I guess there's a little room for debate here. I mean, not really much. But I could probably find room for debate on a strand of silk. There's a, what's a metaphorical story called, like a allegory or something?
A pottery teacher divided his class in half. He told half the class to make only one pot. Be creative and make a single masterpiece. The other half he told to make a million different pots, don't worry about the quality or originality. Who came up with a masterpiece? Well, who had more ideas, more practices, and more chances?
But in historical reality the creative genuises whose inventions change the world often come from single mothers, abusive fathers, blah, blah feel inspired.
Grasping at straws to build a controversy over the definition of free time-
Does an over privileged city child have free time because they get fresh air, sunshine, and time to daydream or chat on the bus ride to the philharmonic?
Does a minimalist stay at home kid have more free time because the one income household gives them more time with mommy, less time in the daycare, but less gas money to go places? Is it better to have less clutter and imaginative handmade toys? Or less clutter and a variety of toys and activities? (in the stay-at home version)
Does a neglected latch-key kid really have "free time" when really they're just surviving but without resources or reason to dream? It might produce some diamonds.
Is fresh air and sunshine really that good? It gives me allergies. And dirt roads ruin the bearings on my skateboard. Pave the planet!
Oh yeah, city kid's meet more strangers. Surely that plants seeds of creativity in one's mind.
