First: I wanna clarify this. I know that loads of people read like 100 books a year, or read all the time. I know these people exist. I’m asking about people that are like… average. An average american who just… reads. Doesn’t track everything or sets goals of like 100, or never stops reading… Anyway, I’ve been searching this up, and i find answers like 15-50, even 100. I find this highly unlikely, especially for average US citizens. Half the people i know don’t even pick up 5 books a year, let alone 15! I just don’t believe these stats. I read somewhere that people read 8 a month on average? That can’t be right for an average person. That’s like 2 books a week… I know people do read this much, but still… For an average person? So be real… how many books do people actually read a year?
I read probably 20-30 min a night before bed and I’m only at 18 books for the year. To be fair they’re all 500+ page books but I have no idea how some people read 50-100 a year unless you’re counting audio books.
Why wouldn’t you count audiobooks?
Reading and listening are not the same
reading takes a lot more effort
I don’t care if you say you’ve read a book but it was an audiobook, you consumed the
For me it’s because audiobooks are consumed by listening. You objectively aren’t “reading” anything, the same way you aren’t reading a song when you listen to it. I get different mental stimulation from actually reading a book than listening to an audiobook, so audiobooks don’t count.
💯 I feel the same way but you put it into words that make perfect sense.
Last I checked, studies have shown audiobooks literally activate the same parts of the brain as reading
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/audiobooks-or-reading-to-our-brains-it-doesnt-matter
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326140
Then can I count meetings and presentations where I’m not a vocal participant as short stories or novellas?
Reading is a process where one must decode a symbol (written letters and words) and translate it back into its natural language form, and then it is consumed as language. Listening is just language. Therefore it is unsurprising that reading and listening would have considerable overlap in the parts of the brain that are used as they do require the same thing. However, reading requires that extra step of deciding which language does not. Therefore - both written language and Braille are “read” but audiobooks are just listened to. This is not a judgment on anyone, it’s just a fact your brain has to do an extra step becuaee reading is not pure language. Moreover, obviously reading and listening are different because reading is a learned skill - one that humans cannot learn without being taught. Language, in contrast, is “acquired” and never needs to be explicitly taught. These are widely accepted facts in the fields of linguistics, psychology, and psycholinguistics. People just get real weird when they feel others are policing how they consume books. I don’t care how you consume books at all, and it’s a shame we don’t have a better word to describe consuming audiobooks but “reading” isn’t exactly correct, and seeing the same brain areas light up doesn’t mean it’s the same. It’s obviously not the same.
I can agree with what you say broadly, and yet - as far as the tested science goes, the difference in how a text is ingested (decoded or merely listened to) does not seem to actually matter to your brain as far as processing the information in the text goes.
I agree that there is literally a difference in the act of reading a book versus listening to an audiobook, but the message/text/story itself seems to be absorbed the same regardless.
If you’re aware of studies that suggest this isn’t the case, I’d be more than willing to hear them out. Otherwise this debate is mostly people talking about how they feel about the different acts, or their general vibes about how they’re obviously different. So far, science says otherwise when it comes to what actually matters - digesting the text.
This is exactly what science is for, isn’t it? Actually testing our biases to prove them correct or incorrect?
The tested science actually repeatedly finds differences between reading and listening. A quick Google scholar search revealed a lot:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11145-018-9924-8
https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/bjep.12009?casa_token=FgUE_74hwsYAAAAA:xaurr1KAYGhAd11iQ68-sl8YcvKydsDZgpRwek9LVDqJJJMAvIK1v7zrSAAlNRxUOFpdKRVNRt0yUgem
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758/BF03197498.pdf
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00593.x?casa_token=-sF0g9-zu-gAAAAA:-08bj-lyy65I4o0PGXxJVio-YO9BnJkXHfee6FAZWQSNPH70NG04ciEuCsTFq3WukVX2sNvtOJNI1kNo
These are all about comprehension of text. I think a discussion about whether reading text versus listening to text allows you retain information better is a little different than what we’ve been discussing, personally.
That and being super busy in life means I can only ‘read’ at the gym or on the road. Otherwise I’d never have time to read.
Cool, i read the new Chris Brown song on the radio yesterday.
Jokes aside, the guy said that to him personally it doesn’t feel the same, so i don’t see why you felt compelled to go “well actually hurr hurr”.
It’s less about me trying to change his mind about how he feels and more about me injecting current scientific findings in the conversation for other people witnessing it.
The reason you’re not reading when you listen to a song is because it’s a song, not a book. They are two different forms of art. Whether you consume a novel or book with your eyeballs or your ears, you’re still reading. Do you also think blind people, who can’t visually read, aren’t reading when they listen to audiobooks?
Do you read podcasts?
I do count audio books toward my reading challenge. I guess I’m just saying that audio books are easier than actually using your eyes to read. Nothing wrong with it though.
Audiobooks absolutely count. Your mind is engaging with the material.
And you spent the time consuming the story.
If I was asked on a survey how any books I read this year, I would absolutely include audiobooks. A good survey would go that extra step and ask how any audiobooks and how many physical books. Without that differentiation, audiobooks count.
I’m currently on my 105th book this year. I normally average 60, but I started a blog project reviewing both horror novels and YA novels. So I’ve been reading a lot of short, easy books this year, and deliberately setting aside time to read them so I can write up my reviews. My reading speed is about a page a minute, so if I set aside time I can finish a 300 page novel in a day.
I also count graphic novels as books, so if I binge a series that could be 10 books I read in a few days.
I have no kids and no social life and I don’t watch TV, so I’m usually reading instead.
I’ve done 50-100 for a number of years with no audiobooks or YA/children’s books (I count audiobooks now though as I’m experiencing severe joint pain). It’s my one hobby. I watch minimal TV and don’t play video games. I’m not very social but do hold a demanding full time job. It can be done and gets easier if you’re in the habit of doing it yearly.
I guess that makes sense. I play video games or watch tv during the day for my downtime. Reading is a nighttime thing for me. Unless I’m really slow at work sometimes I’ll read on the kindle app
I can read 3 books a day, if I am doing absolutely nothing else, and they are new to me, something I have not read before. A second read of the book is slower savoring of nuances and storyline, and takes most of a day.
Some people just read faster, i know a youtuber who reads like 200 books a year even with a full time job, others have nothing else to do but read, there’s another youtuber i know who’s s professional book citric and he reads like 1000 books a year because it’s all he does
I know who you mean: Steve Donoghue. Yes, he’s definitely an outlier and spends at least 10 hours a day reading, according to him. But people who claim they don’t have time for reading usually turn out to have time for other leisure activities. It’s just a question of how you prioritise your time, and for most people reading is way down the list of things to be getting on with.
I probably get through 2-3 books (depending on their size) a week because I’ve always been reading for as long as I can remember and I don’t watch TV. But I’m from the UK, I don’t know if that makes a difference or not.
Why would being from the UK matter?
Because the OP was talking about average Americans.
When I commuted 4-plus hours a day via public transit, I read at least two books a week. Now that I work from home, less than half that. Well worth the tradeoff!
I’m currently on 210 books for the year and my husband is on 170-ish. I don’t like audio books (plus they take way longer than reading a book takes for me).
I read instead of watching TV and I read during lunch as well. Having books as my main entertainment source absolutely makes a difference.
My husband has occasional tasks at work where he has to be in a specific physical location waiting for someone. He usually reads 1-2 books during those days.
I don’t enjoy audio books as much either but there’s no way my eyes could handle reading that much lol.
Presumably they spend a bit more time reading than just 20-30 minutes before bed. If you read an hour to an hour and a half per day instead, you’d already be comfortably in that 50-100 range.
I can do about 200-250 pages a night. That’s sometimes a complete novel
I read significantly faster than a narrator narrates an audiobook.
Being able to read 50-100 books is more about how much free time you have than anything.