Hail to the New Dawn of Alcohol Programming...maybe?

Having recently sat in on interviews for my institutions open Area Coordinator (RD, RHD, RC, etc.) position and also been doing some program planning with colleagues for the fall a question popped into my mind:


When did we get so stuck doing alcohol programming that involves a mock tail party and marking the bottom of cups to signify certain consequences? 


I mean why is this seemingly the only (or at least a derivative) thing that comes to mind when conversations are had surrounding programming for this topic? Does it mean it is truly effective and should continue to be used? or are we truly just stuck with a tried and trued method? or is it ineffective and we have not taken the time or risk to attempt other programs that might fail or succeed addressing the same topic and being equally engaging? Does anyone care to offer better ideas that they have done?

Theories about being stuck in Theory (A Theory)

"...the trouble about arguments is, they ain't nothing but theories, after all, and theories don't prove nothing, they only give you a place to rest on, a spell, when you are tuckered out butting around and around trying to find out something there ain't no way to find out...There's another trouble about theories: there's always a hole in them somewheres, sure, if you look close enough."- Tom Sawyer Abroad


"Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed." - Einstein


"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Einstein

Having recently returned from a great group of campus interviews. I have been reflecting on these experiences. Something that continues to stand out is how many of the professionals I met had great thoughts & theories they integrated into their daily practice. Equally so, I heard from other colleagues who did not always agree with others perceptions, that they felt like introducing new concepts, theories, approaches at times required them to walk on eggshells (especially if their department was being driven by a leader who had a particular framework in mind). Some department push True Colors, others Strengths Quest, some Myers Briggs, others Holland RIASEC Codes, from Chickering, to Challenge and Support, and everything in between.

I retrace to a previous post referencing a recently devoured book Quantum Mind by Dr. Andrew Mindell. Dr. Mindell references the dramatic shift in our thinking when "objective fact" became the ultimate goal of science and we lost sight of "subjective observation." "Fact" as it presents is limited by the observer and often finite (though it can seem permanent). Remembering that those "facts" that are slower to change seem to present more as "truth" but might inevitably succumb to the test of time (maybe not in my life time however). 


This brings my reflection (and the quotes above) to a simple question, how "stuck" do you get in your theories? Does it define what you choose to observe or do you change the facts to fit the theory?


I personally have always struggled with theory. Yes, being from a mental health background certainly has shaped my mind in a way of thinking, but looking beyond the textbooks I simply find what has always been present, theories are simply at a given point in time someones observations. In some cases these get to a place where they become standardized into textbooks or event assessments, but how is it that we can sometimes grasp so hard to a theoretical framework that in theory we should have a theory made about us (The Theory of Stuck Theorists)? Most important how in our continued pursuit of further education or experience can we remain open to others theories, new theories, or develop and proliferate our own (even within just ourselves)?