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. The kid who does nothing but play will probably end up having very little opportunity and have to work long hours later in life to barely make ends meet with lots of stress and little opportunity for play. So its a trade off.
Obviously if the kid comes from a rich family that is willing to support and leave all of their money to the kid that changes the equation, but I have seen examples where those kids still ended up as drug addicts etc..
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.
> 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.
Obviously if the kid comes from a rich family that is willing to support and leave all of their money to the kid that changes the equation, but I have seen examples where those kids still ended up as drug addicts etc..