Processing complex sentences containing Technical Jargon

Post Reply New Topic

I was recently selected to be a juror in a criminal case. During the trial, I noticed that I had a difficult time following the question-answer banter between the attorneys and the witnesses.

I particularly had difficulty when the attorney would ask a question containing ?not? logic. For example: ?Are you uncertain that the defendant did not do ??.

Each time the attorney asked such a question, after the witness responded, I had to translate the question, translate the answer and figure out what was actually said. By the time I had completed this translation, I missed the next question.

Worse, the attorney or witness began using all sorts of technical jargon. So I am supposed to memorize all these terms (the first time they are introduced), so when they are used later, I know what they are talking about. It was like my brain was overloading.

I do not remember having such problems in school. But maybe that was because I always read the material, before it was discussed in class.

In any event, is what I described above related to working memory? If not, then what?

Take this test on grammatical reasoning.
It has lots of "not" statements.
http://www.cambridgebrainsciences.com/browse/reasoning/test/grammatical-reasoning

I can't answer the why- but I'm the same way. My beautiful husband is in nursing school and he's learning so many new words- but I haven't heard them before, and I DEFINITELY don't have them translated into any of my shorthand or phrases yet. I can't access an image or connection to the words- so they just sound like gibberish to me.

So he tries to tell me what he's studying and I just nod hoping it's the right response.

me- 'how did you do on that test?'

He says-'the gobblydoop hit the flim flap on the taco shell so I missed that question. I got a 97 though so it's ok.'

Me- nodding

For what it is worth, in TV shows that I've seen that is a deliberate attempt by the attorney to confuse the witness.

This is why my dad got me out of jury duty. Because of my disabilities, there's no WAY I'd be able to make sense of what they are saying. You can do that if you let them know it's due to a disability or a condition that could greatly impair your decision or whatever. I think a lot of it could be the processing difficulties too. That's what I struggle with very much. I often struggle with understanding NTs because they talk in different ways. D:

Can jurors put up their hand and ask what's meant? (embarrassment aside)

i enjoy new words.

I don't have trouble with it, primarily because it's a simple sentence unnecessarily with fancy words.

^^

This is an interesting test. The 1st time I scored 13. The 2nd time I scored 15. I believe I could have scored higher if I took it a 3rd time.

So, there are some similarities and difference between this test and what I experience in court.

The similarities are that both included ?NOT? logic.

The differences are that, in the Cambridge Brain Science test, I was dealing with known objects (circles and squares) and the operators used to compare those known objects (i.e., contains, bigger, smaller, encapsulates). The sentences expressed in the trial contained terms and contexts which I was unfamiliar with. Adding the ?NOT? logic, just made it more difficult to process.

While I seem to process known information quickly, I don?t do as well with new complex information.

Let me give an example. I process numbers really well. During my diagnosis, the WAIS was administered. It included a sub-test test for Arithmetic, which requires the examinee to solve arithmetic problems, within a specified time limit. It?s basically a mental math test that measures Fluid Reasoning, Short-Term Memory, and Quantitative Knowledge. I scored in the 99 percentile on this particular sub-test. Other than the Matrix Reasoning (which also measures Fluid Reasoning), I didn?t score nearly as highly on any of the other sub-tests.

All of this makes me wonder why my ability to process new, non-contextual information is hindered. I think I get confused (and overwhelmed) when the new information ?comes in? because I haven?t yet developed a categorization scheme (or taxonomy) that allows me to store that new information or its corresponding associations (to other information). Maybe it?s my inflexible mind that wants to take in all the details, before I finalize that contextual schema. And, only then, am I willing (mentally) to classify the information according to a final schema. In any event, all I know, is as the new information comes in, I get overwhelmed with data (almost like a buffer overflow). I get stymied. I get antsy. I feel lost in the sea of information. Until I can properly categorize it all. Only then, do I feel good.

This categorization process is important (at least for me), because if it?s not categorized, then I cannot promptly post-process the information.

Yet, once I have had time to capture this information and properly categorize it, I have full connections (n:n) between all elements. And, am able to process that information far more effectively than others.

I have no idea if what I am describing above is typical (for either a neurotypical or autistic person). Which is why I asked.

Well, that is TV. Also, I cannot imagine an attorney trying to confuse the jury.


I thought about doing this (trying to get out of jury service). But, I really wanted to do it.


I wondered this myself. As this is how I dealt with the situation at school. I regularly asked more questions than all the other students combined.

I never know what anyone is talking about when I am listening them talk like in a lecture, unless it is a chalk talk with the person drawing on the board.

Right. And, I suppose that I am wondering if this is due to autistic brain wiring. Or, whether it is independent of that.

It may be a trait that is more common in autism, but it is also found in normal people.

According to the site, the top score is 266, lol. Humanly impossible.

Some decades ago, I was told that's a hallmark of my Audio Processing Disorder. But they weren't testing for AS. I wonder if the current thinking is the same? From what I've read having to recode verbal information into idiosyncratic categories or symbols is also now seen as an indicator of AS?