I agree that technology causes people to read and think differently, however, I'm not sure it is for the worse.

On the whole, I agree with Eben's viewpoint that television is one of the main culprits of "poor reading skills." But, I think it is too facile to think that television and other things are universally bad. I remember reading this book by a pop-Science author Steven Johnson called Everything Bad is Good For You, " where he argues (rather speculatively at some points) that modern television shows actually help us comprehend complex narratives (see "multiple threading") and develop portions of the brain responsible for multitasking. I left the book at home so I can't really go into more detail. But I'll have it in less than a week if you want to borrow it.

To the more substantive point here: Yes. 1L reading assignments do push us toward substantive orthodox thinking. I see a drastic difference in the way I behave during days when I read and days when I'm not reading. And, I feel like law school in its form and structure is built to stifle creativity and crush our limbic system. My thought is that it has something to do with the way lawyers and judges write which is often, but not always, very dry and verbose.

For example, I feel like on this Moot Court Brief we are being encouraged to do absolutely nothing creative. What can be done about it? I'm not sure. I think Eben's course offers one good answer: listen to music. It stimulates completely different parts of the brain. Music always puts me in a more creative (and often better) mood when Law School drags me down.

-- MatthewZorn - 07 Mar 2010