Physics
for Prevention Specialists
Imagine you are standing
in the aisle of an express train moving down the tracks, bouncing a ball. The
ball leaves your hand at point “A,” drops to the floor and bounces straight
back, which to all in the passenger car is in the same place as when the ball
was released, point “A.” Meanwhile, outside, standing on a platform in a
station as the express passes through, an observer views you bouncing the ball.
However, to the observer, the ball leaves your hand at point “A,” drops to the
floor and bounces back to you at point “B” several feet in front of where first
dropping the ball. Although it is true that we can accurately calculate the
distance between points “A” and “B,” mathematically, from the perspective of
the passenger on the train there has been no such movement. Quite simply, the
experience of the observer and that of the observed are decidedly different.
Ironically, neither the
observer nor the observed is aware of this dissonance as each is comfortable in
his or her perception of what is real. The variance between these two
realities is of no consequence to either, that is until and unless a discussion
between the two were to develop as to whose perception was correct. And if both
the observer and the observed are not theoretical mathematicians and one was to
present his or her perception of reality to the other, it would be rejected out
of hand as absurd.
Taking some liberties
with this high school physics example, what if we consider the observed
passenger on the train to be our collegiate drinker (the student) and the observer on the platform
in the station us? It may be clear to "us" that
"the student’s" behavior is high-risk if not problematic; something easily
demonstrated. From the perspective of "the student," however, nothing
has changed: Remember that what causes a problem, is a problem, only when it causes a perceived problem. If what causes a
problem for "us" is not perceived to be a problem for "the
student," why would he or she be motivated to consider changing that
behavior…especially if it proffered a successful solution to a perceived real personal problem, say, social
shyness or anxiety? To
"us," "the student’s" drinking is a problem because he or she is under 21 and/or misses class or engages in some troublesome or
nefarious behavior. To the drinker, that is to say, "the student,"
the drinking has accomplished what it was intended to accomplish…social
engagement and interpersonal confidence with any resulting missed class an
acceptable consequence of an otherwise successful ploy to address what, for the
student, is the real problem.
It is a question of
perspective and until and unless prevention specialists first grasp this
reality and then explore it to better understand "the student's"
perspective, we will continue to miss a key portion of the equation for
solving the problem associated with the drinking some students do, much like
the old cartoon
depicted here:
Prevention specialists
need to recognize that students have ascribed meaning to alcohol as a substance
and "drinking" as a behavior. It is this meaning that affects their
choices regarding these icons of contemporary youthful socializing. Until and
unless the meaning ascribed to these icons changes, the likelihood that their
behavior will change is in question. Fortunately, we know that the
"maturing out" phenomenon will result in such changes in the meaning
ascribed to these icons, but this generally takes several semesters if not
years. This period represents a rather significant "window of
opportunity" for the untoward consequences of collegiate drinking that so
frequently consume the agenda of student affairs planning sessions at this time
of the year.
It is recommended that prevention specialists concern themselves
with better understanding the "physics" of how students ascribe
meaning to these icons of youthful socializing in order to hasten the
"maturing out phenomenon," thereby closing the window on risk of
untoward consequences sooner.
What do you think?
Dr. Robert
