|
This is a purely educational website. Nothing here is legal advice or creates or implies an attorney-client relationship. If you have a specific legal issue, PLEASE talk to a lawyer who practices where you live—laws vary from place to place, and how they're applied varies from courthouse to courthouse. Your local county bar association can probably refer someone who handles matters like yours.
By using this site, you agree that you are awesome. Use of this site also constitutes acceptance of its Terms of Service and Privacy Policies, which are known to medical science as a cure for insomnia.
It's best to keep all discussions in the comments. But if you really need to reach Nathan privately, go ahead and email him at n.e.burney@gmail.com. He won't mind.
THE ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO LAW and the PEEKING JUSTICE logo are pretty damn cool trademarks and should probably be registered one of these days.
© Nathaniel Burney. All rights reserved, though they really open up once you get to know them.
|
|
A jury? Oh, yea; I forgot this was about the law … not psychology.
& The difference is… ?
The same as the difference between business and economics. Everything that happens in one is ultimately determined by the other. However, the methods and ends of the two activities have very little in common.
Instead of just saying “Yeah, your memory is flawed in some ways”, he’s laying out the groundwork and explaining -why- it’s flawed. It’s one thing to just say something, it’s another to understand it. He’s explaining things so we understand.
I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s made this speech (minus the cutesy drawings) in an actual courtroom.
Well, he did say memory was flawed.
Let me see if I can dig up where he said he did not say that…
Found it.
Page 8 of this chapter. (I’m not going to link it because a lot of these boards flag and quarantine posts with links, for later review…for good reason.)
Okay, on a closer read, he did not say that HE was not allowed to say that. Just that the lawyers are usually not allowed to say that in “the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions”. Perhaps NY is different.
And on an even closer read, he said they’re not allowed to bring in an expert to say that.
No, my memory is fine, I probably just never read that in the first place. Oops.
Am I the only one who doesn’t get what was being demonstrated by the flower/frog segment?
Yeah, took me a second read to see what’s going on. The child used “bringed”, which a person learning the language would naturally assume to be the past tense of “bring”, and later uses “brought”, the correct past tense. These irregular forms are some of the most annoying things for learning a language, in my opinion.
Ah, I see. Missed the fact that it was about language. I thought there was some sort of pattern recognition thing based on the mother’s reaction to things brought (“I brought her a flower, which she liked, but then she liked pizza better, so therefore I decided to bring a frog instead”) and was pretty confused o.O
Until I noticed the coloured letters paired up with the coloured punctuation over the kid’s head, I missed it too.
Originally thought it was the kid brought her mom a flower, and pizza happened. So just how much awesomer food is gonna show up if she brings her mom a frog.
That needs to exist in real life.
This is awesome work! You’re really doing this society an immense service. Hopefully it’ll be more widespread in the future.
Thank you very much!
What does it say about me that I had to spend 5 minutes figure out how seeing someone bring pizza would lead the daughter to think that her mom would want a frog, rather than realizing that the grammar was the point?
Maybe I should have colored and bolded the word “bringed” as well as “brought.” Dangit.