Under what circumstances should practitioners’ training include experience of the outcome of their practice?

Under what circumstances is it more or less important for a practitioner’s training to include a simulation of the outcomes of their practice?
E.g.1. A Surgeon to undergo invasive surgery and the following recovery. An Insurance Adjuster, the disability claims process.
E.g.2. A Lawyer, Judge, or Jury member to undergo the proceedings of the justice system (including imprisonment).
E.g.3. A Bank Manager is presented with the same line of products as his lay customers.
E.g.4. The Senator enrolls her kids in the public elementary school that churns out 6th graders who can’t read.

My question is not whether it’s practical to simulate all the possible outcomes of a person’s practice. After all, the legal liabilities associated with imprisoning all members of the justice system may run on an infinite loop.

Rather, the question is “When is it essential for a practitioner’s training to include personal experience of the outcome of their practice?”

Even where the practitioner is already a frequent consumer of their own work and that of their peers — e.g. the auto mechanic who owns a car — they may form an idiosyncratic “double standard” where the work is judged subjectively vs objectively.

My tentative hypothesis is that a particularly well-conceived use of virtual reality and educational games would provide a simulation environment for practitioners much like the Link Trainer was used to train pilots to fly by instruments without the risk of them dying by crash on their first practice run. And any training program that does not support the practitioner’s internalization of empathy with their patron by way of simulated personal experience is substantively incomplete.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *