I had a boss who liked to use a similar idea, but with a twist; he'd sometimes repeat the idea back but intentionally get a key nuance wrong, with the intention of getting feedback on that part. If the person corrected it, he'd be much more confident in both his own and the other person's understanding of the idea. If they didn't, he'd dig in more to figure out why his original understanding was actually _not_ correct. The idea behind this was to look to _disprove_ what he thought he understood rather than to confirm it; he would only feel confident in his mental model if he couldn't disprove it after exhausting all of the ways he could think of. His strategy was pretty effective, from what I could tell; he'd often uncover subtle flaws or questionable assumptions in ideas or plans where he was not as knowledgeable in the domain as the person presenting it due to not only being willing to say something incorrect, but going out of this way to embrace it. Importantly, this was never used as a way to try to trick or test people; he would never criticize anyone for failing to correct him when he said something wrong, because the whole point of the technique was that he wasn't even sure whether he needed to be corrected or not, and he was still trying to figure it out.