1. When he writes that many of these kids have lived “highly structured lives”, that is another way of saying they have been active participants in civil society: soccer leagues, art classes, school newspaper, internships, etc. Whether or not they were “nudged” (or coerced) by their parents to do these things, the fact is they now have a lot of experience in a wide range of activities, have seen how well-managed non-governmental organizations can exist, thrive and contribute to a richer live. Well, many kids who have spent years doing those things will: (1) be more likely to know how to run and lead such organizations, (2) have wide interests, curious minds and flexibility about the possibility of doing many things, (3) as a result of 1 and 2 may also be more entrepreneurial. Will there be some kids who were essentially lemmings, just doing it because they were told to but who did not get much out of it? Sure, but I would say the benefit outweighs the harm on balance. (And anyway, what harm has there actually been? It seems to me for righ-side of the bell curve people, it is much more challenging to go from an UNstructured live to a structured life than the other way around.)

2. Brooks also underestimates the power of individual predilection and inborn nature. People who are self-starters, are self-starters; people who are not, are not. To a great extent this is difficult to alter in people. So whether your childhood was structured, unstructured or whatever, it will only marginally impact your personality and style. (If this sounds like it contradicts point 1 above, consider point 1 as the “nurture” part, and this point as the “nature” part.)

3. As for kids having been bred on Baby Boomer optimism and high expectations, my sense is that most people of the younger generation are not stupid. They see the writing on the wall, they know the score, and they realize that the future is highly uncertain and in flux.

Humans are not designed for perpetual adolescence, but they can become addicted to it.