View Full Version : Parental Guiding or Just Being Overly Critical?
DS and I got into more of an argument than usual the other day. He is 27, a recent college grad (very good and very liberal school) and now starting law school. He's a smart guy who is extremely passionate about his beliefs. Politics has been a common subject for us to discuss basically his whole life (y'all are surprised, I know).
I've always let him just throw any random thoughts he wanted around, but now that he is preparing to argue for a living I haven't been so generous. He came to me attempting to tear apart one of the Republican candidates, but only had two sources and both were very biased opinion pieces with nothing backing up the accusations and conclusions they contained. I'm not defending a candidate or trying to say I'm a hot-shot debater, but in this case it really was very easy to find credible sources that blew his up. Simply put, and as someone mentioned in another thread, he was looking for confirmation instead of information. He found it, but it made for a very sloppy and weak argument.
I know that sounds a bit harsh, but we've never had any problem calling BS on each other so I did because it just felt like letting him slide by would do more harm than good with the direction his life is taking. It felt like a good opportunity for a low stakes learning experience. Well, it must have been a bad day for both of us. Voices raised (his almost always does, but rare for me), but then he started to tell me how set in my ways and closed minded I am and how he's "not the only one who has seen it" and other similar statements. I definitely have strong opinions, but never thought of myself as closed minded. I ended up telling him I love him and to call me any time, but that regarding politics it was time to grow up and to give me a call when he was ready to have an adult discussion. No name calling or yelling, but hardly the patient, nurturing, paternal figure I always wanted to be. So what do you guys do if the gentle parental nudge you intended ends up being a harder than it should have been kick in the ass?
Hi, Greg. Been there, done that, but when the kids were younger. When I try to take a parental role with my adult kids it often misfires, and I hear how annoying their dad is to them when he takes that position. I try to avoid it.
However, I did want to say that my youngest is now finishing law school, and his capacity for critical, well-supported thinking has increased by orders of magnitude. So no worries about your guy's training in critical analysis: if he is going to survive law school, he'll learn to evaluate sources, consider confirmation biases, and muster support for his positions. It was very cool to watch my youngest move from a place of knowing it all to a place of knowing how to support his argument but without knowing-it-all. Law education seems to be a good thing (albeit not very frugal).
Don't get upset with him, then, when he can turn around and out-do you.
My dad used to have this relationship with us. When younger, any idea would be openly discussed (no matter how bizarre). When we were in high school or uni, it was "back it up or shut up" right? And then I went to law school and my researching skills went through the roof. So also did my ability to lay out evidence, direct inferences, and so on and so forth.
My dad got seriously pissed, and now we can't talk about politics. I also think it's because he spends too much time listening to the rush-limbaugh ilk, but that's a whole other issue.
My dad used to have this relationship with us. When younger, any idea would be openly discussed (no matter how bizarre). When we were in high school or uni, it was "back it up or shut up" right?
That pretty much describes life in our house. I'm definitely to the point of saying "back it up or shut up" because hey, he's 27 and BRIGHT so he should be entirely capable of conducting research to support his positions. If he makes it through law school I know his skill set in that regard will be finely developed. I'm just trying to do what I can to get him to think that way at the front end. That, and its no fun to argue with someone who is lazy.
He's 27 not 17. You don't have to parent him forever. Since I wasn't there to hear the tone of the conversation, call and apologize about losing your temper if you feel it's called for. That's the decent adult-to-adult thing to do. Other than that, he needed to be called on his weak supporting arguments. If it happens again, just commit to having all political discussions become his monologues.
So what do you guys do if the gentle parental nudge you intended ends up being a harder than it should have been kick in the ass?
Wow, first of all, congratulations--your son is 27 and this is the FIRST time you're asking that question!? So, I'm assuming it was smooth sailing all the way through his growing-up years? ;)
I think if I were to put myself in his shoes, I'd be proud of myself for starting law school and able to take on my extremely intelligent dad, whom I've always loved and respected, in discussions. If my dad uncharacteristically started calling me on stuff, I might be a little surprised and act a tad defensively.
I think you did just the right thing and I'd leave it alone. In the future, if it were me, I'd welcome discussions about politics without getting personal about them. At 27 your DS might think he IS an adult, and beyond needing a "parental nudge."
My son is in law school, too, and as he is a Democrat and my DH is a Republican, those kinds of discussions sound familiar to me!
I like Anne Lee's suggestion. Call him and apologise, even if you weren't in the wrong. That's part of being the adult in the situation. Also being the parent.>8)
It will also help open the door for further discussion. When he accepts, and he will, tell him, in gentle, conversational way why you got upset. (his debate was lame, don't use that term, and you really wanted to hear his thoughts on the subject) I think when we let our kids know we really value their opinion, even if we don't agree with it, it helps them relax and form a better thought. There is a point, and I can't really tell you when you reach it, only you will know, when we view our kids as a separate thinking adult, and not just our kids. I think you've begun that transition, but to make it to the other side your son needs to see you as another, separate thinking adult, and not just dad.
At age 27, I would simply say that you have to agree to disagree just as I would should you and I have a discussion of differing views in politics. At that age, I would not be telling him to back up or shut up or anything but treating him as the adult that you hoped that he would be.
At the core of this seems to be that you really want him to look past, say, The Huffington Post for his arguments. Am I getting that right?
While I don't see anything wrong with trying to convince younger folk that they need a broad range of sources to back up their argument, I can see where (depending on how the conversation escalated) he may have interpreted that as a "you're wrong, I'm right, here's why" scenario.
Search yourself: Were you really trying to strengthen his skills by calling out the bias in his sources? Or were you trying to prove him wrong, because you were irritated by his strident accusations? The former would've made me admire my own father when I was your son's age. The latter would've made me think he was a closed-minded old man. Very fine line.
Lead with love, though, and you can both come through this bigger than when you went into it.
It's obvious to me you love and are proud of your son, even if you don't always agree.
I think it would be good to clarify for him, because he might not see it, that what bothered you about the exchange was not necessarily his political views -- you probably both agree you don't see eye to eye there -- but the poor quality of his argument and what that implied for you about the likelihood of his success in his chosen career. Explain that you know that law school is TOUGH and he is going to be challenged to raise his skills at research and argumentation to a whole new level in order to succeed. His discussions with you are an opportunity to improve those skills in an environment where his "opponent" at least cares about him as a person and wants to see him improve. In law school he might not find such a sympathetic interlocutor.
Maybe if he understands that you are not concerned so much about his beliefs (which he is entitled to, no matter how poorly argued, as are you), but rather his skill set, it would feel less threatening to him.
Sounds to me like he has probably spent too much time "arguing" with people in his academic and social circles whose values and beliefs are pretty well aligned with his. Spending lots of time with "blah blah blah, right?" "blah blah blah, you know?" type exchanges that they may percieve as debate, but which are really just mutually reinforcing. Having a real engagement with someone who has a totally different worldview is another matter entirely. Hopefully he'll step up to the plate before he flunks out of his first semester in law school...
lhamo
loosechickens
2-10-12, 12:52am
At 27, parental guiding is usually more or less useless, unless the 27 year old is SEEKING that guidance, but to me, I think I'd call and apologize for losing my cool, say I had less problems with the viewpoint than the methods of arriving at it, and if he's going to have a career as an attorney, he's going to have to sharpen that up, so learning to marshall an argument, gather his facts, check his sources, etc., and to do so and manage to beat the pants off his old man in an argument will give him great training for the courtroom.....and that you stand ready to be bested if he can do it.
THEN, let it go. It's o.k. if he differs from you politically. I've got one who is a Fox News fan, and thinks anything Rush says is a jewel of wisdom. I'd much prefer it if she held those same views with more of the ability that you, bae or Alan show of being able to marshall her arguments, as opposed to parroting the latest talking point with little understanding of the complexities involved, but ya know what? She is who she is. And she's an adult.
I went head to head with my father on numerous occasions, but I also learned most of my critical thinking skills from him, so focusing on wanting to see him make his argument with better buttressing and facts gathered from a wider variety of sources (even facts can be used selectively, after all), will go a long way toward improving communication between you.
It's hard when you've always been the parent, to recognize at which point you have to step back and recognize that this new, adult person is NOT going to agree with you on a lot of things, but that's life.
I do recognize what you mean, though. It's less the viewpoint and more the willingness to accept blatant propaganda and bias as "the truth", rather than using their minds to form solid views based on having thought the subject through, that is the disappointment.
Of course, even when the adult kid totally agrees with us politically, it might be that he or she is just as accepting of "truthiness", and not using his or her mind for much other than a hatrack, but if the views align with our own, we usually don't see that lack of critical thinking skills quite so clearly, hahahaha
As per usual y'all are insightful and compassionate far beyond any expectation. Thank you!
Search yourself: Were you really trying to strengthen his skills by calling out the bias in his sources? Or were you trying to prove him wrong, because you were irritated by his strident accusations?
Ultimately, that is what I'm trying to do (search myself, that is). If I'm completely honest answering puglogic's whole question I have to say...both. Everyone is absolutely right that he is 27 and an adult and there isn't much I can do for him these days beyond just being there. He has always been very politically oriented so that was a thread that helped get the two of us through teenage years without police involvement. My detachment issues aside, I really had hoped that by now his arguments would be a little more thoughtful and well rounded. That's not to say I need him to agree with me (that may never happen), but it would be refreshing to see him coming from a position that was a little more carefully considered.
It's frustrating for me to see (what I perceive as) a relative lack of growth in years when I thought it would be exponential. Of course that is me shoving his life through my filters, not his. I think lhamo hit on a critical point. He took 8 years to get through his undergrad (a transfer, some surfing, a couple changes of majors, one change of girlfriend...). During that time I was pretty much the only voice in his philosophical life that wasn't an echo of his own. The altruistic side of me wants to help him grow into the next phase of his life. Then there is that selfish little part of me wants to stand over the corpse of his argument and say, "ha, I kicked your butt!!!". Guess parents are human, too. http://th18.photobucket.com/albums/b117/kathyhinsh/Smilies/th_smiley_aayt.gif
Are you certain his argument doesn't hold water, or do you simply not see it? ;) There is a type of person who no matter how strong the evidence or facts are (those who don't believe in evolution or climate change, for instance) they put their fingers in their ears and deny the evidence, saying it doesn't prove anything..lalala...I'm not saying you're that person, I'm just saying... :laff:
loosechickens
2-10-12, 2:12pm
well, of all the folks on this board, I'd accuse Gregg least of being unwilling to keep an open mind and consider other viewpoints, but it IS hard when it's your own kids. Folks who can be the soul of reason with everyone else often have lots of emotional investment in disputes with their offspring, and it sounds as though Gregg is aware of that dual wish to instruct, and also to flatten an opponent that is often at work, and is doing a good job of trying to search through his own heart for which is uppermost in this case, and how much each instinct is operating here.
It is much easier when the kids agree with our political views, because then we can "comfort" ourselves that, yes, their thinking skills are excellent, hahahahaha. I'm always AMAZED at how much better my son, the liberal, sees "the truth"........But...........
Gregg, I'm impressed that you are trying to find your way through this forest. It's rare that parents really do that. your son is lucky to have you, and you are probably going to have to sharpen up your own arguments once this guy gets through law school and learns a lot more about sharpening up his......a good thing for both of you, probably.
Awww...thanks for the kind words LC. I'm actually really looking forward to him finding the top of his game. I know it will be great for me!
Yours is a totally valid question peggy. I took a pretty hard look at the conversation before posting here in Family Matters and I'm still pretty sure this was a case of his argument being garbage in, garbage out. I'm as fallible as anyone, but I do get quite a bit of practice checking my facts and trying to word the conclusions in ways that promote conversation, rather than start fights, thanks to my time spent here. For anyone curious about the details (from my point of view) here is what got it rolling...
I'm sure you can fill in a few blanks (or we can talk details in a different forum), but basically DS was accusing one of the Republican candidates of unscrupulous business practices. A little research showed that the company the candidate was previously affiliated with had indeed done what DS said they had. It wasn't illegal in any way, but was unsavory. The problem for our conversation was that the deal in question went down two years after that candidate left. By doing all the things candidates do (put assets in blind trusts and the like) it would have been impossible for that candidate to have been involved in that particular deal. The sources he quoted were a blog from a fairly large church's web site and a tabloid magazine site. The description as a tabloid comes from wikipedia: I had to look it up because I wasn't familiar with them. Anyway, both have published positions in opposition to that candidate and/or the Republican party in general and both were opinion pieces. In their respective pieces both authors offered a single line disclaimer buried in the articles (one on page 6 the other on page 10) stating that the company's actions were indeed taken after the candidate had resigned. It really was two very classic examples of yellow journalism that use the exact bare minimum of disclaimer to keep them out of court. I responded with a timeline of events, verified by 1/2 a dozen federal regulatory agencies and the global financial press, to show DS that the accusations directed at the candidate were unfounded. I told him I don't know what the guy did or didn't do, but he didn't do this. As much as anything I was upset that DS had tried and convicted the guy without doing ANY of his own research (and told him so later). I also told him that if there was any real meat on that bone he wouldn't have to dig it up in an obscure church blog because it would be all over the mainstream media. He responded by saying the guy was a dirt bag whether he was part of that deal or not and then accused me of being closed minded, set in my ways, called me a few less than flattering political names and it just kind of went downhill from there.
He obviously had a burr in his shorts, but I wouldn't let him get away disrespecting me, or anyone else, like that. I basically told him to take the ring out of his nose and call me when wanted to talk like a grown up. I'm sure those were very hard words to hear from me and I felt really bad about not being the all patient ear on the other end who has always let him work through things. Truth is (and I still need to tell him this) I'm busy with about 100 other things that all deserve more of my attention than they get. I just don't have the time right now to spend hours and hours letting him work through his political philosophy. He's a big boy now and needs to do that so we can whittle our conversations down to a manageable level.
Wow. :idea:
Gregg, I was just funning with you. Of all the conservatives on this forum, you are one I know I could sit down with a glass of wine (can't stand beer) and have a good conversation, one that didn't even include politics.* I'm fairly certain you gave him the benefit of the doubt, and probably, as a parent, a bit of leeway.
Guilty by association is the worst argument by my thinking. I don't hold it for liberals (Obama and his preacher, donators, etc) or republicans (Bush and The King of Saudi, Rumsfeld, his donors). It's a weak argument, true that. (I see a vision of Glen Beck's chalkboard and circles and arrows everywhere!)
You might need to be the one to offer the olive branch, though, if this goes on too long. That's just part of being a parent I'm afraid. If your parents won't give you a break, who will? If there is strain between you though, I would suggest diffusing it as soon as you can. Sometimes things can grow beyond the original dust up, and the silence and tension becomes the thing. I'm guessing your son also feels bad about the argument, but maybe, because of less experience with discord, doesn't really know how to get beyond it. You are a very fair minded, reasonable person. It's obvious you love and respect your son. Help him through this, and I think you will find you in fact do influence your kids even as they are adults. Your influence, as his father, doesn't really end, even though he is grown. This I have learned as my kids grew. They actually listen to you, even as adults. Don't believe you are not an influence. You are. Just keep respectful of their opinion and they will learn to be respectful of yours.
*i could absolutely share a margarita with Iris Lily on the dock, and discuss flowers and gardens in general. I would enjoy that. I would also enjoy a political discussion with Alan, I would, but would have to drink a bit before i engaged.;)
Had a great talk with DS last night. Made sure to tell him I love him and respect his positions, he said he knew that. Asked him if it might be time to step up his game and he agreed. The idea that he's been swimming in a large school (pun intended) of the same fish got him thinking a little. We'll see where things go, but off to what seems like a positive start in a new direction. Thank you one and all for the insight and encouragement. It's awfully nice to be part of our little community!
P.S...Peggy, keep me in mind when you and Iris have that margarita.
Way to go, Gregg! Awesome to hear.
iris lily
2-11-12, 12:14pm
P.S...Peggy, keep me in mind when you and Iris have that margarita.
ha ha ha ha! I'm pushing her offa the dock, be forewarned!
surfingbodi
2-11-12, 12:59pm
I think hands-off as much as possible during 20s should be a rule - until someone has raised their own kids and been responsible for more than their own pleasures, they do not get it no matter how much education and bs you call. however, politics, like religion, can send them scurrying out the door for years when it just doesn't have to be that way. just patiently say, maybe you are right and turn the conversation to something you enjoy with him. you don't need to teach him anymore, now is the time where he goofs up and others in the world call him on it. just love him and let him be.
now, will i actually be able to do that when my kids get there? will i choose that? i don't know but right now my kids say the craziest crap and while i do gently propose another line of thinking and ask gently where they got their info from, they model me if i don't humiliate them and that is i might be wrong, i know my sources, and i know the bias within my sources. that's all i need to give them. the rest is theirs to do as they will.
good luck!
sb
loosechickens
2-11-12, 3:17pm
Glad to hear it Gregg......I'm sure both of you got something out of this encounter, and can learn from it. You certainly got some insight into those "double" instincts going on between nurturing parent and Alpha male, your son will be careful to gather better ammunition before engaging the next time....it's all good.
We all have far more in common than we have differences. And even where we have differences, often it's merely from looking from differing viewpoints rather than disagreeing about the problems. It's unfortunate that politics have become so very divisive in recent years, but it's not the first time this has happened in our country and probably won't be the last, especially when there are folks who make a lot of money sowing fear and disinformation to manipulate voters.
I always try to remember with my kids that it is NEVER a relationship of equals, because to that kid, your words will always have nuclear capability, so you have to guard against that desire to WIN sometimes and make sure your parent who loves them is always where the words are coming from. I think about several things my father said to me or my sweetie's father said to him, many, many years in the past, that the parent probably wouldn't even remember saying, yet to both of us, those comments cut to the quick in a way that the same things said by another would never have done. I try to remember that with my kids, because I know that my words have far more weight than words from another, and hurtful things said will reverberate down through decades, possibly.
Sounds like you handled it really well.....and your son shows promise for learning to think critically, too. Both of you are lucky to have each other, methinks.....
ha ha ha ha! I'm pushing her offa the dock, be forewarned!
Yea..but I'm mixing the drinks!;):0!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.