Personal Statement of a CIA Analyst

Post by dang » Mon, Oct 08, 2018, 4:04 AM UTC

TuGuQuKu wrote: post #99

dang wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This breaks the site guidelines, both because it's ideological flamewar, and more subtly because it doesn't do this: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." Can you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when posting here?

Please follow this rule when reading my posts: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." You've disappointed me with your disingenuous misinterpretation of my comment and I strongly suggest you no longer reply to my posts.

Post by thoughtfunction » Mon, Oct 08, 2018, 5:05 AM UTC

crististm wrote: post #17

polythrowaway wrote: post #10

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…

I hate it when people do this. What's the better comeback/reaction to this frame? (apparently, my verbalized fuck-off, tamed or not, is not the best approach)

Post by droithomme » Mon, Oct 08, 2018, 6:27 AM UTC

dev_dull wrote: post #37

JohnStrangeII wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've read about it, it works to some extent as long as people believe in it. They want to get their clearance and believe cheating could be detected, so they tend to be more truthful. It's based on intimidation and observation. The examination starts when you enter the building and stops when you leave it.

Something that tells the truth inconsistently and nondeterministically sounds worse for our society than just asking the question under oath.

Post by kwhitefoot » Mon, Oct 08, 2018, 6:05 PM UTC

ergothus wrote: post #51

kodablah wrote: post #19

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…

What is a reasonable hoop to jump through and what is unreasonable is very subjective. Consider...on the east coast, interview suits are the norm. Even for a coding job where you will never wear a suit, it is reasonable to wonder why a candidate refused to wear a suit for an interview. West coast, though, the reverse is true. I had quite the culture shock coming from a govt job on the east coast to a Seattle coding j…

Post by artsyxxx » Tue, Oct 09, 2018, 11:43 AM UTC

kodablah wrote: post #19

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…