Remember Sid from Toy Story? He’s the brat who ripped apart his toys and hacked them into byzantine creatures. In the story arc, he’s definitely an “antagonist.”

But is Sid so bad? Possibly not, thinks Lance Knobel. He’s got a great post about the differences between Sid and Andy (the “good” kid who owns Buzz and Woody) and how they represent two distinct approaches to education. The jist? Andy learns the rules, Sid breaks them. And breaking/hacking/challenging the rules—particularly early and often—is a powerful learning tool.

Knobel quotes a friend and author…

As I was watching the movie, I was wondering which of those two kids — Andy or Sid — is actually learning more from the way he’s playing with his toys… Sid actually could be learning an awful lot more — he was actually taking things apart and putting them back together, learning how to make new toys… As I see it, whoever’s doing the inventing is also doing most of the learning — and probably having most of the fun.

…before going on to summarize:

A Sid-based education would encourage children to invent and explore, to chart their own paths, to defy conventions, to explore dead ends as well as promising boulevards.

For our part, we’re firm believers in the school of “do.” Creating things cultivates a sensory experience that leaves a tangible imprint on the synapses AND the soul. Our brain learns because we have to challenge our knowledge and logic, but our body holds onto the lesson as in imprint, a reflex not unlike learning a craft or sport.

The next time your daughter rips the head off her Barbie and shoves it onto her pencil, remember: creation is sometimes preceeded by destruction. (If she keeps doing it, though, you may want to charge her for lab experiments. Hackers should also learn to pay for their sandbox.)