> there's no better way we know of than to do training exercises
Are you sure about that? Is there any evidence that supports this claim?
It certainly fails the sniff test. Behavioral science does not hold setting you up for failure as an effective learning contingency. I mean try teaching your dog that way, see how far you’ll go. You will also teach your workers that phishing emails come from internal so there is no need to report it.
When I was working as a life guard we never went into training situations unknowingly. There is a reason for that, a) it is dangerous as workers might act irrationally creating a dangerous situation, b) it is stress invoking and not healthy for anyone, especially those that have underlying stress issues or conditions, and c) there is no evidence that live training is any more effective or teaches you anything more than traditional training does.
> make the video longer repeating the important parts until you pay attention, select a longer version of the video where the repetition is not obvious but they keep saying the same thing again or again, or let the system randomly select you for a voluntary group for a new training video tomorrow.
I've already had mandatory training that included all of these in various forms.
> dismiss standard methods and models as baseless self-justification
I would argue that live training with a “set up for failure” is non-standard.
A standard training has the trainee knowing they are in a training situation. I have never seen this type of training used for any situation other then phishing training. And before you say “fake firedrill”, no I have never seen those outside of the movies, and I would believe a Simpsons type situation where you are actively putting workers at risk is the reason for that.
Because whilst during training you should be spending 95% of your time looking out the window, the remaining 5% are spent bashing it into your head how to do an effective instrument scan and also there are parts of training where instruments get combined with the outside environment (such as learning to get a radio fix if you're lost and correlating that with what you see out the window).
Obscuring instruments is sometimes done, but that's much, much, later down the training line.
> If you wanted to head to actual "unpopulated area", I think you'd need to book a 3 hour lesson in order to get any actual training. Completely unfeasible.
> Then someone has the wrong definition of "training". Training is properly done as part of actual operations. You don't "train" to do something and then do it. You train by doing it, while others more senior to you are watching you while they're doing their part of the operations.
I have a hard time understanding that. We all know that enormous amounts (maybe most) training is done outside actual operations, both in the military and otherwise. Obviously you are aware of that, so do you mean this in a specific context? Is the US Navy somehow different (and are you in the USN)?
Can you share examples of those warnings?
reply