5 ms·

The US is a world leader in bureaucratic use of pseudoscience. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#Usage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#Usage I w

The US is a world leader in bureaucratic use of pseudoscience. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#Usage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#Usage I was astounded to learn how widely the Polygraph is used in the US, despite it being described as only about "90% reliable" by its proponents! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#Validity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#Validity

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
Tests are never perfect. And false positives are not critical in many applications. For instance, filtering folks for a job - you can reject extra candidates if you have plenty of candidates or a strict criterion that must not be violated.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  When I interview candidates, I take half of the resumes we receive and throw them in the trash. I don't want to hire unlucky people. /s I have a sneaking suspicion that the polygraph is often just cover for implementing an arbitrary hiring process based upon the feelings of the interviewer. For example, let's say you're hiring police officers, let's also say that you're also a bit of a racist, now you can reject women and minorities and still have an "objectively fair" hiring process, since every candidate had to undergo the same process.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    Sure you do - by not ever collecting them to begin with. Probably more like 99%. We can make up things about racist police hiring, but that's not the same as facts.
    - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
      It was an allegory, and a well worn joke. I even marked it "/s". Do you also get confused by Onion headlines? >We can make up things about racist police hiring, but that's not the same as facts. Yeah, I was just kidding, there are probably no racists running police departments. I mean, what are the odds?
      - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        Sorry, it must be humorless Wednesday for me. If a polygraph is misused, that's sad and wrong. But it can also be used as an interview technique, to put folks under pressure and get more authentic answers to important questions. Maybe its all psychological, but that's fine. As long as it helps screen, and does more good than harm.
        fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        Fair enough. Humor isn't always easy in text anyway. The polygraph is a confidence game. It is 100% psychological. If you're honest and you try hard, you'll still harm some people arbitrarily. It has immense potential for abuse though, and I would reject its use for that reason; even if it didn't suffer from the other problem.
        JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        I guess I'd repeat the point: some hiring isn't about being fair to the candidates. Any harm to them (unfairly excluding a good candidate) is mitigated if the process keeps out disastrously inappropriate candidates. And if the polygraph operator is independent, then abuse would have to be systematic somehow. Which may not be a lot different from any other interview technique.
        fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        I don't agree that employers, especially government employers, are entitled to treat job candidates unfairly.
        JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        In an ideal world. But on the other hand, who would agree that we should make NO attempt to exclude certain personalities from being police officers? Sometimes the cost of wrong hiring is much, much larger than the cost of unfairness.
  - Floegipoky 11y ago
    You're absolutely correct about the arbitrariness of polygraph interviews. Any operator who tells you they're used to detect truth is flat-out lying. They're used to put psychological pressure on candidates in order to elicit disclosures. The more honest operators will admit to this. What they won't admit is that they're also used by law enforcement as a smokescreen to obfuscate their terrifyingly inept hiring practices. They work hard to ensure that they maintain a specific departmental culture, and it's very easy for operators to fail a candidate who they think will bring in too much diversity. And I'm not talking about skin color, though I'm sure that happens sometimes too. Basically using polygraphs lets LE continue to hire meatheads. When one of them ends up on the news for acting like a meathead they wave their hands and bluster about "strict hiring practices", and that's the end of it.
- Mimu 11y ago
  Maybe because often when we are wrong we don't ruin someone's life in the process, so it's ok. Here is not, I wonder what you would say if you were the one in jail.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    Of course I would bitch and moan if I were the one in jail. That's a respected part of our judicial process - advocacy. Everybody pitches for their team; a judge makes the best decision they have with the info available. Its a terrible process, only a little better than everything else that's been tried.
    - hermannj314 11y ago
      Of the over 200 sovereign states with unique judicial processes, which one of them is specifically is better than all the judicial processes that have ever been tried? If you are saying it is the US, I'm not seeing what evidence you've offered that suggests that to be true. It just seems an odd statement to make without supporting evidence.
      - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        Advocacy. That process. Not unique to the USA.
superuser2 11y ago
Polygraph interviews have at least 2 important functions. 1) The polygraph is a pretty decent prop. At least some people become more truthful, or at least worse liars, when they believe lie detection is happening. 2) Even if the truth of something cannot be ascertained at the time, if it ever comes out later, you have a very simple path to firing/imprisoning/otherwise destroying the person: they lied to a federal agent. This is a sigificantly easier bar to clear than actually proving they committed a crime. For this the polygraph is not actually important, but the interview itself is.
- tarpherder 11y ago
  In your arguments; how is a polygraph different from a federal agent? A federal agent can be trained to detect lies, and therefore function as a lie detector. The polygraph is superfluous.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago

Tests are never perfect. And false positives are not critical in many applications. For instance, filtering folks for a job - you can reject extra candidates if you have plenty of candidates or a strict criterion that must not be violated.

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
When I interview candidates, I take half of the resumes we receive and throw them in the trash. I don't want to hire unlucky people. /s I have a sneaking suspicion that the polygraph is often just cover for implementing an arbitrary hiring process based upon the feelings of the interviewer. For example, let's say you're hiring police officers, let's also say that you're also a bit of a racist, now you can reject women and minorities and still have an "objectively fair" hiring process, since every candidate had to undergo the same process.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Sure you do - by not ever collecting them to begin with. Probably more like 99%. We can make up things about racist police hiring, but that's not the same as facts.
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    It was an allegory, and a well worn joke. I even marked it "/s". Do you also get confused by Onion headlines? >We can make up things about racist police hiring, but that's not the same as facts. Yeah, I was just kidding, there are probably no racists running police departments. I mean, what are the odds?
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      Sorry, it must be humorless Wednesday for me. If a polygraph is misused, that's sad and wrong. But it can also be used as an interview technique, to put folks under pressure and get more authentic answers to important questions. Maybe its all psychological, but that's fine. As long as it helps screen, and does more good than harm.
      - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        Fair enough. Humor isn't always easy in text anyway. The polygraph is a confidence game. It is 100% psychological. If you're honest and you try hard, you'll still harm some people arbitrarily. It has immense potential for abuse though, and I would reject its use for that reason; even if it didn't suffer from the other problem.
        JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        I guess I'd repeat the point: some hiring isn't about being fair to the candidates. Any harm to them (unfairly excluding a good candidate) is mitigated if the process keeps out disastrously inappropriate candidates. And if the polygraph operator is independent, then abuse would have to be systematic somehow. Which may not be a lot different from any other interview technique.
        fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        I don't agree that employers, especially government employers, are entitled to treat job candidates unfairly.
        JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        In an ideal world. But on the other hand, who would agree that we should make NO attempt to exclude certain personalities from being police officers? Sometimes the cost of wrong hiring is much, much larger than the cost of unfairness.
- Floegipoky 11y ago
  You're absolutely correct about the arbitrariness of polygraph interviews. Any operator who tells you they're used to detect truth is flat-out lying. They're used to put psychological pressure on candidates in order to elicit disclosures. The more honest operators will admit to this. What they won't admit is that they're also used by law enforcement as a smokescreen to obfuscate their terrifyingly inept hiring practices. They work hard to ensure that they maintain a specific departmental culture, and it's very easy for operators to fail a candidate who they think will bring in too much diversity. And I'm not talking about skin color, though I'm sure that happens sometimes too. Basically using polygraphs lets LE continue to hire meatheads. When one of them ends up on the news for acting like a meathead they wave their hands and bluster about "strict hiring practices", and that's the end of it.
Mimu 11y ago
Maybe because often when we are wrong we don't ruin someone's life in the process, so it's ok. Here is not, I wonder what you would say if you were the one in jail.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Of course I would bitch and moan if I were the one in jail. That's a respected part of our judicial process - advocacy. Everybody pitches for their team; a judge makes the best decision they have with the info available. Its a terrible process, only a little better than everything else that's been tried.
  - hermannj314 11y ago
    Of the over 200 sovereign states with unique judicial processes, which one of them is specifically is better than all the judicial processes that have ever been tried? If you are saying it is the US, I'm not seeing what evidence you've offered that suggests that to be true. It just seems an odd statement to make without supporting evidence.
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      Advocacy. That process. Not unique to the USA.

superuser2 11y ago

Polygraph interviews have at least 2 important functions. 1) The polygraph is a pretty decent prop. At least some people become more truthful, or at least worse liars, when they believe lie detection is happening. 2) Even if the truth of something cannot be ascertained at the time, if it ever comes out later, you have a very simple path to firing/imprisoning/otherwise destroying the person: they lied to a federal agent. This is a sigificantly easier bar to clear than actually proving they committed a crime. For this the polygraph is not actually important, but the interview itself is.

tarpherder 11y ago
In your arguments; how is a polygraph different from a federal agent? A federal agent can be trained to detect lies, and therefore function as a lie detector. The polygraph is superfluous.