3 ms·
Ironically, a layperson probably would give away their secrets easily because of the anxiety of the situation, while someone who might actually be an offensive
by version_five 5y ago
Ironically, a layperson probably would give away their secrets easily because of the anxiety of the situation, while someone who might actually be an offensive threat is more likely to be able to beat a polygraph.
Realistically, they are probably very effective at verifying whether normal people have secrets that could be used for blackmail, as you say, because of the psychology, even if the machine isn't actually doing anything.
Anecdotally, I've heard of security interviews (for government intelligence, I can't give context) where the interviewer just says "i'll know if you lie". For the average person this is enough to make them flustered if asked an awkward question.
- woodruffw 5y agoI think that’s the goal: the polygraph isn’t supposed to catch a pathological liar or mole. It’s supposed to fluster you into telling the truth, even the embarrassing truth, to ensure that you can’t be blackmailed or extorted. I’ve heard my fair share of funny(?) stories about polygraph admissions that basically ended in the interviewer shrugging and saying “well, at least you didn’t hide it.”
- xxpor 5y agoI've heard stories about the polygraphs that basically boil down to: we don't care if you smoke weed. we DO care that you tell us and don't lie about it.
- starwind 5y agoI heard about one guy who couldn’t pass the poly no matter how many times he took it. He chalked it up to Catholic guilt. He ended up going to work for a different company doing rocket stuff (I think the ULA) cause he could use his clearance but they didn’t require polys. He might even still have access to JWICS in his new job