I do read a lot, but I don't completely agree that reading is an active skill all the time. It also depends on what one is reading. When I am reading a fast paced thriller or page turner , it doesn't feel like a very active skill/activity.

The activity in this context isn’t just that you are reading, it’s that you have to interpret what is written into scenes in your imagination. This is also required when listening to books or podcasts. This is partly why they show much of the same benefits from reading are also gained from listening to books and kids being read to by their parents.

What about for people who don't have an imagination? Is there no difference between watching a movie and listening to an audiobook for them?

Everyone has an imagination. Some people have had it beaten out of them or were never taught to pay attention to it or use it, but everyone has one.

This is not true. I and many other people have aphantasia[0], our brains are simply unable to imagine visually the way other people are.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia

Fair enough; I shouldn’t have said “everyone” because that’s obviously not true, but only pedantically, for the most part. It’s not insensitive to say “everyone has a nose” and mean “except the very small percentage of people that don’t have noses due to birth defects, trauma, or genetics”.

1-3% of people have aphantasia. That’s not everyone, but it’s close.

The question remains.

Throughout my life, I thought "mind's eye" was a metaphor, and that people didn't actually see images in their heads. When I discovered aphantasia was a thing, and that I had it, I also accepted it was rare. But turns out, about a third of my male friends also have it. Not one female friend has it, though. It's a pity there isn't much research on the subject.

The fact that you control the pace in your page turner example is part of what makes reading active instead of passive. You don't really get that watching a documentary or listening to a lecture or podcast

Gaming is more active than reading. Maybe you're also thinking of imagination's involvment?

> Gaming is more active than reading.

It does depend heavily on the game. There are games that involve a lot of farming where I think reading a book problem results in larger brain activity.

Puzzle games like the witness engage the brain much more.

Is gaming more active than reading? I ask this as a gamer because I genuinely don't think it is. I feel more involved reading than I do gaming.

It suppose it depends on the game genre. In some of the more difficult puzzle games I have played I certainly feel pretty engaged.

Any suggestions on a puzzle game like that? I recently finished Stephen's Sausage Roll (excellent game!) and I've been looking for something else that will let me feel clever.

You might be playing AAA games or what I call "film-games" in that case .. Good games for me are extremely player driven, the player has total volition and is free to plot, plan, use their imagination, come up with their own original plan of action and implement it. Good examples of that are Minecraft and Kerbal Space Program.

Player driven games like that are actually making the best use the medium and it's special quality of interactivity. Film-games really want to be films and are trying to awkwardly cram elements of the medium of drama into the medium of games which is really gonna hurt the end result, even if they do stellar work, they are starting from a huge disadvantage by working against their chosen medium.