from Hacker News

The Lie Generator: Inside the Black Mirror World of Polygraph Job Screenings

by kf on 10/2/18, 10:27 AM with 95 comments

by wamsachel on 10/4/18, 9:29 PM
I once was gassing up at a station, and for whatever reason the card reader on the pump wasn't charging, but would let me pump gas anyways. So me, and everyone else who'd used that pump that day, received a phone call from the police telling me to go pay for the gas. I figured it was just an honest mistake and didn't think anything of it.
Fast forward a bit, to where I am undergoing a polygraph examination for the NSA. The exam made me uncomfortable and nervous, but I thought everything was going well. Except for when my interviewer came back and told me I was showing sensitivity towards the hiding crimes question. WTF? And when they do this, they're just giving you enough rope to see if you hang yourself with it. But I had no idea why (or even if) I was showing sensitivity to this question.
They called me in for a 2nd polygraph, this time I didn't show sensitivity to hiding crimes, and I figured I was good to go.
No. I get called into a 3rd exam (each exam was separated by a couple months, mind you). This time the interviewer told me "You did better at the hiding crimes question than I thought you would" W.T.F.?!?! The interviewer then left the room and came back with a manilla folder, from which he procures a piece paper which he reads that I had a suspected larceny charge back at home. I honestly had no idea what he was talking about until I remembered the gas station incident. But after I try telling him about it, he tells me that he doesn't believe me and that he thinks I stole that gas. This leaves me extremely flustered and the rest of the polygraph was a train wreck.
3 strikes and I'm out, my conditional employment with them was terminated.
What irks me the most though, is that when I got back home I retrieved the larceny report from the court house, and in that document the whole story was laid out and my account of the situation was corroborated. So what the hell? Why throw me through such a ringer?
Fuck the polygraph.
by honkycat on 10/4/18, 8:36 PM
It was my understanding that polygraph tests were mostly useless and just a way to claim someone is lying through clever use of pseudoscience
by nimbius on 10/4/18, 9:40 PM
True story: we hired a guy who failed his polygraph to work in the motor pool for a local municipality. the test was required because he would be working on police cars and fire trucks.
six years later and hes still working for us, we get an order from that same municipality to overhaul the intercoolers on nearly two dozen cop cars. I called up the pool manager and asked about the polygraph, and his response was they use outside contractors to get around the fact they have no certified mechanics.
by headcanon on 10/4/18, 9:06 PM
I was looking for a statement by the "other side", someone in government who could give a justification as to why they're being used.
Is it simply because its the "standard" now, and bureaucrats don't want to stick their neck out by getting rid of it? Is the fact that it is a machine that has been around for awhile, regardless of efficacy, give people that much comfort? Or are enough people really that misinformed?
Its a bit like marijuana legalization coverage - its rare to find arguments for maintaining the status quo as opposed to getting rid of it.
by Lazare on 10/4/18, 9:20 PM
The continued use of polygraph "tests", as if they have any validity whatsoever, is honestly a scandal.
by pixl97 on 10/4/18, 8:40 PM
https://antipolygraph.org/
The lie behind the lie detector.
by arminiusreturns on 10/4/18, 9:29 PM
Getting boxed is always about who gives the test, which also includes what and how questions are asked. That's why you would always prefer some old salty crusty bastard who can see through bullshit vs some young FNG who thinks he's saving the world one box at a time, which is where stories of fully qualified people getting dropped mostly come from.
by nraynaud on 10/4/18, 11:08 PM
In France in the 90's there was an obsession with analysing the handwriting of applicants, the same kind of bunk science. As far as I know it's gone now (I guess nobody applies with a hand-written letter).
by mindcrime on 10/4/18, 8:41 PM
Polygraphs are pseudo-scientific nonsense with no actual validity. Why would anybody use that as part of a job screening?
by pippy on 10/4/18, 8:43 PM
I'm surprised a 1930's era pseudoscience is still hanging around professional law enforcement circles. The optimist in me hopes it's a clever ruse to screen people who simply aren't team fit. The pessimist tells me they're the caliber of people who also think calling in a psychic to help with murder cases.
Modern fMRI technologies can tell if people are fabricating stories. There's actual science behind them.
by mikestew on 10/4/18, 8:33 PM
Boy, they sure didn't open with a case I could be sympathetic with. Lied to the state police, lied when applying to a city PD, but this time, oh, this time he's telling the truth!
My guess is, word gets around, and "inconsistencies" is just the excuse they need. I'm not saying it makes it right, because next it's going to mere coincidence that a black woman had "inconsistencies" when applying. But in this case, I might be willing to let it go.
by kbos87 on 10/4/18, 10:40 PM
Across lie detectors, forensic testing, and every similar discipline there should be frequent blind auditing by a neutral third party, and the results should be made available to the public.
by jackpirate on 10/4/18, 9:49 PM
Obligatory link to http://antipolygraph.org, which provides detailed research on why the polygraph is ineffective, details on how to defeat the polygraph, manuals used to train polygraph investigators, and many other juicy tidbits.
by Covzire on 10/4/18, 11:44 PM
I wonder what the correlation is between high neuroticism and failing a polygraph.
by your-nanny on 10/4/18, 10:56 PM
Might as well use divining rods.
by s73v3r_ on 10/4/18, 8:15 PM
And here I thought having to do FizzBuzz for two different interviewers was onerous.