3 ms·
>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
by 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 agoWhile 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 agoYep, 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.