http://www.paperairplanemovie.com/
But did you notice?
The contest was about who could make a "paper airplane" go farther, not about how far could a sheet of paper go, in any form. So Jeff was not a hero. He cheated! just as the people who tanked the economy with their mortgage derivatives skims. It's very popular, nowadays, to change the rules to win, and more sad than that, those who do, win the admiration of dupes.
--JHT
Let me atempt to represent the conservative and liberal world-views (in an admittedly strange topic) of NR participants in an imaginary dialogue among some usual NR suspects:
Reminder of the...: Good call, JHT
Lonestar: Am I a dupe for wondering . . . (don't answer that!) . . . what are the limitations or boundaries or rules of design for an airplane? (And thus for a paper airplane.) Will something organic someday qualify? Something more fractalish? Something not bilaterally symmetrical, as in a crushed almost-sphere of material?
Knackers: In the movie, the teacher didn't stipulate any specific rules such as paper airplane had to be such and such size and shape. All the kids did what they knew, what they had seen before that was conventional, imitative and in the box. A sphere has the smallest enclosed volume for the smallest surface area of any shape and they can be thrust in any direction which would be a major advantage for space travel. Perhaps in the future there will be new materials beyond what we know today. Perhaps we will travel around as light spheres zipping here and there not having to load heavy bodies into heavy floating tanks.
Besides, everyone knows the Borg Sphere is used by the Borg Collective and is a large spherical vessel having transwarp capabilty.
Go Jeffy! You weren't focused on winning you were focused on dreaming....
Nando: Noo, not a dupe, it was taken as a matter of common knowledge rather than inspiration that a ball can be thrown further than a paper airplane can float and, although cute, the kid didn't design anything or do anything that the rest of the class didn't already know. His 'thinking outside of the box' wasn't in plane design, it was in how to find a loophole in order to win. The next contest will not be a paper airplane flying contest, it will be a paper ball throwing contest with a bunch of dummies crushing paper and throwing it.
Knackers: In that case, be sure that little Johnny joins the contest. He'll be the last participant and wet the paper so the resulting heavier ball can acquire more kinetic energy than the dry ones. Hence little Johnny wins, and if there's no tap water to wet the paper he'll pee on it ;-)
JHT: Exactly Nando! Besides, the movie was presented not as an example of great airplane design, but as an example in good thinking to be followed. And what was the example: disregarding the implied rules of the game which were, making a paper airplane.
Everyone knows what an airplane looks like, and what the word means.
There are many things that fly, but they are not called airplanes. A ball, a blimp, a helicopter, a dart flies, no one call them airplanes.
If a pitcher throws a tennis ball, he broke the rules, despite the fact that he threw a ball, and, probably, there are no written rule against it. It's the spirit of the game, the trust of the participants which was violated, as it was in the mortgage debacle, which was done legally, although in full dishonesty and disregard for others.
Republicans seem more sophisticated in breaking rules and with more catastrophic results for the country. Democrats tend to be blundering crooks like Blago.
JHT: Knackers, the ball trick is common knowlege to kids. I have two boys that had that one figured out by the time they got to first grade. The story was almost certainly a story made up by an adult unfamiliar with kids in order to make an example of thinking outside of the box. That author might consider doing a little thinking outside of the box of their own.
Michigan-Man: i couldn't disagree more, Nannie. I'll take that kid any day over those who can't think outside of the the limits imposed by the 'authorities' and rule makers.
The next contest won't be anything like what you imagined but will now have to include limits that have been expanded pushed into brand new territory by those who DO dare to think such things to include such thinking, not restrict it.
And i do speak from experience having been fortunate enough to have been selected for and then extensively trained in honing/perfecting those very abilities ....to indeed think not only outside of the box but outside the tetrahemihexahedron. It's a very big world out there.
Btw here are a few other forms that can be made from folded paper which may or may not fly better than a wadded up piece. Who can say?
Nando: I can usually win at scrabble by not connecting my letters to other words if I can convince the scrabble police that they're limiting me too much with their boring game rules.
Lonestar: In my school days there still was a place for little Johnnies. Teachers gave a few extra tasks or supplied books to read, when you had finished classwork an hour or more, before classmates did. They knew to keep up interest - provide nutritive food for thought :-)
Hence the change to treadmill education with multiple choice answers to be ticked was seen as retrograde development. Nowadays, help with education consists of teaching the technique of giving satisfactory answers instead of providing fundamental insight ;-)
With the economic downturn, maybe there's more opportunity for attention regarding the little Johnnies. An invention (like the wheel) has to be made only once...
Knackers: Hey! How come everyone raves about this guy or gal who invented the wheel?
Let's give some credit to the one who invented the axle. A wheel without an axle ain't worth a damn. ;))
Ray: It's actually the opposite in my locale to Lonestar's. Things got worse for awhile after I was out of school, but maybe because of seeing so much failure, they started a big overhaul of the schools and some are impressive. Hopefully, money problems won't kill the positive momentum.
They have also gone back to more rote education for the most basic facts for young children, though, in areas they found they needed to. Spoon feeding knowledge might be useless in some areas, but it's so much faster in learning to read or in learning basic facts, that it's made the difference for some kids in whether they learn at all.
Ironmann: There are quite a few articles on the performance of students in math, science etc. per country. The statistics might have helped to improve schooling.
But once in the profession that's loved, that might present a conflict with commercial interests. Such a conflict rarely arises in professions chosen for the salary only.
It won't be difficult to find a few reports on improving grades at universities like Cornell, Yale, Harvard etc. - by learning how to respond and often the graduates wind up in legislative functions.
A major issue is learning to observe properly, to interpret the observations and to draw conclusions in such a way that room is left to appreciate different perspectives, and to be able to discuss them. That would end stuffing the mind but also end blind belief - IOW it would start an era of little Johnnies.
Nando: Our schools are crowded with little Johnnies that crinkle paper, etc. only because they aren't able to think, not because they can, and they make it very hard for teachers to give enough time to thoughtful students. That's the littlejohnny rub, at least in the US.
Canman: Almost all of my higher education consisted of tests requiring answers in essay form ...'explain in your own words'. I hated it, that's why I like my responses here short... and curt: Earlier, i had a college science prof who did much the same ...required that you actually demonstrate that you knew and understood. He also gave us 'multiply choice' tests ... but with his own spin: each question had four answers ...A,B,C,D ...and you had to answer each with T/F. None might be correct ...all might be correct ...or any combination ...so the result was that there were4 points for each question. And the real kicker was ...you got -1 for each one you answered incorrectly! one could actually end up with a score of -400 on a 100 question test. As he explained ...he was teaching us to NOT guess. And it worked. So yes ... that prof was indeed a little johnny himself ...and fit the stereotype of the absent minded prof exactly ...einstein hair and all. He reminded me of Prof Irwin Corey ... [he may have been the inspiration for the comedian] ;)
And ...he loved puns and bad jokes ...so one had to pay attention to everything he said ... which resulted in ... 'getting' the subject matter the first time around. I found i didn't have to 'study' ... as he had a way of keeping my attention and focus completely ... and the data just flowed in. He insisted one be present. Made class a gas ... one of the best instructors/mentors i had. Thanks prof. I bow.
Skyane: The 'rule makers/authoritarians' always object to and fight innovation and 'free thinking'. it's a control issue. Seems to me that the Republican tend to be the parry of control freaks, those who like to impose 'rules' and have their minions fall in line, march in step. No thanks.
JHT: Not when it comes to making money. Their economic philosophy is the law of the jungle: let the strong feed on the weak, the sick, the stupid, the uneducated. Their only compassion seems reserved for the unborn.
Sure, they believe in control, and law and order for the poor, guy, colored, and immigrants, but the wealthy should have no constrains in this land which belongs to free and brave rich white men.
Kemjeff : All the more reason to resist the 'authority' the demcoarts [mis]re-present.
Appears to me that those in 'authority' are often so concerned with maintaining their control and so short-sighted in that end that they don't pay attention to or value the bigger, long-term picture. Which then often results in the collapse, an implosion actually of their own constructions, from their own weight. Nothing new.
'tis the rise and the fall of empires/civilizations.
Even in nature the preying of/on the weak by the strong does have limits/balances/checks built in. There is a control function in play, all taking place within a larger, encompassing system. The successful predator is not the one who eliminates its prey, but one who achieves a balance. An equilibrium with all the elements. There is a relationship in play which is larger than each/any which serves both/all. That's ole ma nature. What works continues ... what doesn't ends.
Canman: 'tis the rise and the fall of empires/civilizations. And marriages. :-)
molotove: SPeaking of 'resisting authority', religious and political figures and their projected authority are definitely to be resisted or at least questioned, as it is their control trips internalized, among other things, which prevent us from seeing what is the case. By resisting the external authority, we come to see how enslaved we are internally and can free ourselves.
In the arguments here, there are other things at play. Afaict, all of you have something to say. The "rules" in the paper airplane game are not designed to oppress and control but to foster excellence in design. When "thinking outside the box" abandons that excellence, then we have only gaming the system to win.
When extended back into the political realm, gaming the system to win just means exploiting and parasitizing others in support of ignoble tendencies such as greed and power (over others). As if happiness were a zero-sum game, and one could only be more happy if someone else were less happy. Whereas encouraging a talent for design could make everyone happier.
And yes, encouraging a thinking outside the box can do that too, even if "talent" is not immediately obvious in the outcome.
kemjeff: well ... that wasn't at all what i meant. I didn't go with 'all authority' for that very reason, thinking it might be misinterpreted in exactly that way. Now that i think about it, i should have gone that way after all, as 'resisting all authority' would include questioning one's own sense of authority....
molotove: Right!
[ And so it goes on....]