IM YourOnlyOne

Haha yep, exactly! I hope those who watched and will watch this episode won't miss the 'message' of the scene.

> normally people just get fed up because they didn't set a boundary and then snap at me

So very true.

I'm actually surprised they're going to address that "autistic helping autistic" this early.

It's a real world "issue" (for lack of a better term). As an autistic, I've seen firsthand how other autistics act, reacted, and treated by their parents/guardians and other people, but I am torn between helping or not … especially since I know that each autistic is unique … what works for me doesn't mean it'll work for another.

I can't wait for episode 3 because I am curious which direction and message they'll give.

LOLs! The moment it was mentioned her name is "Sally Ride", I knew there was an Easter Egg there. It just weird for them to choose that name.

Thanks for sharing, that was a very nice Easter Egg they dropped there.

LOLs! The moment it was mentioned her name is "Sally Ride", I knew there was an Easter Egg there. It just weird for them to choose that name.

Thanks for sharing, that was a very nice Easter Egg they dropped there.

Which show have an autistic doctor?

Oh yeah! I keep forgetting that feature. Thank you!

I'm can't tell if you mistagged or not, especially since I never said anything that "autism is disease", as an autistic, I take offense whenever I see someone say that.

> Is it difficult for people with autism to understand sarcasm?

Yep! However, it can be learned.

It's similar to jokes and idiomatic expressions, we don't understand it generally but once we learn it, we even start to use it ourselves.

Again, it boils down to how we process things differently. Sarcasm, jokes, idioms, and similar, we fail to understand it initially because [1] we take things literally; and [2] we process it from a logical standpoint. So if it doesn't make sense, we struggle and sometimes "correct" or "ask" … which ends up with the sarcasm, joke, losing its effect.

But, it can be learned. From my own experience, I learned to detect the basic form of sarcasms. The more elaborate it is, the most time I have to spend to detect it. Online, I always check the source and find the fine print / disclaimers (and still I fall for it, it's not fool proof).

Jokes, I learned to analyze "questionable" statements fast and assume it's a joke. Another technique I learned is, if in a group, I laugh last while I'm still processing what the joke is all about (and sometimes I become too obvious because once I understand the joke, I laugh for the second time and harder).

Idioms, yep, easiest to learn. For me, personally, idioms are fun to learn because it is something I can also use without thinking too much. Not like jokes, it's a challenge to make jokes if you think logically and literally.

If you are familiar with the "vulcan" people from Star Trek, autistics are something like the vulcans. ^_^ The only difference, autistics do laugh while vulcans usually fake it =))

7. Everytime she was asked to do something during a meeting, she leaves immediately.

I did not explain this in episode 1 but here is why: we take things literally.

This one is also not easy to explain because if I simply say "we take things literally" then one would assume we take everything literally--but that is not the case.

We do think and try to analyze things however, there are some areas where we automatically take things literally because it does make sense to … well … take it literally. Like in this show, she was told to write a report/statement, so off she go to do just that.

In some cases, especially in the real world, the 'boss' of the meeting would probably stop the person from leaving and ask "where are you going?" And the person would reply, "you told me to do this and that". The 'boss' would probably reply with, "are you mocking me?" or "are you serious?" or something along those lines. The autistic person would be dumbfounded because at this point, the person wouldn't know how to process things. #1 the person is now already aware s/he did something wrong; and #2 if they say more, they might make things worse.

For most neurotypicals, they understand this as "do it after the meeting". But not so for autistics, especially for those working for the first time.

If you see a team member or a subordinate acting this way, be patient. More likely than not, they are autistic and they either chose not to disclose it; or they do not know. If they are not autistic in anyway, then they are probably intentionally doing it … and that's a different discussion.

Can we tell which things autistics will take literal? Nope. Like how each trait have varying degrees of effect; we also have different things that we take literally. For some autistics, if you tell them to "wait here", they will literally wait wherever here is, and they'll probably still be there the next morning.

For some autistics, if you tell them to "wait here", they'll wait for an hour or two but then realize something is wrong or they were dupe. For some, they'll understand it immediately as "let's break up"/"end it here" or "don't follow me".

If it comes to lovers quarrel, well, that makes it even more complex and confusing. I think even neurotypicals / non-autistics will be confused in a lovers quarrel scenario. If you've ever experienced this, when your girlfriend tells you to "wait here" or "stop following me" when what she actually wants is for you to follow her--but she gets angry if you follow her--so you don't know what you'll do. YEAH, that exactly is how we autistics feel and think.

We end up with doing what is more logical, considering all other factors. For example, if someone tells Attorney Woo that she should not leave a meeting when she's told to do this and that … even though she will take "do this" literally, she will consider what she was told before and will stay.

Like in a lovers quarrel, if the girlfriend/wife got angry when the boyfriend/husband followed her, the next time he won't follow. (But the girl will be angry again because he did not follow.) Good thing, real life isn't a lovers quarrel so it's a little bit easier to choose.

---

I guess that's it for episode 2.

I can't wait for episode 3 because they are going to tackle an autistic trying to help an autistic with a different degree of "autisticness" (if that is even a word). I'm seeing that episode 3 will demonstrate what I meant by having common and uncommon traits but each trait have varying degrees of 'effect' on an autistic.

6. Attorney Woo laughing and was very happy when he saw Attorney Joon Ho "lovestruck".
- Scene: trying a wedding dress.

I can't speak for that. I'll leave that to autistic women.

From my perspective, yeah, we do laugh and enjoy simple things like seeing other people dumbstruck or lovestruck because of us. I mean, we are no different from neurotypicals, we are human beings too. We just think, process, and express things differently. But deep inside, the very basic of everything? We're human beings like you. There are reactions that will always be no different from anyone else.

5. Attorney Choi Su Yeon told litigation Attorney Lee Joon Ho that he should set boundaries on when Attorney Woo can talk about whales.

Okay, so this is something neurotypicals are finding very hard to understand. Most neurotypicals are so concerned they might offend a neuroatypical/neurodivergent person if they tell them to stop or to set boundaries. Or, the autistic might suddenly go "wild" (neurotypical description not mine).

No, we will not get offended. At least majority of us autistics won't. It is actually helpful if you do tell us to stop and if you set boundaries. However, you just need to explain it logically, because this is the way we understand and process information.

In the show, Attorney Woo already understands why she talking about whales should be limited because her father always reminded her of that. Thus, Attorney Lee Joon Ho doesn't need to explain why he's setting boundaries, Woo simply understood it already.

To give another context, in my case, whenever I start talking about something and you stop me because you noticed I'm just repeating myself or going endlessly about it, I take it as a sign that I've been talking forever, like Woo, I just understand it already.

However, again, for some autistics this is not the case and you do have to explain why. Some will probably ignore you and still continue talking, and you really have to be patient. If it won't work, don't force it, try it another time.

Some would probably say this is usually the case for "classic autism" and for those who are "high functioning" (like aspergers syndrome) "you won't have problems". Not true. It is not possible to divide autism into Category A, Category B, Category C. We do have common and uncommon traits but the degrees of these traits are different per person.

Someone who is in the "classic autism" classification may understand "stop" and "boundaries" but in that same classification another will just continue talking and ignore you. The same goes in the "high functioning autism" classification, and I for one knows a lot who will just keep on talking and they're "high functioning".

Bottomline, Attorney Choi Su Yeon is correct. Do set boundaries, we do appreciate setting boundaries, like come on, we set boundaries on getting touched, right? That means we understand what boundaries are for. we just need to understand why, it should make sense, it should be logical.

In Woo's case, it makes sense not to talk about whales randomly and she understood that especially because her father patiently worked with her. (So clue here: support is very important; and I can not stress this enough, support at home. Today, we think of support as attending a 'special needs' school, while there is nothing wrong with that, these 'special needs' does not necessarily fit each individual. If we are different from you, we are also different from each other within the autistic community.)

4. Slow to get a joke.

I would say this is a common trait too because the way we think and process things is logic comes first, so once we realize it was a joke, we have a late realization and reaction.

I'm no stranger to this. Eventually, I learned a way around it: instead of reacting with logic/facts, I quickly process it in my head first and try to detect if it was a joke or not. It is not fool-proof, sometimes what I thought was a joke was actually not and I end up offending the person.

Bottomline, it is not easy for us. We do understand simple jokes but the deeper or complex it gets the less we'll understand it and the more we'll get confused.

3. Curiosity and very observant.
- Scene: meeting the client's daughter at her room.

Again, this is true and is a common trait. This is also one reason why autistics hear/see things most neurotypicals can't or don't. Our eyes and attention are always roaming around, taking in our surrounding, automatically processing everything.

In the attorney's case, she's processing the daughter's room in relation to her case. Under normal circumstances, she would more likely comment about so many things. But since she's there for her case, she limited it to within the parameters of her case, like why there are no pictures of her husband.

And when the daughter explained, our attorney pointed out that there is actually a photo of her husband … tucked away in a corner. This was her in attorney mode, analyzing things, trying to narrow down the scenarios already in her head (since she already noticed these things, she still has to ask to narrow it down).

2. Texture / touch sensitivity.
- Scene: trying out a wedding dress.

Our dear attorney commented that it was like she's wearing a clothes filled with tags/labels. It's irritating her.

This is texture/touch sensitivity and is a common trait amongst autistics. Again, depending on the degree of the sensitivity, for some autistics they can only wear a particular type of clothing. For some, any would do. While for others, all the tags/labels has to be removed, and to others as long as they can not feel the tags/labels it'll be fine.

But, yes, this one is correct.

1. Taste sensitivity.
- Scene: ham was changed in her gimbap

As I mentioned in my episode 1 feedback, autistics have sensory sensitivities and it is both positive and negative. Or to put it another way, it can be blessing or a curse. In this case, it is neither. Attorney Woo simply recognized the ham used was different and she did not like the new ham.

Now, for Attorney Woo this seems to be okay. However, as I also mentioned in my episode 1 feedback, there are varying degrees to each trait per autistic--it does not mean that we have the same degrees of each trait just because we share it.

For some autistics, changing the ingredient may become a "big issue" that neurotypicals usually misunderstand as "rude", "disrespectful", and "finicky"/"nitpicky"/"choosy". If an older autistic reacts this way, most neurotypicals would say the person is acting like a kid.

For some autistics, it also has to do with not being able to handle "changes". While this is more applicable in routines, it can also apply to cases like taste (if the taste and texture are similar; it's possible an autistic may not detect it; but there is no guarantee in that).

So, while our dear autistic attorney was fine with the surprise change in the ham ingredient used and her reaction was simply to remove it and express her dissatisfaction by arranging it in an "x", not all autistics will react similarly. Some may react in a way that neurotypicals will find negatively while some autistics won't even react at all.

From experience, I used to be picky and I won't eat it. But as I grew up, I learned to concentrate on the food and I always think that there are other people who have nothing to eat, this helps me to just eat the food. I'm still picky but this time it is because of health and religious beliefs. But if the taste and texture is really, really, bad …

Episode 2 feedback re: autism from an autistic

Summary: Like in episode 1, this was a well done episode. No exaggeration. No sensationalized portrayal. No stereotyping.

Detailed feedback: (see individual comments below)

By the way:

Apologies for the "feeling normal and superior". I just hate the word "normal" when it comes to autism discussion because "normal" is relative (and in this subject, the majority). But I have to explain what "neurotypical" is without implying that "normal" is "normal".

It has no other meaning other than being the "majority". Think of it this way, if the situation is reversed wherein autistics are the majority of the population, "normal" would mean the autistics.

Those are very good questions! Sorry this is long too.

> 1. When the little woo recites criminal law - Is it only from her good memory or does she actually understand the meanings behind those words, understand the context?

:: It depends. At least in this show, the character was setup to be a genius. I would assume that even when she was still a kid, she already have a good understanding of the law and how each law relates to other laws.

Not every autistic is a genius but generally, at least according to some papers I've read before, autistics have an IQ considered to be in the genius range. However, the thing with IQ is it does not necessarily translate to actual knowledge.

One may have a high IQ but they're not studying, well, it's wasted. Also, and this is usually ignored, it is natural for IQs to go lower as we age, regardless if one is neurotypical (what is commonly called 'normal') or neurodivergent/neuroatypical/autistic/aspie. Or, the person was not enrolled in a school where the school harnessed the kid's high IQ (in some countries, they don't want to accelerate kids).

So it really depends. At least for our fictional autistic attorney, I would say she was taken cared of and her father did not waste her high IQ, in the end she became an attorney.

I say that also because the interpretation of the law is not black and white. As kid, maybe she still did not have a good grasp of that even though she probably understood the law. For example, her case in episode 1, if she was still a kid, she probably would the same thing as the prosecutor and other attorneys.

But as an adult, whose logic was already trained, she was able to spot things the other attorneys missed. And when things started to slip away from their fingers, she was able to salvage the situation. I would say this was the product of going to school and her thought process further improved.

^_^


> Are they more mature than neurotypical kids of their age? - My guess is they would be, because they are exposed to more information and hence experience and maturity.

This is just me: As kids, generally, I think so. But as an adult, it starts to level. I'm viewing it because autistic kids usually, not always, have a different sent of interests and priorities than most kids.

For example, in my case, at Grade 4, I already read and understood a neurology book (most of it) and I kept reading it from cover to cover. At that same age I was already into chemistry too, and started to study the Periodic Table of Elements. So by high school when I finally got a Chemistry subject, it was easier for me. (As for neurology, unfortunately back in my day, the only way to be a neuroscientist was to study abroad, not an option for us.)

> Does most autistic people have super good memory?

Not really. Speaking from experience, if I get myself into something, I do remember information. But if I have some preferences, like me I hate memorization and remembering numbers, unless I force myself, I don't remember it. I might recall some other time but pulling the information at will? Nope.

For example, I program. I can type programming codes as if I'm speaking a language. But I won't be able to recite to you Section III Paragraph 2 Number 4 Bullet 8 of the Omnibus Code of Some Law. If I read it already, I probably know the spirit of that law but to recite it as it was written, nope, not me.

I would say, at least in the context of the show, the law has become her favourite subject (other than the whales) because there were a lot of criminal law books at home she secretly read when her father was not looking.

> 2. Does autistic people usually have OCD - Like even the little things must be arranged in a perfect manner, cleanliness etc.,

As far as I know and observed, yes. OCD seems to be a part of being autistic. What differs is the degree of being OC; and unlike those who are OCD-only (not autistic), we can overcome our OC-ness (or at least keep it at bay).

Speaking from experience. When I was kid, if there are similar poles along the way, I touch them one by one no matter what. Or if there lines on the pathway, I follow the lines, to h*ll with the crowd (LOLs).

I have one particular OC that I rarely find from other high-functioning autistics and is usually found from "classic autism": when I'm in a department store or supermarket, I must always trace back the path we took around the store, otherwise, it will irritate me to no end. It feels like there is something at my back, some sort of rope that must be untangled.

As I grew up, I learned ways to keep it at bay, like focusing on something to distract myself. Or if I'm with someone, I talk a lot. Another way is listening to music or ambient sounds (like the character's whale sounds; but I prefer forests and water flowing).

Is my OC gone? Nope, not really. Even as an adult, that particular OC-ness sometimes get the best of me and I must trace back my steps otherwise I'll be drained and/or irritated the rest of the day.

OC-ness is a common trait but in varying degrees. And as we grow older, we find ways to cope up with it.

> 3. I find the mannerisms (echolalia, the handshake, a lot of other things) of woo and other autistic people very cute. Does other people find it like that? Is it offensive to say this to an autistic person?

For "echolalia", I actually only learned about that word in this drama's subtitles. I just call it "echo". Is it offending to use "echolalia"? Or to do echolalia to an autistic when your are neurotypical? I'd say it depends.

For neurotypicals, most find it rude. But for neuroatypicals/neurodivergents, it does not make sense for it be rude because repeating an information helps in reminding oneself. Believe it or not, in most schools teachers do teach repetition to help with remembering things … and then when you're older, repetition is suddenly rude. =)) (That's why it doesn't make sense for it to be rude.)

Maybe there are neuroatypicals who will also find it rude, especially the more high-functioning autistic they are (usually these are those who doesn't want to accept they're autistic [for whatever reason] or simply undiagnosed).

For handshakes, touching, hugs. If it is forced or unasked for, it's more of irritating than offensive. Again, it will depend on what is the particular reason of an autistic why s/he doesn't want to be touched.

Some doesn't want to because they set boundaries on things, even at home. This is similar to neurotypical kids "this is mine, this yours, in the middle is a line" thing. But for an autistic, take it seriously.

Some autistics doesn't want to because they have sensitivity to touch. If unasked for, it flares their sensitivity and if they fail in keeping it under their control, they might meltdown.

Some doesn't want to because they have sensitivity to transferring bacteria and germs. Not necessarily you giving them germs, but also the other way around, them transferring to you. (My younger brother is like this; sometimes I teased him about it [even though I know why but you know, siblings].)

Me, as an adult? I learned to live with it. Handshakes, people suddenly hugging you. What I still find a challenge is people touching me at the back as if we're close. That still irritates me a lot to this day. I'm fine with hugging but not that. Haha, it doesn't make sense, right?

Do I find it cute? Still depends per person. I did not find echolalia as "cute" but I did find it funny in the show because of how the characters reacted, especially that scene at the court when the judge answered back and then he reacted when he realized what just happened. That one was hilarious for me.

> 4. I didn't understand why she couldn't answer present when the judge asked. Is there a non-obvious reason?

Apologies, I think the question was cut short?

Episode 7 Easter Egg (sort of).

The app they used called "SignalGram" was deleted from the Google Play App Store.

If the app they showed in this episode was the real "SignalGram" then it means it was based on the "Signal" app itself (the official one). Also, if you look closely, there the word "Signal" is actually at the bottom of the phone screen.

The show is correct as far as security and privacy is concerned, "Signal" is one of the top notch end-to-end-encrypted (e2ee) application available today.

The only catch with Signal is it requires a mobile number. It does provide a very good encryption which is good for security and privacy, but it is not for anonymity (which is good for whistleblowers and similar).

Thank you very much, deeply appreciated. ^_^