Peer Interview of Samia Tariq

     Our meeting was established on the coincidence of our dark choice in clothing. We were similar yet distinct in style; I strut a more sporty attire, while hers was slightly dressy. I was wearing a fitted black v neck with black sweats, while she wore a black bodysuit, black pants and a matching belt. I was a little nervous because I wasn’t convinced that the similarity in our choice of clothing,would make us a good match; but nonetheless I proceeded to our peer interview.

       Samia Tariq, sitting before me, became my peer interviewee as well as my interviewer. The origin of her name which means good listener has an interesting history. Although her name was decided as Samia at birth, there is still a debate amongst her family members as to how to pronounce it. The majority of her family members prefer Sami-a while she prefers Samia.

     Samia was born in Brooklyn but left to Pakistan in the third grade. She then returned six years later for her freshman year of high school at, Franklin D. Roosevelt. During this frequent change of environments, in her childhood, Samia experienced a huge culture shock. She felt the immense difference in customs and language that was no easy task to adopt to. However she still persevered which I find extremely admirable. Unlike myself I’ve lived in the same building and neighborhood my whole life. I’ve never had to leave my friends behind and start a new life somewhere else.

        When it comes to Samia’s choice in writing I find it slightly contradictory. She claims that she prefers not to write creatively because people are judgemental and she doesn’t want her personal beliefs out in the open, to be criticized. However, she would like to write in an article format where her writing style can connect to readers directly. In a way she wants to voice her opinions and makes the conversation between the author and reader personal. Therefore I feel that she craves a connection but does not wish to be stung by that very act of openness.

    Samia likes all foods and has no favorites. She listens to all music, except country. She likes to chill at home and watch movies with her friends. Samia does not play any sports but likes to watch cricket. However she does not watch cricket because she gets really riled up when her favorite team loses. Samia says she would like to go skydiving at least once in her life to overcome her fear of heights. I also have a fear of heights but I would not like to die trying to overcome it; I think Samia is very brave for this.  Samia said that If she won the lotto, she would drop out of school because she doesn’t like college much. However, even with all that money she’s not much of a shopper because of the crowds of people. If there was one problem she could end in the world, she says it would be world hunger. Based on her hobbies, aspirations, and choices of pass time, Samia’s day to day life is simple and calming but she strives for greater adventure.

Final Reflection

      When I was first told about the field observation and interview requirements, to be honest I was not excited in the slightest. In a classroom setting I don’t like sharing out often but if I have a strong enough opinion I will share out. I wouldn’t go as far to say that I’m introverted, but I get nervous talking to complete strangers. Especially because I would be meeting them at some place I’ve never been and the fact that they were adults much older than me. So I came in as a fieldworker with no experience on looking for subgroups, creating interview questions that would elicit the best answers, and conducting the interview itself at a steady pace. As an observer I think I did an okay job, just adequate for the task given to me. I wish it had been an actual meeting of them discussing a theory, but it was just a group night out at a ping pong wreck center. I had another group that probably would’ve had a more serious meeting but they’re demographic made me uncomfortable. It was comprised of mostly old white men and women. So I figured the black atheist group would be the safest, they seemed younger, and the place was public and legit. I still felt discomfort because I didn’t fit the demographic but at least I was part of a minority, so I wasn’t much of an outsider. However, as I said in my observation they were friendly and actually had some diversity in they’re group members. So yes, it wasn’t an official meeting but I was able to discuss atheism with the leader Kevon and see the way some of the other members conducted themselves, which made it an adequate site observation. I also had a lot of scenery to add to the imagery in my observation and that was definitely a plus.

      As for interviewing I compiled a few questions that I wanted answers to, but a lot of them asked the same thing in a slightly different way. So when I was interviewing and we would go off on a tangent, a lot of the other questions, indirectly, got answered so I skipped them. However for each interview it was slightly different; for example in Kevon’s interview he would answer both questions that were the same because the wording of my question triggered a memory, or other information he felt like sharing. In Koretta’s interview not so much, because she was pressed for time and she’d say that we sort of talked about that already. That was a little frustrating because I would’ve liked to organize my answers by question but now 50% of them were under one question. I guess it’s okay though, because that’s not how conversations are structured so it’s to be expected. However, I have some doubts as to whether I’m satisfied with my overall field study. I think the interview went well and I received more than enough information, but I feel as If my findings are not as clear as they could be. I have my own theory of why atheists de-convert but I feel as if it’s an empty statement because I don’t have many concrete reasons as to why they should’ve stayed Christian. Overall though, I definitely feel accomplished with the information I obtained from both parties(interviewee’s). I got to explore my own argument in more detail and discuss my finding with an agnostic friend of mine. I feel like my argument got slightly stronger, not because I have a more concrete argument, but because my thoughts are a little more organized, when I speculate the validity of the Bible; Which I think is not valid, but that doesn’t mean, god doesn’t exist. Therefore I rate my efforts as an observer, as an average attempt for my first try and a little above average for me as an interviewer. Although my questions were slightly repetitive, I was able to get a lot of information, because most of my questions were open ended. I was also able to ask elaborating counter questions, that led to counter arguments, and a more intricate discussion.

Self-Assessment

          Taking this social science class was a very unique experience for me. As a writer I went on an adventure Stylistically and content wise. Coming into this class I thought that I would be reading texts about social psychology and writing essays about the content introduced in class. However, I never thought that I would’ve been writing about my own experiences as a field study conductor. Before this class that word was foreign to me and it really baffles me , the experiences that I can now say I have.

    As a child until now I had been groomed to write academically. I was told to never speak informally in my writing. I was forbidden from using the words I and you. They prohibited me from trying to connect to my reader on a personal level, which was very hard at first. I was supposed to remain opinionless; god forbid my reader identified my preferences and what I support, unless strictly asked to state my argument. I was told to follow a formula, Intro+three body paragraphs+conclusion. I was told to outline my work. I was trained to cultivate a vocabulary of extremely unclear jargon, from an age of English no one could possibly read now, without training. But nonetheless that was the embodiment of my writing, up until now. Striving for sophistication, never straying from your prompts topic and hiding my point of view at all costs.

      This class changed all of that, with our very first assignment, the introductory essay. When I wrote that assignment, I’m not going to lie, regardless of how easy the prompt sounded, I was stuck. As easy as it sounds to write about yourself, I was stunted. Years of suppression had made me believe that I had nothing “relevant” to share about myself.

But in this class I learned how to write spontaneously, to get my best thoughts out through repetition. I enjoyed this because I regressed to, although a  basic form of writing, a form that promoted freedom and created a flow of ideas. I was able to write creatively about how I felt at the moment or w.e was going on in my life for those ten minute. It helped me take a moment and to organize my thoughts. Not only did I learn how to be present in my creative writing, I also practiced writing with more details to help illustrate a scene.  I learned to utilize my diction for clarity rather than sophistication. However something that I really worked on is correcting my grammar when I write informally. This was a struggle because obviously you don’t write the way you speak, but sometimes it’s hard to portray voice in your writing, when the way you speak doesn’t transcribe well, grammatically. Therefore this class helped me improve my creative writing, adjust my diction for clarity, and become a more detailed and present writer.