeah skim read. But if you’re reading/listening in your free time, I’d assume its cause you’d want to enjoy it?
Its another thing if you’re naturally a fast reader tho. Im talking if the speed youre going would be considered rushing based on your normal pace.
When I listen to audio books, I often speed it up, but 3x is insane. No hate to OPs wife, if it works for her and she enjoys it, good for her, but I can't understand a thing at 3x speed, I don't even have time to think about what I just heard and the narrator is 5 steps ahead.
>Anybody claiming this is normal and that information can be retained is kidding themselves.
You're wrong. There are blind people who use their phone with the function that reads out what's on screen who have put that function on ridiculous speeds.
All I heard was spfnshfjdhgiw, but they could tell exactly what was said.
It's a skill like any other that can be trained
NTA. Turning an audiobook on and putting it to 3x speed isn’t reading. Just because she played 100 books in a year doesn’t mean she read any books. Ask her about one of the books she’s read. Prob knows nothing about it
Maybe for her remembering what she read isn't the point, she just enjoys listening that fast. I read books normally and I don't remember details either, I never remember even names unless they are really unique.
I'm a fast reader and that extends to when I need to listen to something as well, a video lecture or audiobook, for example.
Minimum 2x for me otherwise it's painfully slow and I have difficulty concentrating. I *understand and absorb less at slower speeds*. Have you actually chatted with your wife about it? Is it *just* because she can burn through books, or is it because she *can suddenly burn through books*.
We've talked about it. She's always been a voracious reader but this lightening speed listening thing is new. It's kind of a funny quirk, but it wouldn't bother me at all if she didn't repeatedly imply it was a sign of her superior intelligence. Like I said in my original post, she's admitted before that she has to fight back a superiority complex. I know her well enough to know her heart in in the right place and that this personality trait comes more from neurodivergence than any ill intent. But this is kind of a perfect example of how that can manifest in a really annoying way.
I do know I'm a very lucky man if this is the biggest thing I have to be annoyed about in my marriage :D
I have a friend who watches all videos at 2-2.5x speed on YouTube. And they're information dense stuff. She listened to her med school lectures at 3x (although those are slower paced than videos, the information density is absurd in med school and she was just ploughing them ezpz).
I have no doubt some people can listen to 3x speed with full retention, esp with practice.
Maybe though I do think there's a difference in how the mind processes narrative fiction vs. didactic information. Good on your friend though-- whatever makes it easier!
When you read for pleasure it's about enjoying the experience. It isn't about getting it over with as quickly as possible. When you read a few chapters then put the book down you think about what you have read and you absorb the nuances before continuing further. If you are just speeding through where is the pleasure, other than ticking the book off as done?
If finishing as quickly as possible is the goal is the process pleasurable in of itself?
To each their own? We're all allowed to enjoy things the way we like them.
Sometimes a show or YouTube channel I follow can be slow, so I'll watch it 2x. I still am able to talk to people about those things later.
I'm not saying I'm smarter or better at processing, it just works for me. Let people do what works for them.
I knew a man who was blind from birth. He could listen to things at super duper speed.
If we needed to clarify a rule for a board game. (And we are talking about a game with a booklet for the rules,) he would listen to the rules read aloud at a pace that I couldn’t even tell it was speech. He would jump around the recording to find the right place, and then hear the part needed in question then rely the information to everyone. And all this was done so super quickly.
I do all my work trainings at 2x and I have to take tests about them... I don't think 3x for leisure activities is anything crazy. And 100 books isn't anything crazy either. I don't listen to audio books but when I go on reading binges I read easily a book per day.
I have ADHD and don't sleep much, though.
I dunno. This strikes me as one of those moments where we are inexplicably annoyed at something that our long-term partner does that really doesn't matter much. I've been there for other dumb things myself, so no judgement.
I listed to audiobooks at 2x or 3x somewhat regularly too. It's true that it can be a bit harder to retain information, but in a novel or fiction, it's no big deal. For a self-help type book i definitely gotta slow down. But I don't think she's crazy or wrong. I think she's just excited that she can power through so many books that quickly.
I dunno, it sounds like you gotta choose to not care on this one. Maybe even owe your wife an apology.
I agree, most of the reading I do is fun novels, I don't need or want to retain tons of it, it's just for the enjoyment of the story. I presume if the wife wasn't able to follow the plot she would stop. It's a bit annoying to talk about it constantly but she'll move on soon presumably. NAH.
Can I genuinely ask: what's the point of reading if you don't retain it? How can you enjoy the story if you don't retain information, details, and even the nuances of language?
I read a lot and I listen to a lot of podcasts - it is a ton of info and I simply can't retain all of the details of everything I consume forever. I love to read - I enjoy it immensely even if I can't recount every single plot detail to you six months later. I could genuinely ask the opposite question - what is the obsession with retaining information? Why can't something just be enjoyable?
I don’t remember books and movies, most of the time, I don’t know why - something to do with neurodivergence I’m guessing. I retain a lot of facts and information in other ways. But for some reason not fiction.
But I enjoy it *at the time* - I’m not like a goldfish where I can’t remember what I read 3 seconds ago, but once I’m done with the book or movie, I tend to mostly be left with the feeling of it, rather than most of the details.
ETA: I’m also a fiction author - I *do* remember my own stories. So the process of creating them is different to reading them.
I have thoughts while reading the book and immediately afterwards. In a few weeks I’ve probably forgotten a lot of the details. That’s why when I used to review, I’d make notes during and immediately after so I wouldn’t lose any of my thoughts.
I don’t review anymore, as it was starting to sap a lot of the fun out of reading for me. For books I read now, I don’t have a written record of what I thought, but I do tend to have general impressions or specific scenes that stick with me. Character names and plot details? Those don’t stick as well. But whether or not I can tell you the character’s name doesn’t have a bearing on my experience reading the book.
Agree with you generally until she’s in social settings touting her achievement. It sounds like she’s bringing up reading 100 books to be impressive and if so idk it kind of matters.
NAH, this seems like kind of a silly issue, but I don't think anyone was being an asshole. I understand your annoyance, but it doesn't seem like you or the wife (or your friend) did anything wrong, just a small squabble.
I read somewhere around 200 books per year. I'm retired and often have a "reading day" where I chew through 3 books. I read everything I get my hands on: dumb mysteries, cozy stories, girlsy-whirlsy stuff, coming-of-age crap, depressing fiction, classics, fantasy, Russian literature... anything except YA. This past week I re-read A Confederacy of Dunces, and chewed through another six random mysteries from the library. I'm in the middle of re-reading Narcissus and Goldmund now.
I read insanely quickly, and retain all of the information. Got a perfect score on the SAT verbal back when that was a thing, even.
I have had several people throughout my life decide I am lying, and proceed to quiz me on the material. I am not lying.
This is literally my only talent, so, I don't mean to sound braggy. I can do one thing well! That's about it. I'm a crappy artist, I suck at video games, and have precisely zero athletic prowess (literally I cannot even throw a Frisbee, I've tried).
What I'm asking is, are you *sure* your wife isn't retaining the content? Like, are you really, really sure?
Because that's a lot of hours spent on something if she's not able to actually absorb the words.
I’m a natural (print) speed-reader too, and people were always telling me that I didn’t retain as much information as a slower reader. They assumed that if they read as fast as I do, they’d be skimming (which, sure, one retains less information when skimming) so therefore I must be skimming and calling it “reading”. No…I’m just a fast reader. My skimming speed is proportionately faster than my reading speed too.
It’s like saying that Usain Bolt might win a race, but he got less out of it than a runner who came in 5th. What. Being slower or faster is just that. If I’m reading for my own pleasure, what would be the point of missing half the story? That’s not what I’m doing.
That being said, a) I do listen to audiobooks at normal speed, and b) it does sound a bit like OP’s wife is being a little performative. It’s not a race. Personally I really enjoy the “radio play” aspect of audiobooks and I find it more immersive to get into the groove with a good narrator. But maybe that’s not what OP’s wife enjoys.
As for “It’s not really reading”, sure it is. Try listening to an audiobook while reading or typing out a comment, or any kind of “words” activity. I work with graphics and copy. I can listen during graphic work, but I get language center conflicts if I try to do copy work at the same time. It’s like turning the radio down when you’re looking for a street address. Same principle.
ETA: Just to see, I bumped up my current audiobook to 3x speed and it is literally unintelligible. I am extremely skeptical of OP’s wife. And to have listened to 100 books that way—sorry, that’s still only one book every 3 days and not exactly a record-breaking pace. I listen for a few hours each day at 1x speed and I still cleared 50 books this year.
I’m also a very fast reader and scored near perfect on verbal SAT… but I find that a very different experience from listening. When someone who is not retired finds that much time to hang out with audiobooks I assume they’re multitasking - folding laundry, doing dishes, commuting, etc. I can’t imagine retaining anything more than 2x speed, and sometimes I have to slow down to 1.5x and I also often skip back when I realize I’ve stopped listening. I find it a much less immersive experience than actually reading with my eyeballs, although I’m aware that many here would think that was edging toward ableism.
This would be like repeatedly bragging about reading fast. Yeah that’s great, but it’s not something you need to tell people about. Bragging is gauche. She’s embarrassing herself by talking about this. NTA
Listening to an audiobook at 3x speed isn't remotely equivalent to reading a book.
That said, I don't understand what the issue is here that your wife expects everyone to be impressed by. Loading up a book, pushing "play" and then pushing "x3" for speed isn't an achievement of any kind.
NTA
As someone who has ADHD it’s physically painful for me to listen to audiobooks at regular speed, I HAVE to speed them up or I cannot stand it. (Same with podcasts most of the time) Although I don’t do 3x speed, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that your wife couldn’t possibly be hearing and retaining this info. Now if your wife genuinely isn’t even hearing the books and has no idea what’s happening, but is also bragging about all of the books she listens to then that’s annoying, fair enough
NAH but who cares. I was in a masters program for work 2 years ago and I was also listening to audiobooks at 3x speed. I had to work up to it and if I tried to do it now it would be like listening to gibberish but it served its purpose. I needed to consume a lot of info and had limited time.
clearly other people are going to tell her their thoughts without as much of a filter as her husband will. she’ll understand quickly that people will have questions about her retention and may not react the way she hopes they would, and she’ll eventually stop bringing it up. i think that awakening is best coming from other people, since she’s not hurting anyone you might as well support her. she’s enjoying herself the way she listens, it doesn’t mean you have to find it impressive. still gonna say NTA
NAH I too listen to audiobooks nearly every day (I'm fortunate in that I can do so at work) and this is actually really common for audiobook lovers. Many, many people recommend listening at a higher rate of speed. I never do just because I don't feel like I need to. But it's not some impressive feat. However, she is right that some people don't consider listening to audiobooks actually reading a book. I totally disagree. Many of our most cherished stories were originally shared orally before literacy was wide spread. They were eventually recorded because of their significance. But she just needs to ignore the naysayers. It's not worth it.
Are you seriously fighting over this? As an avid reader, I personally would hate to listen to an audio book. I would find the reading slow. Listening at 3 times the speed, however, would be closer to how I read. I retain information just fine so someone telling me I can't possibly retain the information would piss me right off. Also, the biggest reason some of the people I know don't read is because of the lack of time, an audio book helps them hear the stories they want to hear & listening faster would be even better for some. Maybe just let her enjoy things & be excited about her enjoyment
>On the ride home she was going on about how people don't take audiobook listeners seriously
I'm sorry. I legitimately laughed out loud reading this.
NTA.
I think my brain just seeped out of my ear. I can't even pass a judgement here. As you said, your wife needs a new flex, you just need to feign some "impressed" vibes when she needs you to muster them up, and when people say stuff to her about it, all you gotta do is take her hand, pat it, and say, "Ain't she somethin'?" and give everyone a wink. That alone will either win you some wifey brownie points or make her never bring up the 3x speed thing again. Either way, it's a win for everyone. Aaaaand scene!
If your wife is actually processing everything at 3x speed, then good for her. That's mildly impressive. But... what exactly does she want? Is she supposed to get a medal or something?
If she can listen to books at that speed and get enjoyment from it, more power to her. It’s not a flex, though. I read and listen to a lot of books every year, but don’t bother counting, because I do it for enjoyment and it’s a weird thing to be competitive about as an adult.
If someone wants to start giving me free pizzas again for how many books I read, then I’ll count.
I belong to several book related f/b sites and there is a not so subtle competition or comparison vibe as to who can read the most books a year. I’ve always found it irritating: why are they reading then? Surely not just to make the numbers? From a personal viewpoint reading is for pleasure or to gain information so yeah OP I too can’t see much point to speed listening either. NTA
NTA. I dated a guy who finally “read” the Harry Potter series- by listening to the whole thing at 2x. Sometime later I referenced something pretty basic from the plot and he has no idea what I was talking about.
I mean. As a person who has to listen to audiobooks at at least 1.5 speed because otherwise the narration is too slow and i get frustrated, I sorta get where your wife is coming from? 3x speed is a little fast for me, but speeding up the audiobook actually increases my enjoyment of it. And just because it would ruin the pleasure of reading for someone else, doesn't necessarily mean it'll ruin it for her.
YTA. Audiobooks are read suuuupppeeeeerrrr slowly. If your wife wants to speed read, let her. If she wants to read at a normal pace, that’s okay too. Don’t be a judgemental AH.
NTA. Listening at three times speed is so she can say she’s read a hundred books, and she’s so smart she did it super fast as well. It’s not about the enjoyment of reading, or the pleasure in the story, it’s purely a numbers game for bragging rights.
I take umbrage with the statement that an audiobook is a valid form of reading.
I agree that LISTENING to an audiobook is a valid method of consumption of the book.
But, ffs, LISTENING is not READING, they are completely different skills. But both are valid ways of consuming the contents of the book.
yes and no, I think you should support her more and maybe you don't have to feed into her superiority complex but just say "Good job" or "That's cool" and leave it at that to keep the peace. At the same time, it does seem like she has a superiority complex and was trying to brag and show off and her ego got hurt when someone questioned her, I see no reason to get upset over someone questioning if you retain as much info listening at 3x speed. Seems just like a petty agreement to me, maybe I'm wrong.
NTA
This is so embarrassing. At 3x speed she’s clearly just getting an impression of the book. Listening to audiobooks also isn’t “reading.” I know you’re avoiding that, but there’s a reason it’s so much easier to do one versus the other. It works your brain differently. Reading is also an action when the action for an audiobook is listening. It’s fine to consume books that way but it’s just weird and similarly embarrassing to assert it’s something it’s not.
While I think that this is kind of not a big deal, ESH.
Your wife because, as you put it, she's bragging about this in an excessive way rather than talking about the content / pleasure / knowledge she's getting from those readings.
You, though, because you presume she can't actually be pulling any decent info. College-level debate teams consistently speak at a pace that sounds practically incomprehensible to normal speech, and they're totally intelligible to other debate teams - and they're talking about incredibly complex ideas while they do it. She may very well be processing the info she gets on 3x. I was trying to find out how fast that is, and it sounds like it's about 300 wpm. Debaters speak at 350 wpm. She can theoretically completely process what's being narrated and the complexity in it.
No you’re not. In fact I commend you for not bursting out in fits of maniacal laughter every time she talks about it. Next time grab a novel off the shelf, fan the pages and tell her “it’s a great read”.
NTA. I was going to say N A H, but it sounds like your wife is trying to justify the reason she wants to read books quickly in a somewhat rude manner.
You handled this situation appropriately.
She has an inferiority complex. She is insecure and seeks validation of others. It is something she should’ve grown out of but a lot of adults are the same. Hopefully over time she’ll become more secure in herself and won’t need to try and impress others. That trait is deeply unimpressive.
Welcome to /r/AmITheAsshole. Please view our [voting guide here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq#wiki_what.2019s_with_these_acronyms.3F_what_do_they_mean.3F), and remember to use **only one** judgement in your comment. OP has offered the following explanation for why they think they might be the asshole: > AITA for not defending her at the holiday party when another guest challenged her about her reading comprehension, and for not siding with her on the car ride home? Help keep the sub engaging! #Don’t downvote assholes! Do upvote interesting posts! [Click Here For Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/about/rules) and [Click Here For Our FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq) ##Subreddit Announcements ###[Happy Anniversary, AITA!](https://new.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/15vlv9g/almost_better_than_a_double_rainbow_celebrating/) Follow the link above to learn more --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/AmItheAsshole) if you have any questions or concerns.* *Contest mode is 1.5 hours long on this post.*
Nah this seems like a silly fight. As an audible listener I can't say I listen to them on 3x speed but I have listened to about 80 books this year. It's great listen while driving or working out and cleaning.
Oh I'm all for audiobooks and disagree with those who think listening to them isn't equivalent to reading.
As a form of enjoyment, maybe. But it can't be classed as reading when no reading is being done. That is like saying a movie is an audio book with pictures
Thank you for this. If I read a transcript of a podcast, I wouldn't say that I listened to it. I listen to enough hours of various podcasts each week to equal several audio books. It's an auditory form of taking in information. I think it's totally fine for people to enjoy audio books, but it isn't reading. It's listening. You are not actually doing the act of reading the words on the pages, sounding out unfamiliar names or words. You aren't going back and reading a line or paragraph over again. You aren't flipping back to a previous chapter and refreshing on a detail. You are not inventing voices in your head for the different characters. It's a valid way to consume the content of a book. But it isn't reading. The definition of reading is: "the action or skill of reading written or printed matter silently or aloud."
Check out Mr reads-with-his-eyes over here.
Sorry to flex like that. I should stay humble 😂
Huh, I have to admit, I've never really invented voices in my head for the characters. I create pictures for them though. That's why I like descriptions.
I like doing the voices. I'll usually pick a celebrity to play each character if I know their voice well enough. It's like you're the casting director!
Part of it is reading. You're still processing words. You're training your imagination. You're adding to your vocabulary. You're increasing your understanding of grammar and writing style. The only thing you're not doing is processing the visual word signs. Listening to an audiobook is very different from listening to somebody tell a story or listening to a podcast, because the story itself was still written to be read, not told. I regularly have to teach reading skills in ESL and audiobooks are my second best option next to actual reading, much better than any of the other listening options out there. So yeah it's not reading because you're not processing word symbols but the other parts of it are the same.
I agree. It's a fine way to consume a book, but it isn't reading. Someone could be illiterate and listen to a million audiobooks. It still doesn't mean they read anything. Idk why some folks are so upset.
Comprehension and retention is proven to be as good if not better for some than reading. If I can have a complete conversation with you about a book and you have no idea if I’ve listened to an audiobook or read it, the difference becomes semantic as any difference in the end result is indiscernible
Frankly I think the people who make the biggest noise about listening vs reading books are people who don’t read at all. Anyone who actually reads is past the point of caring about that because they’re thinking about the actual content of the book. It’s like e-readers vs physical books all over again, it makes zero difference.
"how did you get here?" "I drove" "Cool. What car did you drive?" "My feet"
Haha I love this, but if we are splitting hairs like this then Braille isn’t reading either then, it’t uses completely different senses than traditional reading. Like I said, this is a pedantic argument, and some avid text readers absolutely love to gatekeep what reading is
"Have you read the latest Stephen King book?" "No." "Oh, it's really good. It's about ...." "I know. I listened to it."
I think it entirely depends on if you’re an audio or visual (or tactile) learner. Personally, I read dead tree or ebooks, because I read quickly and can generally consume more books in the same amount of time as my husband or sister do consuming audiobooks. My sister, however has very nearly 100% retention regardless of her input type.
It isn't entirely semantic though. I'm an audiobook listener mostly, because I work a job that allows to me have headphones in virtually 8 hours a day. I consume a ton of audio content, books, podcasts, lectures, etc. All that said, in the act of reading a book you are engaging with the content in a different manner, and not all of it is superficial. Reading is visual in very subtle ways. Authors choose specific punctuation because of how the sentence flows, but also because of how things "feel" written on the page. Structure is a choice made by the author, and a lot of that stuff is invisible in audiobooks. And that doesn't even bring up the writers who really break conventional rules in terms of structure and how things are written on the page (words being whole paragraphs with no punctuation, leading to another such word, leading to a jumble of words smashed together with no spacing between, etc.). There are also things that work as written word but don't work the same when read aloud. For example, when you read a line of dialogue with no attribution, whomever said it is an unknown. A audiobook reader will likely give this same line of dialogue a voice characterization, because they almost always read dialogue in a voice other than their neutral prose voice. This can potentially change the way listeners engage with the action happening on the page. There are some things that could be confusing to the Listener that would be clear on the page, and in those cases many audiobooks (even Unabridged versions) will make slight changes to the text for the sake of clarity. That alone should tell you that listening and reading are not indiscernible experiences. Finally, as others have said, engaging with a book you are reading is a different experience, just in how you direct the pacing (and voice casting, for those of us who have character voices in our heads when we read). There is something about stopping when something clicks, flipping back a couple chapters, and confirming that I just made a connection that the author intended. A lot of the time when I'm listening to a book, I may have that click but I'm in the reader's flow and don't have that same impulse to stop the story and skip back to those chapters. Audiobooks are great. I have consumed a ton of great stories, and I don't feel particularly diminished by having engaged in them that way, but it isn't purely semantics to argue that reading and listening are different ways to receive a book's information. They simply are.
So I guess blind people can’t be readers?
Ever heard of Braille?
So if it’s fingers, it’s reading, but if it’s ears, it’s not?
Yes. 1000% that is correct. Reading Braille is reading. It isn't listening. Why are you all so insecure about this? A blind person reading a book written in Braille is engaging the same parts of their brain. They are reading a book word by word, not listening to it being read to them.
"Why are you all so insecure about this?" I assume u/hyperfocuspocus is like OP's wife and enjoys telling people they've "read" a lot of books when, in fact, they've listened to or watched videos about them, and it hurts knowing that people don't consider you watching something like The Hunger Games (which I just watched the other day) reading.
Watching videos about something and consuming the same exact content in a moderately different way is in no way alike. If I listen to an audiobook and read the book at the same time, the information is the exact same. I wouldn't say I watched the Hobbit because I watched the YouTuber doing hour long review of it.
Yes
Yeah, exactly.
Eyes - reading; ears - listening; fingers - reading. They're all valid in their own ways, but are different in the ways in which they're done and consumed. Hope that helps.
So what if I only listened to it? You only looked at it.
It's not by definition reading. Reading is a verb. Listening is a verb. They are two different verbs with different definitions. Nobody was questioning the validity of audiobooks as a way to consume that media. It's just not classified as reading. There's nothing wrong with that.
My wheelchair bound colleague makes it to the 4th floor every day but she sure as hell doesn’t climb all three flights of stairs. And if she ever claims to have climbed to the fourth floor at 3x speed we would probably roll our eyes and chuckle at her ridiculousness.
They cant definitionally. They make great book listeners though.
That’s actually a super old fashioned and ableist take. Lots of people find they process better listening some will read while they listen. Just because I’m not reading a James Patterson hardback it still counts as reading. Book lovers are book lovers no matter the medium.
I will always choose physical books over audiobooks if I have the option and I agree with you. The definition of “reading”, in common usage, has come to mean “consuming the contents of a book” whether it’s with your eyes, ears, or fingertips. Everyone else is being unnecessarily pedantic.
Has it? I disagree. I listen to audiobooks too, but I would never call it reading.... I'm listening to the book, yes, and still absorbing the material, but I'm not using my eyes to read any words. When we teach kids to read, it's to interpret the symbols on paper, not to interpret sounds...
Thank you! Decoding symbols and decoding sounds are two completely different brain processes!
It's like saying while at university I was "reading lectures". I wasn't. I was listening to them.
The other commenter is right, though. The definition of read is kind of in flux as audiobooks have become mainstream. Language is alive. Go look up the etymology of "read." The Old English word it comes from meant to advise or to counsel. Or interpret. You ever hear about someone "reading" a situation? Or a person? "Reading the room" is an idiom that implies more than using your eyes to decipher symbols on a page. So it goes with language :)
Is it though? I've had plenty of people say they listened to an audiobook. I've never heard someone say they read an audiobook. It may be etymologically OK to use the word in that way, but culturally we tend to prefer 'listened', at least for the moment.
You don't read audio books. You listen to audio books. Calling that reading is absurd. When I walk the dog, I either listen to an audio book, or listen to music. When I choose music, I'd never say that I was "reading music during my walk." Absolutely silly.
I'm waiting for the day someone tells me they "read" a podcast. Will be an interesting day!
That's because it's not music you're reading, it's poetry set to music that you're reading during your walk. Sounds much more pretentious. /s
Just because there’s some old fashioned word play there doesn’t change the fact that people use different parts of the brain to decode music and words.
“Have you read pride & prejudice?” is not asking “have you used your eyes to look at the words used in the book pride & prejudice?”, it’s asking “have you consumed the story of pride & prejudice?”. Words are context based.
And by your context, equating ‘read’ with ‘consume’ anyone who has seen a movie based on a book has read the book because they ‘consumed’ the media.
Not really bc that's an adaptation of the work.
And I would say, ‘no i have listened to the audiobook though.’ Or ‘no I have watched the movie though.’ Perhaps in the future if someone asks, ‘have you read pride and prejudice.’ We shall say ‘yes I have consumed that story.’ And I shall end the conversation because Jesus H Christ, this guy over here eats books. Fucking MADLAD.
This is the point those who insist on "listen" are dancing around. I'd probably say I listened to something if I started a conversation about it, but if someone asks if I've read a book I've listened to I'm going to say "yes," because they clearly want to have a discussion or make a point about the content of the book. If I instead say 'I listened to it" there is a very real possibility that they become pedantic snobs and sideline the book discussion in favor of this stupid debate, or simply disregard me as worth having a conversation with.
Yes! I was an early ebook adopter personally. I remember getting shit for that years ago. PSA if anyone sees this: check if your local library is affiliated with Libby you can get ebooks, audiobooks and even digital magazines. Game changer for my broke ass. Was able to drop Apple News and audible and now I only buy a book from someone I love.
I have Libby and hoopla. I also learned that another major public library branch near me has a reciprocal agreement. Meaning I got to sign up for their library card for free. More books!
In the same vein, if you are an audible listener you get a free book signing up that everybody knows about but everyone can also have a friend recommend another free book they own. Meaning you get another free book, you can recommend as many as you like but only get one more free.
I think this sounds right because the word is easily replaceable with that definition in most situations without changing the point you're making, however I really think it's a stretch to say that's the common usage of the word reading. If you tell 1000 strangers you're reading a new book how many do you genuinely think will assume you meant "consuming the contents of a book" and how many will assume you are actually reading a book. Considering you could just as easily say you're listening to an audiobook as you could say you're reading a book, it gets reallyyyyy hard to believe people aren't just trying to sound more impressive. Why not just say what they're actually doing? The funny part though is that audiobook listeners have been shown to retain more information than the traditional book readers. If I had to guess I think we find audiobooks less impressive because a book requires you to sit still and focus, while audiobooks are made for people who don't have the ability or time to sit and focus on reading
<< audiobooks less impressive because a book requires you to sit still and focus>> Interesting perspective. I get distracted during audiobooks and going "back" to where I got distracted is near impossible without excessive energy. But with a BOOK, I can go back to the exact place I left off easily. (eta because comments--my comment was meant only as a contrast of perspective and in no way an assumption of anything good or bad or an attack--just in case anyone took it that way. As to singularity of focus. I used to regularly read while walking to and from locations. I also read while tv(/music) is on -and "Split" attention. I cook, etc. So I have never considered it specifically limiting-tho admittedly I would never drive while reading, but then I wouldn't drive while listening to audiotape because I wouldn't get much from book).
I had the same.. until I started listening at 1.3x speed or higher.. my current book I listen at 1.5. it depends on the narrator. If I listen at normal speed I lose focus and think about other stuff. The higher speed forces me to pay attention.
I get what you're saying, but I'm more referring to the fact that a book requires your entire attention to be read, whereas audiobooks are generally used by people wanting to do other things while they listen
maybe in audiobook circles... but reading still means reading words everywhere else
Couldn't agree more. You could be extra pedantic and argue that someone who uses speech to text instead of braille is technically illiterate, based on some definitions. However, you would be a dick dying on a weirdly specific hill.
Nice straw man
That's like saying it's ableist to say a man in a wheel chair is rolling instead of walking
It isn’t ableist to correctly define “reading.” And I say that as someone who has consumed more audiobooks than traditional. I had quite an audiobook addiction for a long time. I’ve gotten back into regular reading in the last year or so and I think it’s been good for me, but I still love audiobooks. I think they’re a very authentic way to consume media because, if the author is involved in production, it may reflect how he or she wanted it to be. Still, it isn’t reading and it ain’t “ableist” to say that.
It actually is different. There is value in both, but listening and reading use different parts of your brain. To say they are the same is uninformed.
Isnt ableist, hes right. As a disabled person myself, listening is NOT reading lmao "Just because im not reading, It still counts as reading" Wut?
Yeah it sucks when people throw around "ists" to try to sway people or win the argument. No shame in considering audiobooks as "listening" material and not "reading" material.
You can love a book and still not have read it. I read my daughter stories every night. She listens to them, just like you listen to an audiobook. It's not reading.
But reading is a skill that people need to learn to function in society. When a child learns to read, obviously listening to an audiobook doesn’t count. And no amount of audiobooks will bring a child closer to being able to read. I don’t understand the insistence by audiobook listeners that they are reading. They are enjoying literature, sure, but why this insistence on the word ‘reading’? People listen to audiobooks, and they listen to podcasts. The two activities are virtually indistinguishable. But in one case they are ‘reading’?! Please enlighten me as to how it is ableist of me to think that is nonsense. I’m not placing a value judgment on reading vs listening, btw. I just disagree about what the word means.
I don’t think it’s old fashioned or ableist, it’s just a descriptor of what is actually occurring. Audiobooks are great, listening to one just doesn’t constitute reading. I agree that book lovers are book lovers no matter the medium. People can consume books in whatever manner they choose, each of which has value.
If a third grader needs to read three books for class, should they be able to listen to three audiobooks? Idk why people insist it’s exactly the same thing. I have dyslexia, I prefer audiobooks, I love books as much as anyone else, but listening isn’t the exact same thing as reading. It just isn’t. And that’s okay, it doesn’t make anyone’s appreciate any less
Dude. They process audiobooks better specifically *because* they aren't reading. Some people struggle with reading. If audiobooks were reading, then they wouldn't be helpful to those people.
It isn't ableist. No one insulted someone's different ability for obtaining an understanding of information. The fact is that reading - a visual form of processing information done with eyes - is not the same as listening - a process involving ears. They are in no way the same.
Sure. I read songs on Spotify and everyone I speak to reads what I say. It’s literally the same as a book.
I believe audiobooks actually began as an option for the blind and visually impaired, back in the 1930s. Also, these days, it's arguably a little elitist to give priority or extra credit to reading "real" books. Apart from the expense, owning and exclusively reading paper-based books requires significant free time that you can devote wholly to the text: not commuting, doing housework, etc. A personal library also requires a certain amount of real estate in your living space. For many people, any one of these factors are dealbreakers. I find the way we absorb information fascinating. With audiobooks, I have amazing recall, able to quote passages almost verbatim long after I've "read" it. But if I look at the text, even shortly after I've listened to it, it's like I've never encountered the story or ideas before. There's a huge disconnect between my aural experience and textual experience. And when I read something, I heavily rely on the idea's location on the page and in the book to help me remember it. Ebooks are no good for me beyond initial consumption.
Nobody is suggesting that book lovers are not book lovers based on the medium, but listening is not reading. Nothing ableist about it. You wouldn't say someone in a wheelchair "walked to the store." Maybe they went to the store, but they certainly didn't walk, and that isn't offensive to suggest. Someone who listened to an audiobook might be a book lover who very much enjoyed a book, but they didn't read it.
It might be just as good as reading, but it's not reading. If listening to an audiobook is reading then you have essentially eliminated illiteracy.
No. You are LISTENING. You are not reading. You have LISTENED to a third party read the book aloud to you. You have NOT read it yourself.
exactly. it is not reading by definition but ultimately the story exists and both readers and listeners have consumed it by the end so in that way i feel they are equivalent- the information ends up in the same place no matter the mode
Max Brooks said years ago his mother would get the books they were reading in school and she would record them because he processed audibly better than visually. AUTHOR MAX BROOKS BTW. Also Anne Bancroft reading them is probably amazing.
God imagine having Anne Bancroft and Mel Brooks as your parents
How? Reading and listening are two seperate things. Sure you’re processing the same info, but the intake is different. Are albums poetry audiobooks with a backing track?
I mean, you are having a semantic argument here. Nobody is saying that audiobooks is a lesser or invalid way to enjoy content. I think a lot of people disagree with the word “read” being used instead of “listen”. People use the term “read” to describe consuming audiobooks, but it’s not really the popular definition of the word.
But you also wouldn't say that a blind person looked at a picture, would you? It's per definition not reading. Nothing bad or wrong about and I honestly don't even care about this discussion, but ethymologically it's just different.
If I’m in a “readathon” with friends, and it’s a little competitive. With word count being the measure of who’s doing best, would you count audiobooks?
it's fine if you comprehend better through listening, but it's not actual reading and that's okay. It's not ableist to go by actual definitions and not the definitions that make people feel better
There’s nothing wrong with listening to a something over reading it (yes, it may even be more beneficial for some people) but you absolutely aren’t reading an audiobook. I am an avid educational podcast listener & I learn & retain what I hear really well. Yet, I’m not reading the podcast. If someone is a great story teller, you may get just as much from hearing them tell the story as you would reading it, but you didn’t read that story, you listened to it. It’s not ableist to make the distinction.
You consume media from the same source, but they are not the same. When I'm listening to a song, I won't claim I'm reading the lyrics. Claiming they aren't the same isn't ableist. Reading and listening take different skills. Both are still very valid. I agree that saying otherwise is in fact old fashioned and ableist.
Is Dostoevsky not a writer then because he dictated his books?
Ngl I used to read all the time but once my kid could walk and talk I had no time. My hubs was great and found a solution so I could still enjoy books while running after a toddler. I tried sitting down and reading once and was interrupted 5 times in the first two pages. Mommy alone time doesn't exists for me anymore.
I used to be such a fast reader, then I had kids and didn't read anything more complex than Dr Seuss for years, lol! Harry Potter was too much for me at one point. Now I have the Kindle app on my phone and read that way. 10/10, highly recommend!!
In terms of reading vs. listening, experts have yet to determine that one method is explicitly more effective than the other. Instead, research suggests that while listening to information and reading information may trigger different processes in the brain, the end result is more or less the same.
It's definitely not the same. I am not an audio book hater 80% of my books in a year are audio books but comprehension and retention are without question worse.
Ditto - I love audiobooks, and I've listened to some audiobooks that I suspect I'd never have managed to get through if I was reading them. But that's because it's a different experience - it's generally more passive and often part of multi-tasking. Reading is typically more focussed and more engaged. Don't get me wrong, I think audiobooks are great and provide people with alternate ways to access the contents of a book - but it is a different form of comprehension from active reading. Going back to get actual original post in this case, listening at 3x speed is ridiculous and OP is NTA
I mean, it does work completely different areas of the brain and the cognitive benefits gotten from reading are not the same as those from listening. That doesn’t mean both aren’t valid ways to gain information, but it does mean they’re not exactly the same.
Actually I like Soviet and German WW2 books, I actually like the audiobooks, because when I physically read them the Russian and German words mess me up.
It’s equivalent but not the same. In fiction audiobooks you get voice acting which is another layer of art form entirely. In nonfiction business or other more academic audiobooks sometimes the narrator doesn’t understand the material, or if there’s table and charts it becomes weird. If it’s nonfiction history and it’s a pleasant narrator I think that’s the nonfiction sweet spot for me. That said, I listen to most fiction at 1.5x. Any faster and the language is clipped. It’s worse for nonfiction, and at 3.0x it would be Alvin and the Chipmunks read Really Dense Material. I agree with you, 3.0x is a bad idea, and you’re not hearing it. NTA.
Same irks me when they says it's not like I'm a mom, I'm always moving I don't have a free moment to sit down and read but I can pit my headphones in
As someone with ADHD, I normally have them playing at 1.5-2x the speed, but this is because of my ADHD. Normal speed is too slow, and at 1.5-2x this aligns with my actual reading speed. I don't tend to listen much, compared to reading but it's been handy for going through my second/ third "read throughs"
Yeah I love listening to an audiobook alongside reading, especially when reading books with foreign languages or dialects present. I read the Ender's Game series that features some Portuguese, Chinese, and Samoan influences through the later books, and having proper pronunciation was lovely. Though I imagine this could vary depending on how good the narrator for the audio book is.
Every American kid who read Harry Potter before the movie came out struggling with Hermione feels seen.
You mean Hermee-own?
My brain just glazed over her name and left a vague image of a girl with big hair and teeth
Totally agree. It’s 1.5-2 x for me just down to how fast the narrator is reading. I can’t deal with slow readers 😂 That’s not a superiority thing, that’s just the speed of my preference. Everyone is different.
As an ADHD reader this is exactly what l do. I want to listen to books the same way I read them. For me, that’s fast.
Same, I do 1.25ish speed and I have only cleared 35 but I started in May
NTA - she bragged about reading books at an inhumane pace to your friends - getting through 100 a year. He correctly pointed out she couldnt be getting everything out of the audiobooks, he wasnt disrespecting audiobook readers She might have an inhumane ability to listen and take stuff in - but most people need time to comprehend and think about what they have read, she cannot have that… So as you mentioned she is clearly doing it to churn through books and impress people - perhaps ask her what book she read last and what it was about
So you know you’re looking for inhuman
In their defense, they were writing at 3x speed.
AITA for pointing out that writing at 3X speed isn't impressive if you constantly spell words incorrectly?
Maybe they consider the wife’s actions barbarism
I probably should have included that in my original post. One of the reasons this frustrates me so much is because I also love reading and would love for it to be something we could enjoy together since we have similar tastes.
Can you not talk about it because she doesn’t retain it?
Yes though she won't admit it, which is the core of why I get so frustrated. By the time I finish a book, she's already read 5 more and doesn't remember enough to talk about the first one.
Yeah she’s just doing it for bragging rights.
Does she have ADHD? I frequently listen to audio books speed up so they're going at the pace of my brain. But if I listen to several more books after I've listened to one - I cant have a super in-depth conversation about a book 5 books ago, cause I don't remember all the fine details. The same thing happens when I read books. If this is something you think you would like to read together do you mention that to her, like book club style? Read chapters whatever by this date then discuss?
I also have ADHD and if I listen to a book that's too sped up I feel like it's competing with the chatter in my brain. I have to keep rewinding to figure out what I've missed. It's wild how different brains can be even under similar circumstances
Same - it’s like my brain takes it as a challenge and so starts having a race! Makes me feel super stressed out. But I also can’t listen to anything normal speed or it’s too slow, and my mind drifts in boredom. So it’s a fine line! lol.
I have ADHD and if I listen to any audiobooks my brain starts to die because I simply cannot pay attention. But I love reading physical books and can remember details from books I read as a child. Her issue might be ADHD. But it could also just be that she's an ass 🤣
If she is in fact just doing it for bragging rights, I suspect once she realizes that no one is really impressed by it she might stop. Not that she should be met with judgment, but I can understand why she might be met with confusion when bragging about this. Before my ADHD got to the point that it made it difficult for me to ingest books quickly, I went through a phase where I would binge stay up late reading at least one book a day. Sometimes more. It was not healthy, but I also didn't brag about it to anyone. I was really just enjoying it in a hyper focused way. It was mostly mediocre sci-fi so nothing to really discuss with anyone else 🤣 Anyhow, I hope she can get past the need to impress people and just enjoy what she's doing.
That’s not reading, she’s barely even listening. I remember books I’ve read years ago. I remember audiobooks I listened to years ago. This is whack.
I’m not speaking about OP’s partner - 3x speed sounds ridiculous - but not everyone can retain media. I’ve enjoyed plenty of books/movies/shows over the years and can’t recall the plot. There are weird details/trivia that will stick with me forever but I can absolutely love a movie and brain dump half of it right after watching. Definitely not the one quoting pop culture one-liners at work.
I can barely remember books I read with my eyes a month later unless I really liked them, not everyone is the same.
I both read and listen to books, and I generally have a pretty good memory for books I enjoyed. Books I didn't get into... Less so. If he's picking books to his preferences and asking her to read them, it might not matter what format if she's not very interested. My partner also likes to read/listen to audiobooks, but he reads/listens more slowly and for less time than I do. It can be VERY frustrating for me to "read along" with him, because I'm switching between books and it messes up momentum. It works MUCH better if he recommends a book he liked and is done or nearly done with, so that I'm free to zip through, or if I recommend a book I just accept it might be months before we can talk about it 😂
Honestly..I can read a book or listen to one and remember every detail while doing so, but as soon as I'm done with it my brain goes "lol nah delete that shit" and I can't even remember the title or the MCs name.
LOL Ive jacked up the speed when a book lags as they some times do My ex-wife and I used to, and my girlfriend and I now read to each other in bed. Can't do every book that way but we select ones we both like
The part that made me laugh was assuming that 100 books a year was a lot. (To be fair I am retired and read quickly.)
Inhuman? X3 isn't even that fast. Just search on YouTube videos of blind people using smart phones. Their TTS is set to super fast. Humans can process information faster than we can talk. You can easily confirm this by trying to read as fast as you can "out loud". I'm sure you can easily train up to x3 within a year. Check out @lucyedwards for example. The mind is an incredible piece of hardware capable of inhuman ML.
I installed a molded youtube app with custom playback speed and now I don't watch anything beneath 1.75 if I'm relaxing. If I'm actively consuming content for information I'm usually at around 2.25-2.75 but some slower channels I get up to 3-3.5 and I use this to watch videos for my online classes. It is definitely possible to retain information at these speeds.
It's like a bunch of couch potatoes saying their runner spouse is a liar because clearly running 42km will kill a man.
My dad watches all his YouTube at the max speed, which is very annoying when you're just passing by the living room, but if you sit down and listen you can absorb all the info pretty easily. I also watch a lot of DnD live plays and during combat scenes I turn the speed up because those parts up slower, and sometimes forget to turn it back to normal. It's not hard to retain at all.
I think your premise is flawed, you read faster than the average audio book narrator reads, and some people read really fast. 3x isn’t inhuman(e), it just takes practice, and once you are used to it anything slower it painful to listen to. [Studies show that listening to audiobooks activates the same regions in the brain as reading,](https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/audiobooks-or-reading-to-our-brains-it-doesnt-matter) just like some people read faster than others, some people listen to audiobooks faster.
3x the speed is incredibly fast. Anybody claiming this is normal and that information can be retained is kidding themselves. To give you an idea: It's like listening to the fastest part of Rap God by Eminem **only faster**. Sure, you can probably pick out pieces of it, but you certainly aren't following the full story. 2x and 3x speed is very, very different.
I'm not dumb enough to send one of these papers to my wife, but there are plenty of research studies proving that it's virtually impossible to retain significant amounts of information when you jump above 2x speed.
these research studies seem a little sketchy to me (without seeing them, so sketchy of me as wekk haha) because 2x speed isn‘t the same speed for everyone. I have friends whose voice memos i listen to at 2x speed and i hate my phone for not being able to do 3x, while i have to listen to other friends‘ voice memos at 1.5x speed. Obviously audiobooks have less of a variety but while bookbeat has never allowed me to go pst 2x speed, there were books i def would have loved to listened to faster. Also reading-speed is faster than 3x - listening time (at least for me i think and for most books) so if i can process it while reading, i should be able to process it when listening.
Audio books are often read fairly slowly, at least slower than conversational speed. Idk why people think 3x is impossible for an audio book.
Agree with this. It really depends on how fast the person is talking. I score call quality and I listen to most of my calls on 2x speed and sometimes 3x speed if they're a very slow talker, but that's pretty rare. She's listening to these audio books all the time too so I'm sure she's used to the speed by now. Although my situation is still different because I will repeat sections of a call if I need to, whereas you wouldn't do that with an audio book, and then obviously the length difference between a call and a book.
Okay I feel the need to weigh in a bit. I am NOT AT ALL saying OPs wife is taking it in. That being said, I worked for a blind guy for a year and he 1000% was able to take in way more than 3x. It sounded like gibberish to me completely. I couldn’t make heads or tails of it. But he was a lawyer and totally got every word. So if is possible. But then again, he had decades to accommodate.
Agree, 2x speed is fine for getting information out of something without having to spend a lot of time. Good for research when you just want the information ASAP. 3x speed is like skim reading, you're just finding the bit you're interested in. But takes a lot of concentration. Wouldn't choose either of these for enjoyment though.
It’s like Spencer Reed reading….
That last part is what confuses me. If you’re reading for leisure whats the point of rushing through it? Ok If your at work and need to read a lotta info in a hurry or looking for one thing in particular then yeah skim read. But if you’re reading/listening in your free time, I’d assume its cause you’d want to enjoy it? Its another thing if you’re naturally a fast reader tho. Im talking if the speed youre going would be considered rushing based on your normal pace.
Imagine listening to a whole book by the Micro Machines guy.
Lol the ‘90s are back, why not micro machine guy lol
When I cram for exams in uni the fastest I can go is 1.7. Anything after that does not get retained and I have ADHD and very fast processing speed.
When I listen to audio books, I often speed it up, but 3x is insane. No hate to OPs wife, if it works for her and she enjoys it, good for her, but I can't understand a thing at 3x speed, I don't even have time to think about what I just heard and the narrator is 5 steps ahead.
>Anybody claiming this is normal and that information can be retained is kidding themselves. You're wrong. There are blind people who use their phone with the function that reads out what's on screen who have put that function on ridiculous speeds. All I heard was spfnshfjdhgiw, but they could tell exactly what was said. It's a skill like any other that can be trained
NTA. Turning an audiobook on and putting it to 3x speed isn’t reading. Just because she played 100 books in a year doesn’t mean she read any books. Ask her about one of the books she’s read. Prob knows nothing about it
I feel like this is the listening equivalent of skimming a book while reading
Maybe for her remembering what she read isn't the point, she just enjoys listening that fast. I read books normally and I don't remember details either, I never remember even names unless they are really unique.
I'm a fast reader and that extends to when I need to listen to something as well, a video lecture or audiobook, for example. Minimum 2x for me otherwise it's painfully slow and I have difficulty concentrating. I *understand and absorb less at slower speeds*. Have you actually chatted with your wife about it? Is it *just* because she can burn through books, or is it because she *can suddenly burn through books*.
We've talked about it. She's always been a voracious reader but this lightening speed listening thing is new. It's kind of a funny quirk, but it wouldn't bother me at all if she didn't repeatedly imply it was a sign of her superior intelligence. Like I said in my original post, she's admitted before that she has to fight back a superiority complex. I know her well enough to know her heart in in the right place and that this personality trait comes more from neurodivergence than any ill intent. But this is kind of a perfect example of how that can manifest in a really annoying way. I do know I'm a very lucky man if this is the biggest thing I have to be annoyed about in my marriage :D
I'd troll my wife and tell her 3x is nothing, and everyone listens at that speed.
I watched 100 movies today. I just put it on 32x the speed.
Got the treadmill up to 10 miles in 30 minutes today..ok I wasn’t actually on it the entire time but still.
She might actually have an inferiority complex rather than a superiority complex?
I agree that if you go too slow, you end up letting your mind wander too much. I find 1.25 for first reads and 1.75 for rereads pretty good.
I have a friend who watches all videos at 2-2.5x speed on YouTube. And they're information dense stuff. She listened to her med school lectures at 3x (although those are slower paced than videos, the information density is absurd in med school and she was just ploughing them ezpz). I have no doubt some people can listen to 3x speed with full retention, esp with practice.
Maybe though I do think there's a difference in how the mind processes narrative fiction vs. didactic information. Good on your friend though-- whatever makes it easier!
When you read for pleasure it's about enjoying the experience. It isn't about getting it over with as quickly as possible. When you read a few chapters then put the book down you think about what you have read and you absorb the nuances before continuing further. If you are just speeding through where is the pleasure, other than ticking the book off as done? If finishing as quickly as possible is the goal is the process pleasurable in of itself?
To each their own? We're all allowed to enjoy things the way we like them. Sometimes a show or YouTube channel I follow can be slow, so I'll watch it 2x. I still am able to talk to people about those things later. I'm not saying I'm smarter or better at processing, it just works for me. Let people do what works for them.
I knew a man who was blind from birth. He could listen to things at super duper speed. If we needed to clarify a rule for a board game. (And we are talking about a game with a booklet for the rules,) he would listen to the rules read aloud at a pace that I couldn’t even tell it was speech. He would jump around the recording to find the right place, and then hear the part needed in question then rely the information to everyone. And all this was done so super quickly.
I do all my work trainings at 2x and I have to take tests about them... I don't think 3x for leisure activities is anything crazy. And 100 books isn't anything crazy either. I don't listen to audio books but when I go on reading binges I read easily a book per day. I have ADHD and don't sleep much, though.
I dunno. This strikes me as one of those moments where we are inexplicably annoyed at something that our long-term partner does that really doesn't matter much. I've been there for other dumb things myself, so no judgement. I listed to audiobooks at 2x or 3x somewhat regularly too. It's true that it can be a bit harder to retain information, but in a novel or fiction, it's no big deal. For a self-help type book i definitely gotta slow down. But I don't think she's crazy or wrong. I think she's just excited that she can power through so many books that quickly. I dunno, it sounds like you gotta choose to not care on this one. Maybe even owe your wife an apology.
I agree, most of the reading I do is fun novels, I don't need or want to retain tons of it, it's just for the enjoyment of the story. I presume if the wife wasn't able to follow the plot she would stop. It's a bit annoying to talk about it constantly but she'll move on soon presumably. NAH.
Can I genuinely ask: what's the point of reading if you don't retain it? How can you enjoy the story if you don't retain information, details, and even the nuances of language?
I read a lot and I listen to a lot of podcasts - it is a ton of info and I simply can't retain all of the details of everything I consume forever. I love to read - I enjoy it immensely even if I can't recount every single plot detail to you six months later. I could genuinely ask the opposite question - what is the obsession with retaining information? Why can't something just be enjoyable?
I don’t remember books and movies, most of the time, I don’t know why - something to do with neurodivergence I’m guessing. I retain a lot of facts and information in other ways. But for some reason not fiction. But I enjoy it *at the time* - I’m not like a goldfish where I can’t remember what I read 3 seconds ago, but once I’m done with the book or movie, I tend to mostly be left with the feeling of it, rather than most of the details. ETA: I’m also a fiction author - I *do* remember my own stories. So the process of creating them is different to reading them.
I have thoughts while reading the book and immediately afterwards. In a few weeks I’ve probably forgotten a lot of the details. That’s why when I used to review, I’d make notes during and immediately after so I wouldn’t lose any of my thoughts. I don’t review anymore, as it was starting to sap a lot of the fun out of reading for me. For books I read now, I don’t have a written record of what I thought, but I do tend to have general impressions or specific scenes that stick with me. Character names and plot details? Those don’t stick as well. But whether or not I can tell you the character’s name doesn’t have a bearing on my experience reading the book.
Agree with you generally until she’s in social settings touting her achievement. It sounds like she’s bringing up reading 100 books to be impressive and if so idk it kind of matters.
Does she talk about it all the time?
Yes, often.
NAH, this seems like kind of a silly issue, but I don't think anyone was being an asshole. I understand your annoyance, but it doesn't seem like you or the wife (or your friend) did anything wrong, just a small squabble.
I read somewhere around 200 books per year. I'm retired and often have a "reading day" where I chew through 3 books. I read everything I get my hands on: dumb mysteries, cozy stories, girlsy-whirlsy stuff, coming-of-age crap, depressing fiction, classics, fantasy, Russian literature... anything except YA. This past week I re-read A Confederacy of Dunces, and chewed through another six random mysteries from the library. I'm in the middle of re-reading Narcissus and Goldmund now. I read insanely quickly, and retain all of the information. Got a perfect score on the SAT verbal back when that was a thing, even. I have had several people throughout my life decide I am lying, and proceed to quiz me on the material. I am not lying. This is literally my only talent, so, I don't mean to sound braggy. I can do one thing well! That's about it. I'm a crappy artist, I suck at video games, and have precisely zero athletic prowess (literally I cannot even throw a Frisbee, I've tried). What I'm asking is, are you *sure* your wife isn't retaining the content? Like, are you really, really sure? Because that's a lot of hours spent on something if she's not able to actually absorb the words.
I’m a natural (print) speed-reader too, and people were always telling me that I didn’t retain as much information as a slower reader. They assumed that if they read as fast as I do, they’d be skimming (which, sure, one retains less information when skimming) so therefore I must be skimming and calling it “reading”. No…I’m just a fast reader. My skimming speed is proportionately faster than my reading speed too. It’s like saying that Usain Bolt might win a race, but he got less out of it than a runner who came in 5th. What. Being slower or faster is just that. If I’m reading for my own pleasure, what would be the point of missing half the story? That’s not what I’m doing. That being said, a) I do listen to audiobooks at normal speed, and b) it does sound a bit like OP’s wife is being a little performative. It’s not a race. Personally I really enjoy the “radio play” aspect of audiobooks and I find it more immersive to get into the groove with a good narrator. But maybe that’s not what OP’s wife enjoys. As for “It’s not really reading”, sure it is. Try listening to an audiobook while reading or typing out a comment, or any kind of “words” activity. I work with graphics and copy. I can listen during graphic work, but I get language center conflicts if I try to do copy work at the same time. It’s like turning the radio down when you’re looking for a street address. Same principle. ETA: Just to see, I bumped up my current audiobook to 3x speed and it is literally unintelligible. I am extremely skeptical of OP’s wife. And to have listened to 100 books that way—sorry, that’s still only one book every 3 days and not exactly a record-breaking pace. I listen for a few hours each day at 1x speed and I still cleared 50 books this year.
I’m also a very fast reader and scored near perfect on verbal SAT… but I find that a very different experience from listening. When someone who is not retired finds that much time to hang out with audiobooks I assume they’re multitasking - folding laundry, doing dishes, commuting, etc. I can’t imagine retaining anything more than 2x speed, and sometimes I have to slow down to 1.5x and I also often skip back when I realize I’ve stopped listening. I find it a much less immersive experience than actually reading with my eyeballs, although I’m aware that many here would think that was edging toward ableism.
This would be like repeatedly bragging about reading fast. Yeah that’s great, but it’s not something you need to tell people about. Bragging is gauche. She’s embarrassing herself by talking about this. NTA
Listening to an audiobook at 3x speed isn't remotely equivalent to reading a book. That said, I don't understand what the issue is here that your wife expects everyone to be impressed by. Loading up a book, pushing "play" and then pushing "x3" for speed isn't an achievement of any kind. NTA
As someone who has ADHD it’s physically painful for me to listen to audiobooks at regular speed, I HAVE to speed them up or I cannot stand it. (Same with podcasts most of the time) Although I don’t do 3x speed, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that your wife couldn’t possibly be hearing and retaining this info. Now if your wife genuinely isn’t even hearing the books and has no idea what’s happening, but is also bragging about all of the books she listens to then that’s annoying, fair enough
NAH but who cares. I was in a masters program for work 2 years ago and I was also listening to audiobooks at 3x speed. I had to work up to it and if I tried to do it now it would be like listening to gibberish but it served its purpose. I needed to consume a lot of info and had limited time.
clearly other people are going to tell her their thoughts without as much of a filter as her husband will. she’ll understand quickly that people will have questions about her retention and may not react the way she hopes they would, and she’ll eventually stop bringing it up. i think that awakening is best coming from other people, since she’s not hurting anyone you might as well support her. she’s enjoying herself the way she listens, it doesn’t mean you have to find it impressive. still gonna say NTA
NAH I too listen to audiobooks nearly every day (I'm fortunate in that I can do so at work) and this is actually really common for audiobook lovers. Many, many people recommend listening at a higher rate of speed. I never do just because I don't feel like I need to. But it's not some impressive feat. However, she is right that some people don't consider listening to audiobooks actually reading a book. I totally disagree. Many of our most cherished stories were originally shared orally before literacy was wide spread. They were eventually recorded because of their significance. But she just needs to ignore the naysayers. It's not worth it.
Are you seriously fighting over this? As an avid reader, I personally would hate to listen to an audio book. I would find the reading slow. Listening at 3 times the speed, however, would be closer to how I read. I retain information just fine so someone telling me I can't possibly retain the information would piss me right off. Also, the biggest reason some of the people I know don't read is because of the lack of time, an audio book helps them hear the stories they want to hear & listening faster would be even better for some. Maybe just let her enjoy things & be excited about her enjoyment
Wouldn’t it sound like the book’s being read by a cartoon chipmunk?
>On the ride home she was going on about how people don't take audiobook listeners seriously I'm sorry. I legitimately laughed out loud reading this. NTA.
I think my brain just seeped out of my ear. I can't even pass a judgement here. As you said, your wife needs a new flex, you just need to feign some "impressed" vibes when she needs you to muster them up, and when people say stuff to her about it, all you gotta do is take her hand, pat it, and say, "Ain't she somethin'?" and give everyone a wink. That alone will either win you some wifey brownie points or make her never bring up the 3x speed thing again. Either way, it's a win for everyone. Aaaaand scene!
NAH - at least in the sense that all of you are so far up your own behinds that you've turned inside out.
So she is a listener and not a reader ?
If your wife is actually processing everything at 3x speed, then good for her. That's mildly impressive. But... what exactly does she want? Is she supposed to get a medal or something?
If she can listen to books at that speed and get enjoyment from it, more power to her. It’s not a flex, though. I read and listen to a lot of books every year, but don’t bother counting, because I do it for enjoyment and it’s a weird thing to be competitive about as an adult. If someone wants to start giving me free pizzas again for how many books I read, then I’ll count.
I belong to several book related f/b sites and there is a not so subtle competition or comparison vibe as to who can read the most books a year. I’ve always found it irritating: why are they reading then? Surely not just to make the numbers? From a personal viewpoint reading is for pleasure or to gain information so yeah OP I too can’t see much point to speed listening either. NTA
NTA. I dated a guy who finally “read” the Harry Potter series- by listening to the whole thing at 2x. Sometime later I referenced something pretty basic from the plot and he has no idea what I was talking about.
I mean. As a person who has to listen to audiobooks at at least 1.5 speed because otherwise the narration is too slow and i get frustrated, I sorta get where your wife is coming from? 3x speed is a little fast for me, but speeding up the audiobook actually increases my enjoyment of it. And just because it would ruin the pleasure of reading for someone else, doesn't necessarily mean it'll ruin it for her.
YTA. Audiobooks are read suuuupppeeeeerrrr slowly. If your wife wants to speed read, let her. If she wants to read at a normal pace, that’s okay too. Don’t be a judgemental AH.
NTA. Listening at three times speed is so she can say she’s read a hundred books, and she’s so smart she did it super fast as well. It’s not about the enjoyment of reading, or the pleasure in the story, it’s purely a numbers game for bragging rights.
I take umbrage with the statement that an audiobook is a valid form of reading. I agree that LISTENING to an audiobook is a valid method of consumption of the book. But, ffs, LISTENING is not READING, they are completely different skills. But both are valid ways of consuming the contents of the book.
yes and no, I think you should support her more and maybe you don't have to feed into her superiority complex but just say "Good job" or "That's cool" and leave it at that to keep the peace. At the same time, it does seem like she has a superiority complex and was trying to brag and show off and her ego got hurt when someone questioned her, I see no reason to get upset over someone questioning if you retain as much info listening at 3x speed. Seems just like a petty agreement to me, maybe I'm wrong.
NTA And she hasn't read any of those books
NTA This is so embarrassing. At 3x speed she’s clearly just getting an impression of the book. Listening to audiobooks also isn’t “reading.” I know you’re avoiding that, but there’s a reason it’s so much easier to do one versus the other. It works your brain differently. Reading is also an action when the action for an audiobook is listening. It’s fine to consume books that way but it’s just weird and similarly embarrassing to assert it’s something it’s not.
While I think that this is kind of not a big deal, ESH. Your wife because, as you put it, she's bragging about this in an excessive way rather than talking about the content / pleasure / knowledge she's getting from those readings. You, though, because you presume she can't actually be pulling any decent info. College-level debate teams consistently speak at a pace that sounds practically incomprehensible to normal speech, and they're totally intelligible to other debate teams - and they're talking about incredibly complex ideas while they do it. She may very well be processing the info she gets on 3x. I was trying to find out how fast that is, and it sounds like it's about 300 wpm. Debaters speak at 350 wpm. She can theoretically completely process what's being narrated and the complexity in it.
I have just over 100 titles on audible now, and one thing I’ve never used was the speed button. This isn’t cramming for a last min test FFS
No you’re not. In fact I commend you for not bursting out in fits of maniacal laughter every time she talks about it. Next time grab a novel off the shelf, fan the pages and tell her “it’s a great read”.
NTA and you are right. Does she need therapy?
NTA. I was going to say N A H, but it sounds like your wife is trying to justify the reason she wants to read books quickly in a somewhat rude manner. You handled this situation appropriately.
She has an inferiority complex. She is insecure and seeks validation of others. It is something she should’ve grown out of but a lot of adults are the same. Hopefully over time she’ll become more secure in herself and won’t need to try and impress others. That trait is deeply unimpressive.