The fragilest of beings
Republicans/Conservatives in a nutshell.
Good thing polygraphs are junk science that doesn’t work literally at all.
Good thing the system already selects for people that can pass polygraphs without much issue.
It is also junk technology.
Isn’t the FBI trained to beat polygraphs though?
All these fascists are such little weeny piss babies.
And all the alpha bros look up to them, how embarrassing.
Damn dude that’s some serious trump energy
He could also use a plethysmograph to see which male staff likes him.
NB: Polygraphs are a hilarious pseudo-science just slightly above palm reading and astrology.
Lol. I’ve lied during lie detector tests and still passed.
Hoping our FBI officials are capable of doing the same.
It’d be funnier if they passed while being as sarcastic as possible just to take me with him
I like to imagine that anyone who works at the FBI, and has the opportunity, would try lying at the polygraph for fun.
Of course, “lie detectors” are bunk.
At least he doesn’t look paranoid…
Real leaders don’t need to be paranoid about what their underlings think about them. Fascism is more fragile than it appears.
“[Their] need for control is so desperate because it is so unnatural. Tyranny requires constant effort. It breaks, it leaks. Authority is brittle. Oppression is the mask of fear.”
Fear and greed. Who is that quote by? It’s great.
Believe it or not, it’s from the Star Wars tv series “Andor” of all places. That show was really too good for its source material.
Real leaders would take the time to understand why someone doesn’t like them, do a little self reflection to see if it’s either a valid point or just a perception issue, and then work to fix the issue if there is one. If it’s just a person who just doesn’t like them but is good at their job, just ignore it. If they are truly not a good fit or just a bad actor who just thrives in negativity, then you either find a better fit for them or then you fire them.
I’m very much a pleaser type personality but if someone doesn’t like me for whatever reason, I don’t really sweat it if it doesn’t affect me personally. Most people like me but not everyone and that’s ok. This constant need to be surrounded by yes men and sycophants is just disturbing.
True. And real leaders don’t want to lead.
And you thought J. Edgar Hoover was paranoid.
Is he short? Seems like a short kinda guy
5’9”, but I can see that Short Height Indicator Type all over him, some people call it being SHITty
Youd think all the evil would weigh him down even a touch
That’s short
Maybe according to tinder. In reality that’s pretty damn average.
No, I’m just 6’5"
Edit: downvotes? Do you reject reality and substitute your own?
Edit edit: apparently it’s just an “I’m angy that I’m short” button
Do you reject reality and substitute your own?
Quite literally what you are doing by calling the exact average for a US male, short, just because it’s not freakishly tall like yourself. Some self awareness may be in order.
You don’t seem to understand.
I am literally 6’5". That fact is being disagreed with.
Furthermore, y’all are short.
Happy cake day!
Happy 2 weeks,
BabyLittle1 :)
Probably is a job requirement for the position actually
Pretty sure I’ve read that it is, but the issue here is retesting employees that are already onboard.
Cops and pseudoscience go together like chocolate and peanut butter.
For more examples, see “bite mark analysis,” “911 call analysis,” “blood spatter analysis,” roadside drug testing with known false-positives, and even fingerprints (once the gold standard) have up to a 20% error rate.
And that’s not even getting into how their methodology is exactly backwards: they have a claim that they set out to prove, but do no work to disprove what they already believe.
I don’t know if it’s true (let me know if I’ve been taken for a ride), but I’ve been told that you can make it look like you lie on a polygraph simply by contacting your anus and slowly unclenching while answering, throwing their analysis out the window.
Really puts the “anal” in analysis, if true.
but do no work to disprove what they already believe.
But that’s the LAWYERS job /s
I think it’s only been used to convict 1 person but, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optography
Wouldn’t FBI agents be able to pass a “lie detector” test? Has anyone told Kash they aren’t actual lie detectors?
Polygraphs have always been close to useless even for normal people. Anyone being interrogated isnyoing to be nervous and likely set them off.
However, you have to be slighlty, remotely intelligent to understand that nuance. And that is not an affliction any Trump cabinet appointee has.
Polygraphs provide authoritarians the excuse to get rid of people.
The same way that scientology uses auditing. The point is to instil fear and doubt into whomever you’re measuring so that you can manipulate them.
So, they are extremely useful.
Polygraph measures nervousness, not lies.
So innocent people fail them. And guilty people pass them.
All this does is make remaing people hate him
People who use lie detectors as a machine they think can detect lies are stupid.
The real purpose of the lie detector is to trick the suspect into thinking it can detect lies, to the point where they confess.
Ancient trick. The voodoo magic chicken. “This chicken can tell all lies from truth, and it says you are lying.” Who doesn’t believe in voodoo magic? So the thief, knowing the jig is up, confesses.
I mean. They’re FBI agents…
They all have already had to take at least one to get in, even though they all would have looked into them first and know they don’t work. That’s still not as bad as the guy having to administer the tests who definitely knows it’s bullshit.
It’s my favorite example of what happens when we let politicians set rules to govern bureaucrats.
The only reason it’s still given is no one high enough in the FBI to be listened to has managed to explain to a president why it’s stupid.
A lot of our government is shit because high ranking bureaucrats are shitty are explaining things to idiots
I’m Canadian so idk about FBI, but I do know a guy that became an RCMP officer, and he said they administered a polygraph, and he indicated everyone seemed to believe it was a real thing.
Isn’t that just the police?
FBI almost always have a criminology or psychology degree and know way before applying to the FBI that the test doesn’t work.
But the type of person to join the FBI would 100% Google it first and read studies. At least wikipedia.
Jocks go CIA, nerds go FBI.
It’s not as true as it used to be, especially with so many new agencies over the last 20 years, but it’s generally true.
The RCMP is the federal police that investigate federal crimes, like the FBI, and also do local policing for areas without a local police force.
Nowadays the nerds either go corporate or are too autistic to apply to anything.
That’s weird, I would have thought the other way around. Jocks go fbi, nerds go cia. Or at least NSA.
But anyway, Patel should then also know better, so why bother polygraohing people?
FBI has much stricter rules of engagement…
The CIA operates abroad and historically can do whatever they want including but not limited to full on government coups.
But yeah, since 9/11 we’ve got like 3x the security agencies. People can go anywhere now
deleted by creator
While that is true, they have several techniques to make people nervous specifically about their lies.
They ask them baseline questions such as their name to establish general nervousness. They can give the list of questions beforehand so that your expectation of the question you plan to lie about will make you more nervous.
And then there are ways to avoid lies causing nervousness. The best one is that some people can convince themselves that the lie is the truth. Other methods include certain drugs or distracting yourself in certain ways.
I know you are trying to be informative and nothing you said is wrong, but that opening sentence makes it sound like you are defending the practice of polygraphy which is pseudoscientific, inaccurate, and unethical. I have a feeling most downvoters never got past that first sentence.
I understand, but if I wrote comments with those types of people in mind, I’d never be able to say anything worthwhile.
The problem is the platform. There should be no option to downvote comments. It should just be upvote, reply, and report. Allowing people to downvote comments only leads to this sort of antisocial anti-intellectual behavior.
…if I wrote comments with those types of people in mind, I’d never be able to say anything worthwhile.
Pish-posh! Proofreading can help with that as can thinking about your audience. It’s certainly a skill that needs to be developed, but you have plenty of interesting points to make and only have to tweak the presentation. For example, you could preface your post with a statement of intent.
“Look, I’m not defending the practice but…” would do.
For example, I was raised evangelical and am now a deconstructed atheist. I still interject regularly on scriptural topics that people frequently get wrong, which can result in others assuming I am an advocate. I am not, so I try to preface those kinds of statements with qualifiers.
This is a lot of effort simply to avoid comment downvotes, and I did in fact hedge my comment in the first four words.
This is going to sound tautological, but comment downvotes against my comments only express the opinions of the type of person who would downvote my comments. It’s like that quote about not playing chess against a pigeon. If anything, I want them to respond to my comment so that I know who they are. I’d argue that if the platform allows comment downvotes, and this goes only for comment downvotes, not for upvotes, or post votes, but if the platform allows comment downvotes, then it should also allow any user to see who downvoted the comment. If my hedge in the first four words of my comment isn’t enough to convince people to have enough curiosity to read past the first sentence, then the truth is that I don’t think they’re worth my time. If they’re the type of people who downvote my comment, then I don’t really want anything to do with them. It’s simply evidence of bad behavior.
Y’all downvoting OP for laying out the methodology.
If you want to make informed decisions, you have to start with the truth. Imagine if people listened to that guy and someday took a lie detector test, only to realize too late that people do get nervous specifically when they lie, and that the test is designed to enhance that.
🤡
Why do none of these clowns know polygraphs don’t work
Comparing them to clowns is an insult to clowns.
🤡 We demand to be taken seriously.
Because of a general sense in the population that they do work. It’s kind of a myth of super competence.
Dudes a meth head
