It's probably worth noting straight away that "to get" is increasingly common in OP's context. As this link shows, X got me interested in Y was virtually unknown a century ago, but it's now far more common than made me interested in.
But there are subtle syntactic and semantic differences. As noted above, of OP's first pair...
1: This book got me interested in Buddhism.
2: This book made me interested in Buddhism.
...#1 is more common, but both are acceptable. And so far as I'm concerned, they mean the same. But...
3: This book got me thinking about my future
4: This book made me think about my future
5: ✲This book made me thinking about my future (where ✲ marks a usage as unacceptable)
...with OP's second pair we can't just replace got with made. Notice also that we can explicitly use the "marked infinitive" (to think) with got (also to [present participle], but I don't know what to call that)...
6: This book got me to think about my future
7: ✲This book made me to think about my future
8: ?This book got me to thinking about my future (perhaps not everyone would accept this form)
9: ✲This book made me to thinking about my future
On the basic of the above, I suggest it's well worth learners spending some time becoming familiar with the syntactic possibilities of to get. Because it's increasingly common in modern speech, and can probably be used in more contexts than to make, it's likely to be more useful over the long term.
On the semantic front, note that to make often carries implications of deliberate and/or forceful actions. Thus with this pair...
10: He got me to eat snails in garlic butter
11: He made me eat snails in garlic butter
...there's a much stronger implication that in #10 he persuaded me (possibly quite easily). It would be quite reasonable for the utterance to continue with "...which I really enjoyed". But #11 implies he forced me (much against my will). That one might continue with "...which made me feel really queasy".
In Oxford's definition, "after a particular length of time" can be thought of as "after a particular length of time has elapsed."
So:
He will return in a few days time.
basically means:
He will return after a few days have gone by.
As for:
He could learn a song in about five minutes.
a good substitution preposition for this would be within:
He could learn a song within five minutes.
Another way we could convey this is:
It took him no longer than five minutes to learn a song.
As for during, think of that as "at some point in time during a specified interval".
Therefore:
My daughter was born in January.
means:
My daughter was born on some day in January.
And:
Hurricane Katrina happened in 2005.
means:
Hurricane Katrina happened on some day during 2005.
Bottom Line: in cases where in means during, that doesn't mean within some interval of time (such as in five minutes, or in two days), but rather for a more specific range of time (such as in the first week of the month, in December, or in the 18th century, or even in the early hours of the morning).
Best Answer
In normal, conversational speech (NY, USA), you wouldn't ever just 'dress'. Most likely you would 'get dressed' in the morning. Exceptions would include common phrases that use the passive tone, "dress(ed) for the occasion", or "dress(ed) for success" or "Dress(ed) up/down".
As for "change/get changed", they seem to be completely interchangeable, except that "get changed" seems to be slightly more intransitive, meaning that it can stand alone, and usually sounds more awkward when it takes an object.
For example, I wouldn't say that I'd "get changed into" something; rather I'd "change into something more comfortable..."
Another example could be this exchange of two friends, one of whom who just finished working out at the gym...