We had polaroid and competing instant photo's back in the seventies and eighties as well. Those were used by professional photographers to check if what they envisioned was what was going to happen on print/film and not just by people taking snapshots.
The screen on the back of your camera will tell you something about your picture, but in no way will it tell you if you've made a successful photograph without already knowing what to look for and how to achieve it first. It can help you quickly adjust your exposure settings, if you zoom in you can see if you have your focus sorted out and if you have motion blur. You can watch the edges of your image to see if you've framed your shot properly and the tiny image will give you clues about your composition.
You have to know all this stuff already in order to be able to judge the picture you just took and it will take you probably about a minute to do so. During that minute, you have no time to take additional shots, while often "the good stuff" is happening right in front of you.
I have many images taken during many shoots that looked "great" on the back of the camera, but once I got back home and looked at them at a larger screen and started processing them, turned out to need a lot of work and often were mediocre at best. There are some things that a digital camera will give you instant feedback on, but having to be way more convinced about your shot because it will cost you one of your precious 36 exposures will make you take better shots just as much, albeit based on different presumptions and criteria. In the end, having to wait for the final results before you can make your ultimate judgment on your picture applies to both.
If anything, digital allows you to take more shots for the same money spent on equipment and materials and the tooling gives you much more ways to repair or improve the initial image captured. With film, you can develop the film only once and then you'll have to figure out the correct sequence and timing for how you will be exposing your print. This means that you have an extra "point of no return" in developing the film and physical limitations in what you can do exposing your print. In practice, that means that if shot digitally in RAW, you can get away with messing up your exposure a whole lot more and in post processing, you can "develop your film" differently for different parts of your image. Once you're there, you can do the same for the development of your "print", not being limited by the amount of time and how much you can burn and dodge areas of your image.