Summer Interview

A couple of weeks ago, after the emc workshop, I emailed Ben Goes (our research consultant) so that we could set up a summer interview. In this email, I included a brief summary of the different topics I have studied through emc, a little about myself, and what Ben called today "the dates of my vacation and a list of dates to infinity that I would be in the lab." What ensued however, was far more significant than coordinating a date, time, and place for the first interview of this year.

Over the two weeks that followed, between then and today, we discussed many things over email, from science, to economics, to God and religion, and to the concept of friendship in an ideological as well as actionable sense. Although we disagreed on most things, I found it to be a pleasant banter, and a level of discourse that was probably more insightful than most other conversations I've been a part of. Something I very much appreciated about this was that it showed me the power of questioning. But it wasn't a newfound realization, I've always loved questions. But rather, more like a reminder that questioning isn't only useful in school or when doing something strictly academic. An ability to question someone else's ideas, even their word choice, undoubtedly leads you to understand that person better, see how they think, and consider their point of view with a more level perspective.

Anyway, today was the interview. We met at Albany Med during lunchtime and basically continued our previously electronic discussions. Somehow, we began by talking about having parents from foreign countries and their English difficulties, but then ended up spending a substantial amount of time discussing the evolution of emc. This is a part where I think our different points of view were helpful to complete the picture for each other. Ben's position as a consultant/coordinator and someone who's not in school on a regular basis with us, showed me what the instructors of the course had in mind and how those goals have translated themselves in the past as well as how they will in this upcoming year. On the other hand, at one point or another, Ben mentioned a few things that were not working out to the instructors' liking or expectations such as the planning of interviews or the way things were in the past two years of the program. Here, I think it was valuable for me to offer some feedback as someone on the student side of things as well as someone who went through those first two years - because I presented some context that Ben may or may not have previously gotten.

Otherwise, we mostly discussed my project and very little of Ben's project. We also single (double?) handedly came up with a cure for Alzheimer's in nematodes - just gotta ablate the presenilin protein receptors, that's all - over a bag of carrots and some guac and chips. But you know, no big deal. One of the concerns that I brought up in discussing my project is that I do not want my studying of worms and the writing of this academic paper to erase the work I've done last year in bringing neuroscience to larger usage and meaning. Here, Ben suggested that since I have 50 journals to write, I could dedicate a portion to the technical stuff and the other portion to maintaining that metaphor and chronicle how my forthcoming work this year is affecting it. My only trepidation with this is that I don't want my journals and thought process to seem disjointed or incoherent which is something that may happen if I am unable to properly bring the two concepts together.

Overall, I think the interview went well. I enjoyed explaining my project to Ben and working my way through the different nuances - a truly difficult speaking feat. But nevertheless, all turned out not too badly, considering my record of awkwardness and social ineptitude. One thing I am - not really concerned about - but more like slightly confused by is how conducting an interview such as this one with a neuroscience professional would be plausibly executed. Don't get me wrong, I learned many things from my interview with Ben today, but I feel as though the interviews I conduct for the rest of this project will have to be a little more structured. Mostly because of these professionals' limited time but also because I think there is something to be said about staying focused on a certain objective/purpose. Today, Ben and I essentially jumped from one topic to the next with no real logical sequence or pattern, which was great and organic and definitely served the purpose of this particular assignment. But I'm not sure what that means for me as I interview topic-specific professionals. A method that I developed last year was to only prepare about 3 or 4 broad questions beforehand and go from there. Usually, the professors ended up answering each one of the questions for something like 40 minutes because I kept on asking smaller questions within the topic that helped move the conversation forward as well as help me gain clarity and a more complete understanding of the subject matter. I believe it would not be wrong to say that those were conversations. Much different from the one I had with Ben today, but conversations nonetheless. I guess my question is, which is better? A conversational interview with guiding questions or a conversational interview with nothing but multiple people and their thoughts?

I don't have an answer to that but I'm still thinking about it. Today's interview taught me many things, but the most prominent thing I took away from it was that in order to truly understand what we are studying, be it a brain, a painting, or a ukulele, we must first learn how to understand the people we coincide with - everyone that crosses our paths and even those who do not. And as I saw today as well as over the past two weeks, the first step towards doing so is to embrace that lovely talent of communication. As terrifying as it is, talking to people is important. Let's try not to underestimate the benefits of interaction.