The two sides of me

I know that my cognitive profile is rare. I also understand why it can be difficult to recognize and even harder to interpret correctly in adversarial settings.

I have a monotropic, pattern-oriented way of thinking with high justice sensitivity. This allows me to detect inconsistencies, omissions, and procedural violations that others often miss, especially in complex legal records. It is not intuition or emotion. It is a methodical, evidence-based process.

At the same time, prolonged exposure to injustice, misrepresentation, or adversarial pressure can cause neurological overload. When that happens, my body shows stress even though my analysis remains accurate. This can be misread as emotionality, reactivity, or loss of control. It is none of those. It is a physiological response to sustained contradiction between the record, the rules, and what is being asserted.

Because this profile is uncommon, it is sometimes easier for others to dismiss the response than to engage the substance. In adversarial environments, that misunderstanding can be exploited, intentionally or not, through provocation or personal attacks rather than factual rebuttal.

This is why formal accommodations matter. They are not about preference or leniency. They exist to ensure that focus remains on evidence and procedure rather than on stress responses triggered by injustice.

I do not expect everyone to understand this immediately. I do expect the record to speak for itself. When it does, the value of this cognitive profile becomes clear.

In this case, the toll on me has been real.

When evidence is strong and points to serious professional consequences, some defense strategies shift away from addressing the substance and toward exhausting or destabilizing the person presenting it. In litigation, this is commonly referred to as scorched-earth litigation. In psychology, similar dynamics are described by the DARVO pattern. Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.

These approaches do not rebut evidence. They attempt to overwhelm the process.

Because of my cognitive profile, sustained exposure to these tactics is uniquely taxing. When misrepresentation is met not with correction but with escalation, provocation, or personal attacks, it can trigger neurological overload. This response is visible. Anyone who has observed me in the courtroom has seen it.

That response is not a weakness of intellect or credibility. It is a physiological consequence of being placed under continuous adversarial pressure while maintaining precision and integrity in the face of contradiction.

This dynamic is my vulnerability. It is also why accommodations matter.

When proceedings are focused on facts, timelines, and rules, this issue does not arise. When the defense strategy shifts toward pressure instead of proof, the cost becomes personal and cumulative.

I am aware that this is difficult to understand from the outside. A visible stress response is often easier to judge than the invisible work of holding a complex record together under attack. But understanding this distinction is essential to evaluating both the evidence and the process fairly.