The Inverse Makes Sense

19 06 2012

Have you seen or heard those ads about a self-help program you can purchase “if you have a 11 to 17 year old male child who is displaying defiance or opposition?”

Go ahead and do it, if you want to zap his developing manhood.

WTOP-FM DC:

U.Va. research: Arguing kids could have benefits

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. (AP) – Though parents have been teaching their children not to argue with adults for generations, new research from the University of Virginia shows that young teenagers who are taught to argue effectively are more likely to resist peer pressure to use drugs or alcohol later in adolescence.

“It turns out that what goes on in the family is actually a training ground for teens in terms of how to negotiate with other people,” said Joseph Allen, a U.Va. psychology professor and the lead author of the study, results of which were published in a recent edition of the journal Child Development.

Allen said that parents are often “scared to death about peer pressure,” but also frustrated by argumentative children.

“What we’re finding is there’s a surprising connection between the two,” he said. Allen noted that teens “learn they can be taken seriously” through interactions with their parents.

“Sometimes, it can be counterintuitive to tell parents to let their teens argue with them,” said Joanna Chango, a clinical psychology graduate student at UVa who worked on the study. In fact, learning effective argumentation skills can help teenagers learn to “assert themselves and establish a sense of autonomy,” she said.

The article goes on to state that the study finds that teenagers who argued with their parents also had the presence of mind to reject the peer pressure of illicit drugs.

This may not seem sensible on its face, but when you look at the inverse of this, the the original contention becomes much more clear.  A teenager who is too much of a doily or dillweed to argue with his or her parents because he or she is a go along to get along type (or has been raised to be that way) will apply his or her go along to get along attitude when the gang of bad kids comes a’callin’.

Another reason to encourage and not discourage rational argumentativeness in your teenager is that when he or she starts, he or she is starting to think for him or her self, and is becoming a political adult, the point at which he or she starts developing opinions apart from his or her immediate domestic influences.  Yeah, their opinions might be half-baked at first, (and largely influenced by the leftist media or educational system), but you can’t get to full baked without passing past half baked.

About these ads

Actions

Information

5 responses

19 06 2012
Bon, From the Land of Babble

There’s a HUGE difference between rational arguing and outright defiance — and it is the defiance that causes the problems, not rational arguing. Many things teens don’t like are not open to discussion, such as staying out all night, not doing chores, smoking pot or taking drugs, ditching school, refusing to do homework –there are no rational arguments to support these things, they just ARE because teens are minors, not adults (not that most teens are capable of fomenting rational arguments on anything!).

There is also a difference between rational questioning and arguing for arguing’s sake which a lot of teens seem to like, as a form of defiance — even though teens do not have the knowledge, maturity, background or life experience to be arguing about anything except at a very rudimentary level.

You know I go POSTAL when someone writes “She was 15 but very mature” (as a way to justify teen sex) or “Teens today are much more mature than teens in the past.” Look, a 15, 16 or 17 year old is NOT mature under any definition of mature; a 15 year old does not have the education, life experience or knowledge to be mature. This is why the laws in all states do not allow teens to vote, get married, sign contracts or own property AND, makes them the responsibility of their parents, they are, under the law, minors, until they are 18, and for good reason.

Bon

20 06 2012
lowlywhisper

Frankly, I make the absolute minimum age for maturity thirty years. As far as I’m concerned, folks shouldn’t be able to vote until they’re at least thirty-fve, or older. As far as teens arguing, that’s a barrel of laughs; what could be more fun than arguing a teen into a corner?

20 06 2012
countenance

The lucky part for you is that under 30’s voting rate is pathetically low. Even in 2008, it wasn’t much higher (or rather, less pathetic) than prior Presidential years. And during midterm elections and other cycles, you’ll see the Loch Ness Monster at a voting booth about as often as you’ll see a person under 25.

20 06 2012
Spartan24

The first time I saw the ad I envisioned some horrific sort of shock collar. Usually the parents who fall for this nonsense have a normal teenager and the more they push this garbage the more rebellious the kid could become.

20 06 2012
countenance

I think it’s as simple as our society’s decades-long attempt at gender alchemy, trying to turn boys and young men into girls and young women.




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,715 other followers

%d bloggers like this: