I was more responding to the "there is a balance" comment, which I took to mean that uuilly thinks it's better on the whole if children are given some amount of freedom but are still forced to do certain things. That's the idea I was really trying to challenge, though that's admittedly not what I wrote in my first sentence. My comment was too hasty.
I on the other hand, was a dreamer who seldom knew which day it was and frequently left for school 30 minutes late with only one shoe on. I hesitate to think where I'd be without my parent's prodding.
If the kid doesn't need prodding, then life just got easier for you. But to allow a kid to rot in the hope that one day he'll sprout wings is bad parenting. From my experience, kids who require no prodding are outliers.
I agree different things work for different people, and there's probably a spectrum of how "naturally" disciplined people are.
That said, I think people are naturally curious and don't, at least at the beginning of their lives, gravitate towards sitting around and doing nothing. Toddlers are naturally motivated to learn to walk and talk and are almost endlessly inquisitive.
Over time, this curiosity seems to diminish. I think formal schooling, which emphasizes external motivation over internal motivation, is largely to blame.
I might be more naturally disciplined than most, but I think a big part of that comes from not having the first decades of my life mapped out for me.
I really don't think it does. But I think what is valued becomes more narrow. Being curious about listening to different music bands at age 16 isn't valued as much as being curious about math. Being curious about girls isn't valued as much as being curious about programming. Being curious about knowing the stats of every baseball player isn't valued as much as being curious about Shakeaspeare.
People who are curious about certain things are valued, while people are curious about other things are valued less (or rather their curiosity is valued less).