3 ms·

As a side-side note: >Border Patrol jobs with the CBP have been notoriously difficult to fill, in large part because of the polygraph exam applicants are requi

• ryanmercer 8y ago
  >Does that mean that the polygraph is extremely restrictive or that 66% of applicants are liars? Polygraphs aren't remotely scientific or even accurate. False positives are EXTREMELY common, simply being nervous that you're hooked up to a strange contraption can cause false positives. Police departments often use them for hiring too, the Indiana State Police does for example.
  • astura 8y ago
    While true, that doesn't explain why the CBP polygraph fail rate is twice that of other police departments. (The CBP itself is a police department) https://apnews.com/7e5bc0d98dd849a88043d8c40a74e56f https://apnews.com/7e5bc0d98dd849a88043d8c40a74e56f
    • jaclaz 8y ago
      Yep, that is the question/doubt. I personally believe that the polygraph is a senseless test, still when it is used to screen a "large" number of people more or less in the same field (LEO, federal agences, army or similar), it should give a similar number of positives and negatives. If it is used only to verify if applicants are prone to "cracking under theatrical pressure", the result means that applicants for CBP are much more susceptible to that than most applicants to other police/security or similar jobs.
• astura 8y ago
  I read in another article couple years ago thag a lot of people taking the CBP polygraph actually admit to very serious illegal/disqualifying behaviours during the polygraph. Here's the article: https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/23/16511732/border-patrol-polygraph-trump-boots-on-border https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/23/16511732/border-patrol-p... >Polygraph results are of questionable scientific value, but the interviews have an unexpected benefit apart from their dubious powers of detection: under pressure from interviewers, applicants frequently admit to wrongdoing. The Verge obtained a document under the Freedom of Information Act that lists cases where CBP polygraph interviews were “referred” for further investigation. When a polygraph interviewer determines an applicant has done something potentially disqualifying, the information is referred to an “adjudicator.” The adjudicator is vested with the power to stop the applicant from being offered a job. The list of referrals for further investigation, produced by CBP’s Credibility Assessment Division, includes 205 cases over the course of last year, and highlight stunning admissions of crimes flagged by the division.
• dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Does that mean that the polygraph is extremely restrictive or that 66% of applicants are liars? Polygraphs are about as good for what they pretend to do as phrenology is. > I believe most federal and government agencies use them internally They are used for positions with certain security clearance levels, despite having been repeatedly shown to be junk science, because they national security establishment is attached to security theater and/or full of people in decision-making positions that disrespect science when it disagrees with what they want to believe. Or maybe because they are really good at detecting the degree to which people are susceptible to cracking under theatrical pressure, which isn't what they are advertised as being used for but is something that rationally matters to the national security establishment, and which they might actually be good at. > So, set aside how accurate it is, a number of people can pass it to get (or keep) a federal job, so it might be that the "quality" of people attemptng to enroll to CBP is "lower You can't set that aside: how accurate it is at assessing “quality”, however you define that, is the key thing you need to establish to justify that conclusion.