You have got to be kidding. Constraints vary in degree in each situation, again, you are not defining and that what my question was all about.
I gave you a definition that's as good as anything you'll ever get in social science. What don't you like about it?
How many minutes of being creative and imaginative do you need for free time?
You're still missing Val's point. Read her post again. The people who think it's important to be bored would say that free time is still important even if NONE of it is spent being creative and imaginative. It's not - it can be argued - that free time is important because in that time you can do creative, imaginative things; it's that free time is important because, from the experience of making your own choices about spending your time, you learn that you can do things noone has thought of for you - creativity. Now, you may disagree with the argument, but please confirm that you now understand what it is?
Just like 9 months of breastfeeding gives you all the benefits. They have found after 9 months, the additional positive benefits drop off like a rock off a cliff. Not that it isn't good to breastfeed longer but the differential benefits impact is neglible.
"They" have found no such thing. Nobody has ever found a way to research the full benefits of child-led weaning; that is not the same as establishing that none exist, or even as establishing that they are small. It would be at least as difficult to research the effects (independent of all other aspects of parenting) of allowing particular amounts of free time, obviously.
