CAAC Ahmed Hafedh by Ahmed Hafedh

CRJ #1: Initial Perceptions of Americans 20.09.23

abhafedh2005 — 2023-09-20 16:45:04 UTC

When asked about my personal perception of Americans through he 9-Question Survey given to us by Dr. Melissa, I initially answered in belief that Americans represent the Hard Working "Joe" who's brash (in a good way) yet considerate of others. I believe that this perspective exists in me through conversations and stories my father would tell me about his experience studying in the US and Canada. Having done so around 23 years ago, my father's, ergo my perspective of American/Western culture was bound to change, which through the qualitative data collection I and my peers have gone through, I realized my views were extremely idealized and of a higher level of optimism and reverence than what was found.

Vaguely, the average American seemed to hold overly negative views of themselves, especially when speaking about the way they act, what they value, and what they they are worried about. It shocked me that so many participants kept repeating the same ideas of the American "Love for Money", the "Disappearing American Dream" (Many seemed to believe that hard work does not necessarily lead to a more comfortable life, and I perceive this to be due to recent economic struggles and strange government spending over the course of the last few years), and how self aware they were about how rude they are. Personally, I didn't attached the cold nature many are perceived to have as rudeness, but rather a simple straight-forward approach to conversations, but it seemed that many took this certain characteristic as a simple, plain-old rudeness.

Something I noticed was the higher-than-expected frequency of mention of bearing arms. I think this was present due to a bias in the research population in that many of them were most likely Texan (we all interviews around UT's campus and 90% of its students are Texan), and Texans are known for placing a higher importance on the 2nd Amendment than other Americans. Furthermore, this explains the higher-than-expected mention of God and Religion. The percent of Religious Texans is 8 more than the national average.

Personally, I was a bit disappointed to not see a sort of "silver-lining". I genuinely assumed that after conducting the study, I would find optimistic, positive traits Americans possess that I either take for granted or don't know about. In reality, I just found a more pronounced negativity as compared to my initial thoughts without the positive I personally went in with. Still, I believe that through the 9-months I will be spending as a FY student at the University, this initial shock will transform into an appreciation.

CRJ #2: What did you get out of Week 2

abhafedh2005 — 2023-10-02 10:43:54 UTC

3 Things I Learnt this Week:
1: I thoroughly enjoyed diving into and forming a better perception as to why Americans pertain to the certain stereotypes internationals attribute to them, specifically the idea of Americans being materialistic, greedy, individualistic (to a fault), and disrespectful to elders. Through reading the American Values sheet, these stereotypes were contextualized behind values that make sense in the context of American history. Americans are not individualistic to a fault, but strive to reach independent greatness and dislike over-dependence. Americans are not materialistic, as they view material wealth as symbols of their hard work and determination. Americans do not disrespect elders, but society does place a high value and base most of its respect from how much someone works. Hence, elders who don't work as much as not as respected as the hustling 40-something year old. Overall, while reasonings don't justify flaw, it does allow me to better empathize with the average American and remove a lot of the initial bias I had that still stuck after living here for 3 weeks.

2: In addition, understanding how America is a nation of immigrants has allowed me to appreciate just how truly diverse it is. Food, culture, and even down to weather differ mere hour drives apart from each other—a juxtaposition to the seemingly monotonous culture experienced in most other countries in the world. Monotonous is a bit harsh, yet accurate reflects the relative contrasts presented in the US culture wise. California, for example, is made up of less than 50% white, compared to 78% white in Texas. This difference is huge considering these areas are from the same country. This indicates that everything will differ; Food, way of life, open-mindedness, religiousness, etc.

3: Finally, I've been better able to understand my own feelings towards adjusting to the US culture through better understanding the different stages one goes through during a move from place to place. I've been able to recognize the cultural shock stage off myself.

Things I want to Learn more About:
1: I want to further contextualize American Stereotypes to allow myself to better empathize with the average American. I feel like I relate to them and started seeing the "silver Lining" I so desperately wanted in my last journal entry.

2: I want to learn more about each ethnicities history in the states. I vaguely know of the Chinese and Indian, but would enjoy learning about the large hispanic, Irish, and European origins of many modern-day citizens

Things I don't understand:
One thing I don't understand yet is how the US deals with illegal immigrants. We briefly discussed this in class, but I still find it hard to wrap my head around the fact that illegal aliens cane enjoy special services as long as they aren't caught. Wouldn't this encourage reckless behavior at certain points in order to not get caught? Doesn't this make life anxiety-inducing for the illegal immigrant? Is the US lenient or tough? It's confusing.

SMART Goals Link

abhafedh2005 — 2023-10-16 15:50:26 UTC

This has my goals + Handouts linked inside: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K562866n_DK_lEPl3H0Rd2wVlj1LQLxKmkgWz_yaPrY/edit?usp=sharing

Moderated Discussion Reflection

abhafedh2005 — 2023-11-29 17:00:33 UTC

Was my topic suitable?

I feel in the context of our discussions purpose, the topic was an engaging and information-rich one where participants had the opportunity to look for sources outside the selected ones with ease, or even bring in their own personal past experience. Since my discussion was directly after the UC deadline, I wanted to make sure that the topic was not as technical which I think in theory was the right move. In practice though, the topic seemed awkward to debate at times because I believe I was missed out on giving my participants the clear sides to the argument, which I feel would’ve helped with the pace of the debate.

Were your sources and questions suitable for this assignment? Did they generate a lively discussion? Why or why not?

My sources were perfectly suitable. I sent my group a breakdown of every states jurisdiction regarding the issue at hand, which in of in itself is an unbiased thing to have, in addition to a video highlighting the issue with a case study to look at. My intentions with these was to give us the opportunity to discuss a live case of Trangender People in Sports as presented in the video in addition to going over stately views to converge towards the idea of political proxy battles. Ultimately, it didn’t work in the way I envisioned and I chalk this up to the resources being too much on my group relative to the time we had to read and form opinions. I as the moderator should have been more forward thinking from this.

What did you do well as the moderator?

I think I did alright as the moderator in terms of trying to bring as many people into the debate as possible, but I found it incredibly difficult. I had to stay constantly alert, and had to make sure the debate didn’t turn into a conversation between myself and my group members. It was a very different experience, but through the uncomfort I do see how more of these are necessary to get used to this format. I didn’t expect remaining unbiased in addition to making sure everyone gets a turn to speak would be difficult. Another aspect I found challenging was channeling excitement in my group mates at times. I needed to be more ready to throw topics from different areas of the topic to keep my group engaged, as some aspects I enjoyed of it they didn’t as much.

What could you have done better?

1- Pick a wider variety of aspects (scientific-leaning, political-leaning, etc) to satisfy the groups different interests

2- Give a summary of the different perspectives involved in the debate to make more use of the 20 minute time + situation with the UCs

3- Learn to more naturally keep people engaged throughout the discussion in unobvious ways

Single Stories: What's a single story someone could create about me?

abhafedh2005 — 2023-12-06 15:38:38 UTC

As someone who pursued a lot of scientific researcher as a high schooler, the academic enviroment was definitely interesting to witness from my perspective. It was appalling obvious most of the time I would contact labs/PIs that a strict hierarchy was in-place, with PIs being at the top followed by doctoral students, then master, then bachelor (then me). Because of this, I could feel a certain aggressiveness from the older students whenever I would take up a little bit of the PIs time. I first chalked this to stress, but later began realizing that they probably believe me to be some kid who was given the position as a resumé pad and that I wasn't genuinely interested about the work we were doing.

I made it an effort to talk to the students more and more, as initially I was way too shy to spark actual conversations with them. This is where I think they developed this idea of me from: they most likely found me quiet hence uninterested in the work. I had to break this single story through proving that I did in fact understand what was going on, and that I was there based on my own will.

Participant Reflection: Azzam and US Intervention

abhafedh2005 — 2023-12-06 15:46:20 UTC

Summarize your opinion of the sources the moderator provided and the topic in general.

The sources were mainly unbiased; he gave us a timeline/history of the US's interventions and a case to look at. I was able to form my own opinion based on the resources without being swayed towards any specific side.

What did you do well during the discussion?

I chose to debate from a point of view that wasn't my own, which I think was not only very fun but allowed me to better understand a specific perspective of the argument (which in this case was being pro US intervention). I also gave way for more fiery debate, as if I adopted my normal perspective, the flow of conversation would have been incredibly more linear.

What could you have done better? + Change

Honestly I thoroughly enjoyed Azzam's session. I can't think of particular details I'd have changed more than to increase the moderated discussion's time period because of how fun it was. Maybe I'd have made it a requirement for the moderator to summarize our points made throughout the discussion in order to be able to read over what we talked about, but otherwise it was great.

Personally, I was probably too excited and adamant to speak from a different. perspective which made it hard to undergo genuine shifts in my position. Had I spoken from my normal point of view, I might've experienced a genuine alteration in my position on the topic, but because I didn't, I couldn't really emulate this specific experience.

What did you learn from this experience?

1- Take turns speaking

2- Active Listening is better than listening while thinking of a response

3- Truly try to see the world through the eyes of other debaters to understand faults in their arguments