> The kid that does really well in school, makes it big is going to have an opportunity for a lot more play later in life.

Really? There's a constant push to "grind" more, even for well-paid professionals. This is a cultural problem, not one of attainment. Consider how Elon Musk, one of the richest people in the world, claims to work ~16 hours a day. Someone with a steady job in construction probably has a lot more free time than him.

I don't think it's as simple as having 100% play vs 100% work. There's got to be some optimum balance here that we're clearly not satisfying, with our flawed notion that 100% work is the best route. It's possible for people to have a satisfying social life while also doing very well in school, and it's also possible for a loner to have a depressing life while failing at school.

Agreed. It's not black and white and the realistic answer is something in between. It's entirely possible to work hard and still play hard, especially in your 20s/30s/40s when your body is still in its prime.

this is a liberal myth. you can do just fine without a career or a degree. it doesnt mean youre doomed. but mentally lazy liberals perpetuate this myth, and its enabled by the fact that liberals all scramble to get degrees even if they are totally pointless. all the instances of overeducated people barely making ends meet are ignored. and the more this scare mongering is spread, the worse it is for everyone. it shames people on the bottom half but thats never bothered liberals that much.

furthermore your comment is just wrong. this is about play as a young child. its not like children are cramming all their free time with studying. this is about parents stifling their children, making them be still so they dont have to worry. there is no advantage later on if your child was under-stimulated. furthermore, play time doesnt benefit the development of adults. they are developed. duh.