It seems like this exact situation stands for much more:
When failing a entrance exam and having a person tell you, that there is no point in living from now on drives you into such a despair, where you cut yourself from really basic needs like socializing then I think there is something fundamentally wrong. In my opinion this symbolizes an immense pressure to conform to standards of society, and at a smaller scale, standards of the closer social circle. If society displays little compassion for individual hardships and failures, does not show softness, it's soon to be overwhelmed by mental health issues.
Could be, and maybe that is also the reason for the emerging mental health crisis. Or it's the other way round. Nevertheless, if one asks: What was different say 50 to 75 years ago? Was it the smaller social reference group (you couldn't compare to the worlds elite in every single aspect of your life)? Was it the way of live laid out more clearly (you could get somewhere with a corporate job, own a house, etc.)? Or is there a more fundamental reason mental health is declining and thus more and more people are NEET?
Spending your childhood soaking your brain in dopamine as you are drip fed risk free game achievements is unlikely to build as much resilience as pre-internet childhood.
I'd classify it slightly differently -- in pursuit of equality, we've narrowed or eliminated opportunities for true small successes in childhood.
Where true small successes require the potential of real failure.
In the 90s, I remember constantly failing in small ways: organized sports, quizzes and tests, gym class.
It wasn't pleasant, but because the opportunities were smaller, I feel I learned how to live with failure.
And critically, live with it: not ignore/reject it. "I objectively failed at this thing. That sucked. But I'm not going to let it keep me from trying the next thing" sort of stuff.
As a consequence of eliminating those chances, major opportunities are often the only opportunities, and encountering a first failure there is extremely traumatic.
I don't think this is it. The world is full of competition, despite attempts to sanitize it. Infact, it seems like people are more aware of the competition due to global social media. If we're looking at this from a learned helplessness perspective, I would guess that modern society is an impossibly competitive environment that crushes children more easily, not that they are weaker.
By lessening its prevalence. Participation-based awards. Eliminating contest sports in school gym. Non-100 point grading. Fewer tests. Games that are impossible/difficult to lose.
I'm not saying historical methods didn't need adjustment.
But I am saying that if we're observing bad outcomes downstream, we should look upstream and see if the systems we've put in place are supporting the outcomes we want to see.
