From this headline it sounds like this is an article about the lameness of schools, but actually it's a very interesting article about the importance of self-discipline.
Most of the rest seemed to consist of saying that lack of obedience in modern children indicates something is wrong with them. And finding things to blame this on, like toys.
I don't think the issue was self-discipline because the example of how they studied it was about whether the children would stand still when someone else told them to.
"Essentially, because children's play is so focused on lessons and leagues, and because kids' toys increasingly inhibit imaginative play, kids aren't getting a chance to practice policing themselves. When they have that opportunity, says Berk, the results are clear: Self-regulation improves."
You say curi missed the most interesting aspect -- from your POV (and obviously shared by others). I disagree with you about what is the most interesting aspect, but I don't think your point is uninteresting, but neither would I think you missed the "most interesting aspect." I think the "most interesting" is merely the useful idea that "developing self-regulation is beneficial and important."
While there is really nothing wrong about the state of your, and curi's scores, and how much people agree with either of you, this points system makes it look like, at a glance, that something was wrong about curi's post, and yours was, relatively, +18 correct. This is a negative side effect of this point system, which I don't think most people keep in mind when voting.
edit: btw this thread wasn't a representative example. disagreeing with pg increases downmods. if it'd been someone else it might not have happened.
and i was getting some downmods by people who didn't like the link or title but who can't downmod the submission itself so downmod comments intead.
I strongly disagree with your assessment of the rest of the article, it seems like you're trying hard to fit it in to a particular world view. Concentration is not obedience, its vastly more important, and I don't think the lack of concentration shown was simply as a result of the childrens new aversion to obedience (if such a thing exists).
I'm not saying all children are good at concentration. I doubt most of the kids who stand still well are very good at concentration. It's just not what is being tested for and not what schools really care about.
in my case, my james bondian self-discipline, my exceptional always-in-flow-like concentration (nevermind when i'm actually in flow,) and my einsteinian think-in-nature cognition did nothing for school because i didn't care for it to begin with
does standing still indicate self-discipline? maybe, if the particular subject cares enough about the situation they're in. who's to say that test in the 1940's didn't result that way because of the children's obedience, making the test a poor determinant of self-discipline?
if a child is more likely to obey, they're more likely to be labeled "good executive functioning" by testers regardless of their relative self-discipline, and more likely to do good in school by that metric. hence, obedience may have just as much or more to do with school performance than actual self-discipline
i bet many children today don't even know the concept of "obedience." they obey, but it doesn't have a cultural significance for them. which would consequently mean the study done recently is freer of the effects of obedience and therefore more likely (but by how much?) to be measuring self-discipline by its lonesome. but in any case, the proposition that the difference is due to toys or playstyle doesn't seem likely to me. not as likely as obedience does :)
another sad thing in all this is that ADD often corresponds to particular personality types. i'm introverted and my mind always speeds along like it's on crack. if i was extroverted, that energy would force external motion and i would basically be some sort of technical spongebob. i'm guessing the MBTI types most often marked with ADD are ENFP and ENTP (which happens to be the prototypical entrepreneur)
why is that a problem? because personality types don't change. they're what people are. well, with chemicals they can change temporarily, which is the sad thing