Not op, but I wouldn't call it boring. It's a lot like thinking, I guess. (Much of my thinking is already roughly abstract-lingual, so reading feels of-a-piece

Not op, but I wouldn't call it boring. It's a lot like thinking, I guess. (Much of my thinking is already roughly abstract-lingual, so reading feels of-a-piece. I would characterize myself as having a running interior narrative, but this isn't a voice I "hear" as I gather it is for some.) I generally prefer reading to listening since it's easier to back up and re-read if my attention has wandered. I can have trouble staying ~oriented when there are lots of characters because I have no strong sense of what they look or sound like. (TBH I think this is an asset when it comes to adaptations. I may notice plot divergences, but I'm rarely bothered by the specifics of a place or character.) A fair fraction of the enjoyment I get out of reading is about wordplay and language aesthetics, and much of the rest is about ~ideas and personalities. Reading tends to drive a lot of synthesis/connection between divergent concepts for me. Some of my most intellectually-fertile (generative) time centers around reading. I generally can't count on any kind of eidetic memory (unlike those I know who can, say, picture a page or replay a conversation to extract information from it). Instead, I generally lean more on deep conceptual synthesis. I am much more likely to retain some picky detail when it's integrated into my broader understanding than if it's effectively an arbitrary fact. I am the person who would rather take an essay exam centered on understanding than a picky multiple choice that hinges on arbitrary details like dates. Likewise, I don't really vibe with arch/infra/service maps as much as narrative documentation. (This is not to say that they aren't sometimes helpful for understanding, but I do find them hard to ~grasp in isolation and not the first resource I reach for.)