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