41–50 of 112 posts
If they know polygraph doesn't work, why do they still do it?
Maybe it is how it's written, but this person's entire career reads like a rat navigating through a maze built by superiors. Even though they say the job is among the happiest times of their life, it helps put into perspective the follower mentality some have, especially in the public sector. I'd have given the middle finger right away knowing I can find enjoyable work sans harassment. To put it crudely, I can't even…
A few things: 1) The article was a fantastic read(!), and I couldn't help but think that the polygraph is a bit of a hazing ritual that is used to measure, not truthfulness/deception, but one's eagerness for the job and system. As a said in another post, once too many people begin to question a/the system that depends on wide-scale high levels of trust(compliance), it fails.
The whole thing seemed to involve a lot of behavioral conditioning.
Example 1: Offer computer access (so that you can do your supposed job) contingent upon one complying w/ and passing the poly.
Example 2: Oh, you hate the poly and put up a fuss? Well, thanks for complying: here's a good performance review and raise.'
So long as the writer responded appropriately to the bell, he/she received a treat. This is intro-level psych.
2) Though most are not subjected to polygraphs, the experience described over all, doesn't deviate from what most employees experience, unfortunately. You mentioned a maze, and you are correct. That's why the typical work arrangement is colloquially described as "the rat race".
3) A lot of people like "grabbing their ankles," as you say. As it's been explained to me numerous times, they appreciate the "structure" or "predictability." I try not to fight it anymore. Sheep make good eatin', and I realize I should just live as such.
> ...they have the leverage to not put up with these things...
As someone who's been around the block a bit, I no longer believe this. There are too many willing ankle grabbers in world that is more interested in compliance (ego-stroking of the insecure, actually) than in achieving perfection, or even just "better than." Of course, there are exceptions, but those are few and far between, IMO. So, the author suggested one coping mechanism, just as I above offered another.
Cheers!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that its inconsistent. For every ethical action out there how many dozens of other wars are completely ignored by the same powers? That is what makes the ethical stance highly doubtful.
Not sure I follow your logic. So if the US doesn't intervene to stop genocide in the Sudan, it is unethical for them to stop genocide anywhere else? If the US was to get involved in a war every time they thought something unethical was happening would that be good? If the US made a policy to never intervene anywhere, even if trivial intervention could improve the lives of millions, would that be good? I find that peo…
Yes. War can be unethical but the most ethical response to an action. In practice, there are few ethical wars, which is why having any ethical conversation about war is incredibly draining and not worth it for most people: it is often sufficient to simply state war is carte blanche unethical.
Thankfully I don’t see any ethical wars on the immediate horizon.
>> To prepare for the test, I read A Tremor in the Blood by David T. Lykken. The book described the use of control versus relevant questions as well as countermeasure such as butt-clenching. This explains that other thing I read yesterday, in a different article about the polygraph test: "There may be something that's put on the tip of the finger that records blood flow and we also use something called a movement det…
not to mention that butt-clenching is just the simplest way of nonvisibly messing with your vital signs. a guy walking in off the street can butt clench. once you get into some of the intermediate level buddhist body awareness studies, you won't need the butt clench to cause your muscle tenor, heart rate, body temp, and respiration to respond to your will.
I was a team leader at a USSOCOM unit and had to take a poly to be read into a couple of three-letter agency programs. In the middle of the test, the smug 23 year old fresh college grad administering the thing tells me I'm being deceptive and obviously support jihadi terrorism. This as I'm getting ready to leave on my 12th deployment. I've never wanted to so violently break someone's face as right then in that moment…
If they know polygraph doesn't work, why do they still do it?
The airport is not the only security theater the Americans operate :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And I consider war to be unethical profiteering Do you mean all war? Or something more limited, like conflicts involving the US over the past 20 years. Or, only for the initiators of conflict. I find that line of thinking hard to justify after the most basic application to actual historical events. Like when Finland was defending itself against Russia, was Finland attempting unethical profiteering? What should they…
There are plenty of examples of ethical foreign military actions as well. The US stopping genocide in Europe with the Kosovo war, for example, was ethical. If a people or nation can't defend itself from an aggressor (eg the UNC & South Korea vs China & North Korea), it's more than reasonable that a stronger power step in to help with that defense if it's willing to do so. The first Gulf War was also an ethical interv…
Maybe it is how it's written, but this person's entire career reads like a rat navigating through a maze built by superiors. Even though they say the job is among the happiest times of their life, it helps put into perspective the follower mentality some have, especially in the public sector. I'd have given the middle finger right away knowing I can find enjoyable work sans harassment. To put it crudely, I can't even…
That's such an arrogant thing to say if you have never been in this situation. History has long shown that when things get tough most people will fall in line and only a very few will resist. Talk is easy but actually acting is very tough and rare.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And I consider war to be unethical profiteering Do you mean all war? Or something more limited, like conflicts involving the US over the past 20 years. Or, only for the initiators of conflict. I find that line of thinking hard to justify after the most basic application to actual historical events. Like when Finland was defending itself against Russia, was Finland attempting unethical profiteering? What should they…
There are plenty of examples of ethical foreign military actions as well. The US stopping genocide in Europe with the Kosovo war, for example, was ethical. If a people or nation can't defend itself from an aggressor (eg the UNC & South Korea vs China & North Korea), it's more than reasonable that a stronger power step in to help with that defense if it's willing to do so. The first Gulf War was also an ethical interv…