I worried about all the wrong things when my children were in preschool.

I came to this realization after spending four months observing preschool teachers toiling through a difficult year with a few hard-to-manage students.

Eight years ago, my husband and I were entrenched in raising preschoolers. The 0- to-6-year-old dogma was drilled into us: This is peak brain-development time. Their academic progress -- along with their physical safety, health and general happiness -- consumed much of my attention during those preschool years.

The latest research, however, suggests that the "soft skills" of social and emotional development are strongly correlated with long-term academic and life success.

A study published last month in the American Journal of Public Health found that kindergarten teachers' assessments of their students' social competencies were a powerful predictor of the likelihood of a range of outcomes down the road. Even after accounting for factors such as poverty, race, family stress and neighborhood crime, a child's "non-cognitive" skills -- such as self-regulation and being able to get along with others -- were correlated to his or her odds of graduating high school and college, committing a crime, securing gainful employment, and having mental health or substance-abuse issues later in life.

Preschool teachers have likely always known the importance of social skills, but parents may have underestimated it. Years of headlines screaming about brain development and "Einstein" learning systems for babies shifted our attention to academic skills.

Like so many parents do, I got caught up in the learning that is easiest to measure. How well were they reading? Did they understand basic math concepts? How well did they write their names? How far along were their gross and fine motor skills?

I embraced perhaps the most plaintive middle class vexation: Were they being challenged enough?

My knowledge of what happens in a preschool classroom was limited to the parties, the teacher conferences and chats during the daily drop-off and pickup.

Years later, after observing a classroom for hours at a time over a period of four months, I gained new insight. When I watched Christine Grosch and Paula Ayers of St. Louis' University City Children's Center run their class, I saw skirmishes and victories that aren't as easily measured as the progression on a reading chart.

Here is what I saw Grosch and Ayers focus on.

They narrated a lot of what they were presently doing, what they saw around them and what would happen next. They asked the children to wonder aloud, as well. Grosch sang often. Both teachers read aloud frequently and with exaggerated emotion.

They asked their students a lot of questions: What did you like best? What did you do? What happened in that story? What was that song about?

All of this talking is beneficial: Preschoolers learn five to six words a day, and teachers are introducing new words constantly.

Ayers and Grosch didn't jump in and do things for their students. They would brainstorm with them to solve problems and praise a child for figuring something out on his or her own.

"It's important to strike a balance between 'doing' and 'not doing,'" Grosch explained to me. "Sometimes 'not doing' is just as important as intervening."

Grosch and Ayers talked aloud in situations where a child's self-control was tested. They played board games and card games that required taking turns and following rules.

They were often over-the-top in their enthusiasm.

They had simple, step-by-step problem-solving procedures in place, and prompted students as needed: How can we solve this? What do you need to make this happen? Did you talk to the other person?

They hugged or carried or had children in their laps constantly.

They gave shy kids words like "Can I play with you?" to use when they wanted to join other children.

When a child got hurt, they would ask the offender what he or she could do to help the other child feel better. They encouraged the same thing when a classmate was sad or crying. They pointed out the feelings of characters in books.

Grosch and Ayers gave the children opportunities to cut, color, paste, paint and play. Kids were expected to put their own coats on and hang them up; go to the bathroom on their own and wash their hands; serve themselves snacks and eat them neatly.

Watching the day-to-day mechanisms of early childhood education made me wish I had focused my attention differently.

When my own kids were 3 and 4, I should have let them attempt to do more things for themselves that may have seemed a little above their abilities. I should have asked their teachers more questions about their social development and how to nurture those skills. I should have put as much energy into giving them a robust vocabulary to describe emotions as I did making sure they knew their colors and numbers.

Luckily for us, our children thrived with excellent preschool teachers. I just wish I had better understood how critically emotional and social skills are tied to lifelong success, and how a talented teacher imparts those skills.

I would have worried a lot less.

A teenage girl waiting for her geometry tutor offered the most reassuring parenting commentary I've heard in a while.

I was also waiting for my child to finish her math session when Olivia Noel, 15, and I struck up a conversation about phone restrictions imposed by parents. I mentioned that I had turned off my child's data plan as a consequence for using the phone too late at night.

The girl looked at me like she just recognized an old enemy.

"Oh my God! I thought my parents were the only ones who did that!"

She said that whenever she gets in trouble, her parents take away her data plan, phone or computer -- or all of the above.

I decided I needed to check out my competition for Strictest Mother in the World.

"In this day and age, the only effective consequence is taking away their electronic devices, data plans, phones," said Olivia's mother, Tammy Noel. "That really seems to be the only thing that helps kids re-evaluate what they are doing because they dread that consequence so much."

She and her husband have the experience of raising their 19-year-old daughter to give them a sense of perspective with Olivia and her 12-year-old brother. They've been down this road.

When children are very young, parents wonder if they cognitively understand the connection between their behavior and the punishment. When they are older, we know they have the cognitive function to understand our words.

We just wonder if any of those words are sinking in.

There are structural issues compounding the typical tussles during the teen years: the rise of dual-working-parent families and the long hours Americans work compared to the rest of the world. Children are more heavily scheduled, requiring more parental management and transportation. Add to that the blurred boundary between family life and work, and the expectations of ever-greater parental vigilance to monitor virtual and real-life behavior.

The so-called helicopter parents must live in a world with a lot more leisure time to do all that helicoptering. Many parents are often too tired to deal with the backlash of enforcing and sticking to punishments they dispense in the heat of the moment. Consistent discipline requires more parental energy and effort at a time when the demands for those things are already very great.

Noel, for instance, works full-time as the owner of six Sylvan tutoring locations, but is able to interrupt her day to pick up and drop off her younger children at various activities. She's grateful for the flexibility that allows her to manage both, but the interruptions mean she is burning the midnight oil to keep up with her work.

"You get so worn down from trying to manage it all that you become an ineffective parent in holding your kids accountable," she said. "But that's our responsibility as parents."

Sticking to a punishment often creates more work and complications for the parent than it does for the child being disciplined. Often times, a parent needs to be able to contact an older child via phone, so turning off the data plan is the new grounding.

A friend raising a teenager prepared me when I told her about this disciplinary strategy: It won't be the last time you turn off the data, she said.

Olivia said she wishes her parents would be more willing to talk about issues that arise rather than "just taking my stuff away."

Her mother nodded.

"But we've talked about this before," she tells her daughter. "And you knew it would be a consequence if you chose not to follow the rules and live by the expectations. You can talk until you are blue in the face, but if the behaviors don't change, the consequence will occur."

Amen, sister.

When Olivia complained about strict parents ready to limit data and phone use, she had no idea the moral support she was giving her audience.

Each generation learns to navigate relationships in its own way.

Today's children understand friendship and social interactions mediated largely through technology.

We're not sure what this means for their long-term social development. Will they be less inclined to keep healthy, long-term relationships because it's easy to "ghost" someone from your life? Or will the ease of staying in touch through technology allow them to maintain lifelong connections despite diverging life paths?

No one really knows.

Perhaps relationships are more disposable when there's always someone else around the digital corner. Are we better off with the type of "friendship" social media fosters: a broad, shallow network? Or by having a small, close group with deeper ties?

Research suggests the number and depth of friendships depends on our mobility, social class and personal temperament.

Most Americans have just two close friends, according to a 2011 Cornell study. This is down from three close confidantes 25 years ago.

As the first generation of parents raising digitally socialized children, we have our own learning curve about the social mores and conventions they follow.

Friend is used in a loosey-goosey way in our language. A Facebook "friend" may or may not be a real "friend." A follower on Instagram may like all your posts and provide a sense of validation or community, but that's as deep as the relationship goes. Shared interests, common experiences and enjoyable company often spark a friendship, but those aren't the only criteria that elevate interaction to friendship.

Like the Eskimo words for snow, Generation Z, born after the Millennials, will understand the variation and subtleties of friendship differently than we do.

Some people have interests in common with you, such as yoga, running or having brunch. Others have a shared history, like childhoods, college years or workplaces. Some people challenge, motivate or inspire you. Others are hilarious and make you laugh.

But certain elements of friendship do not change. In Insta-speak, a young person can apply these filters to a relationship to get a clearer picture:

1. Can you be honest about yourself with this person? Do you feel safe saying what you think and feel? Are you able to disagree, even vehemently, and be OK? Friends are not there to affirm and agree with every single thing we say or do.

2. Do you feel heard in your conversations? Do interactions with this person leave you feeling uplifted, recharged, supported or cared for? Does the person help you see things in a new way or help you find solutions to your problems? The relationship should make you feel whole rather than less than.

3. Can you share the pain and ways of coping in life rather than just the polished, funny, edited parts? Can you share your struggles, beyond your accomplishments or highlight reel?

4. Is it a two-way street? Does the person share with and trust you the way you do with him or her?

5. Is the person available when needed, reliable and true to his or her word?

6. Does the person keep your confidences? Can he or she be trusted?

7. Is there mutual respect and admiration between the two of you? If you respect and admire someone, you value what they tell you. You listen to their advice.

8. Does the person pay attention when you talk? Does she remember what you've said?

9. Are you able to survive a fight? People make mistakes. They ask for forgiveness and try not to repeat them. Whether it's a miscommunication, a mean response or a breach of trust, does the person recognize his role and accept responsibility? Can you forgive and move on?

10. Do both of you make an effort to see each other in real life, face-to-face? Scientists note the primal importance of touch -- casual, platonic, nonsexual -- between people in creating bonds.

You should be able to answer yes to these if you're in the company of a true friend.

Maria Konnikova wrote an essay for The New Yorker exploring the human capacity for friendship. She writes that evolutionary anthropologist Robin Dunbar claims we can only cope with about 150 casual friends at a given time, 15 of whom could be considered intimate. And only five of those might be trustworthy. That includes intimate partners and close family.

I refer to this core of five as my team. These are the MVPs among BFFs.

When you find friends like this, recognize how valuable they are. Make an effort. In a "friend"-saturated world, true friendship is rare.