The VPPG does a similar thing, we call it 'banging' as in, "Let's go bang it" which translates to "Let's see if that works." Similar, but not the same. In the VPPG, it is an experiment. We present a problem (e.g. what do you do for face-down weapon retention?) then we come up with some ideas and then we test them to failure.
Getting the stupid out is an experience. He presents a standard self-defense platitude, like "In a knife fight, control the weapon arm*" and lets the students try it. But not against a compliant partner, against someone using a knife the way the knife was meant to be used. The fail is spectacular and memorable. It gets the stupid out.
One of the things to watch for, in our training and when we teach, is where the stupid has crept in. When we train against unrealistic attacks, or count on artifacts of the dueling or sport paradigms (equivalent weapons and size and numbers; advance notice; uncluttered environment...) we have let some stupid in.
So bang it out. It will never be perfect, and keep an ear out for anyone who has been in the field who finds a flaw... but if it fails in live training it has little hope to work when you are scared and surprised.
And especially if you have students who cling to myths, bang it. Let them get the stupid out.
*This is one of the classics and one of the big issues in training. "Control the weapon arm just makes so much sense... The issues is that I have never seen anyone actually make it work, not in real life or even in free training, not for more than a second or two. The fact that it makes sense doesn't, somehow, prevent it from being a messy and suicidal tactic. I may get flack on this, which is fine... but before you tell me how wrong I am, go out and bang it, with someone given absolute freedom to play 'live' and tell me how it works.