[Nasrudith]

The point is that they are individuals and one size fits all is doomed to failure. Any findings will be coarse and easy to confuse cause and effect. Just because children active in sports and music programs may be healthier and happier doesn't mean forcing the kid into both will improve things - by all means expose the kids to it, encourage them and let them pursue it but forcing a square peg into a round hole is good for no one.

There were worries that powerlines were harming children because children with homes near power lines had worse performance in schools. Analysis found that the mechanism for the "harm" was lowered property values - parents who lived near powerlines considered unsightly had fewer resources and it reflected in their children's academic performance.

A pure statistical approach on an individual level is like trying to have a full term baby in one month. Trying to actually raise children involves small N numbers with divergent starting states and control is impossible. You won't raise your second child in the same environment as the first - the year is different, you are different and there is the addition of an older sibling.

You can figure out great harms and benefits but anything else is shrouded in enough noise that attempting it at that level is practically superstition.

[mmmmpancakes]

I am not advocating for a pure statistical approach.

The parent of my first comment was making broad claims about the effects of boredom without justification. I dont think the assertion has any value without some good evidence. I was therefore providing the parent comment an opportunity to Contribute something more substantive than armchair speculation.