[JumpCrisscross]

> if continuing education has to be mandated, it is likely a symptom of a system that lacks proper incentives

I’m a pilot and work in finance. They both have continuing-education requirements. The ones in the former are practical and helpful. The ones in the latter are mostly performative. (In some cases, arguably counterproductive.) The existence of continuing-education mandates per se tells you almost nothing about the system as a whole.

[xpe]

Point taken. Interesting example. Do you have some theories about why continuing education requirements are so different in aviation compared with finance? Some factors might include: individual skin in the game, observability, feasibility, and the temporal and causal distance from action to consequences.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Do you have some theories about why continuing education requirements are so different in aviation compared with finance?

Culture of professionalism. That’s kind of a bullshit answer, but it’s the closest phrase I can come to that encapsulates pilots taking the rules seriously, both because they’re there for a good reason and the FAA isn’t afraid to yank your wings, but also because the FAA isn’t usually making rules to seem tough on pilots or otherwise infantilise them, it’s following an evidence-based approach that’s explicitly endorsed by pilots. (After a crash, you aren’t trying to find who to blame. You’re trying to prevent the next crash.)