I read this article and have an honest question. I would genuinely appreciate an answer about why someone not being interested in recreational reading is an inherently bad thing.

I ask because I really don't consider reading to be a hobby of mine. I still consider myself educated, capable of abstract thought, and generally a reasonably competent and introspective person. As a student in tier 1 professional school for my speciality, I generally am assigned maybe 75 pages of dense and confusing reading per day. I spend most of my free time reading miscellaneous content on my computer.

At the same time, I know three people who read recreationally and are outspoken in advocating for it. Two dropped out of college after their first semester, one is now a dedicated anarchist and has a psychological dependency on marijuana, the other is a waitress at the same place she worked in high school with no intention of moving on. The third has difficulty understanding complex ideas, works for multi level marketing, and regularly says offensive things because she's oblivious as to why they may be problematic (e.g.: "It's awesome being really pale. Hispanic people and Asian people are constantly impressed and I get a lot of compliments").

I don't consider myself to be anti-intellectual, but I don't know that I believe whether people read recreationally is a particularly good indicator of anything other than someone's personal preferences. I try not to be judgmental because everyone has their own path. At the same time, everything I find online seems to be biased in favor of idealizing reading a fundamental component of being a well-rounded person without pointing to anything but anecdotal evidence.

I'd appreciate any feedback on why recreational reading is nearly as necessary as this article seems to suggest. I really don't understand how it transcends the category of a personal hobby.