Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 96 posts

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

#11

Post by mikestew »

crooked-v wrote: post #7
mikestew wrote: post #3

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 mig…

> He had first applied to the Connecticut State Police and was failed for deception about occasional marijuana use as a minor. He then tried again with a police department in New Britain, where a polygraph test showed him lying about his criminal and sexual history. > This time he had failed the New Haven polygraph for something cryptically called “inconsistencies.” “[But] I’m not hiding anything,” he said at the hea…

Yeah, I read it several times, and it still came out to me as addressing only the final application. But now that you point it out, it seems more likely to address all applications.

Regardless, that's about as far as I got because my two personal experiences with polygraphs tells me they're about on the same level as dowsing rods. "Have you ever used marijuana?"

"No", he said, higher than a kite having smoked a bowl an hour before the test. It was asked both times, passed both times.

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

#12

Post by yayana »

pippy wrote: post #10

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.

> Modern fMRI technologies can tell if people are fabricating stories. There's actual science behind them

I think there was some actual science behind the polygraph too, but just having actual science on poorly informed/motivated participants isn't really enough for tech that will have long term adversaries.

I can't recall if 1/3 or 2/3 of myth busters staff could beat the fMRI once prepared and motivated.

Initial experiments on disinterested subjects given no information about past experiments may have legitimately been about the same for both fMRI and polygraph (at the respective times when participants could have had no information)..

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

#13

Post by meowface »

honkycat wrote: post #4

It was my understanding that polygraph tests were mostly useless and just a way to claim someone is lying through clever use of pseudoscience

They're not useless, but yes, they are a form of trickery. It's a psychological technique that tries to make people who are lying or hiding things more likely to be nervous and more likely to confess (or be led down a line of questioning which eventually reveals new information).

The actual results from the machine are pretty much just a red herring, but that doesn't necessarily mean the machines have no valid uses. If use of a polygraph has helped tricked even one criminal into (truthfully) confessing or scared away even one person with malicious intent, then they're useful.

I wouldn't want a polygraph to be used for evidence in court, but I would want them to be used if I were interviewing for FBI/CIA/NSA. (But I definitely wouldn't want them to be used for firefighter and parademic positions.) I know it's a bit paradoxical that they can be both useful and a sham, but I think that's how law enforcement views them, too. This article presents a lot of issues with how they're used, but I wouldn't expect them to be phased out for a very long time (unless someone makes a version that actually has more scientific validity).

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

#14

Post by moate »

honkycat wrote: post #4

It was my understanding that polygraph tests were mostly useless and just a way to claim someone is lying through clever use of pseudoscience

It's a great way to discredit someone if you get lucky enough that they perform poorly on the metrics that the test measures.

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

#15

Post by moate »

mindcrime wrote: post #6

Polygraphs are pseudo-scientific nonsense with no actual validity. Why would anybody use that as part of a job screening?

They still hold up in courts, and it gives an air of authority. A surprising number of people still believe in them as a valid tool.

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

#16

Post by dvtrn »

crooked-v wrote: post #9
mindcrime wrote: post #6

Polygraphs are pseudo-scientific nonsense with no actual validity. Why would anybody use that as part of a job screening?

It gives employers a way to "scientifically" justify their hiring practices against discrimination lawsuits.

IANAL but what's to prevent the litigating party from immediately filing a Daubert motion against an employer who tries to say they used the polygraph to 'scientifically' disqualify a prospective job seeker-since you can't just hand a polygraph machine to any on-staff HR rep and go "No go see if Bob here really graduated from MIT like he says", and the wealth of research telling us how problematic results can be?

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

#17

Post by headcanon »

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.

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

#18

Post by crooked-v »

dvtrn wrote: post #16
crooked-v wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It gives employers a way to "scientifically" justify their hiring practices against discrimination lawsuits.

IANAL but what's to prevent the litigating party from immediately filing a Daubert motion against an employer who tries to say they used the polygraph to 'scientifically' disqualify a prospective job seeker-since you can't just hand a polygraph machine to any on-staff HR rep and go "No go see if Bob here really graduated from MIT like he says", and the wealth of research telling us how problematic results can be?

> IANAL but what's to prevent the litigating party from immediately filing

Not having the money to do so.

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

#20

Post by dvtrn »

crooked-v wrote: post #18
dvtrn wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL but what's to prevent the litigating party from immediately filing a Daubert motion against an employer who tries to say they used the polygraph to 'scientifically' disqualify a prospective job seeker-since you can't just hand a polygraph machine to any on-staff HR rep and go "No go see if Bob here really graduated from MIT like he says", and the wealth of research telling us how problematic results can be?

> IANAL but what's to prevent the litigating party from immediately filing Not having the money to do so.

Heh, okay that's a fair and valid counterpoint, but entertain the hypothetical-I'm genuinely curious how that could play out if someone took a prospective employer to court following a polygraph that disqualifies them from further interviews.
Post reply on HN