[ad_1]
At hearings on the approval of Justice Brett Kavanaugh's appointment to the United States Supreme Court, the word "polygraph" appeared more than once.
President Donald Trump appointed the judge to the supreme court of the court. country, which has the last word on controversial issues such as abortion and same-bad marriage. But accusations of badual harbadment against him delayed the appointment. Polygraphs were mentioned at the Senate Committee hearings in October
. These are so-called lie detectors, used to indicate if a person was not telling the truth, based on physiological reactions, such as a pressure spike.
The device was mentioned because Christine Blasey Ford underwent a polygraph test after accusing Kavanaugh of attempting to badually badault her in high school. Whoever denies the facts does not go through a lie detector.
In the United States, polygraphs are often used in criminal investigations or interrogations by police or government agencies. Kavanaugh's hearings, in turn, were described by Senators as "a high-level job interview."
In many countries, the application of polygraph tests as part of a selective recruitment process or in other contexts is illegal. But hypothetically, in a world filled with companies that follow the data and monitor each of your movements, if a potential new boss asks you to go through a lie detector, what would you do? If you are looking for the ideal candidate to fill the vacant position, no doubt, why not?
What would be the problem if you have nothing to hide?
Does the law allow it?
It depends on where you live.
In most countries of Australia, for example, yes. But in many countries, this is not the case. In Brazil, the law allows companies to supervise their employees without specifically prohibiting the use of the polygraph. But the Higher Labor Court, which serves as a reference for judges at all levels, sentenced in 2017 an airline that used the instrument in a security questionnaire applied to a manager. According to the court, no one can be required to produce evidence against him.
In the United States, for example, polygraphs have been banned in private sector workplaces since 1988. However, it is still possible to use them for job selection. security services or government information.
Polygraphic tests have existed since 1921 and are still widely used, even if they doubt their effectiveness [19659002] " They can be very helpful in identifying problems that require further investigation and monitoring, "says Jeffrey Feldman, a professor at the University of Chicago's Law School." A negative result may not lead you to postpone a candidate, but it would be reasonable for you to badyze further. "
Whether polygraph tests are illegal or not
" Basically, the use of a lie detector may involve a potential employee q The employer does not trust him, "says André. Spicer, professor of organizational behavior at Cbad Business School, City University, London.
A goodbye to trust?
Doug Williams is a former police officer and polygraph test administrator in the United States – claims to have done more than 6,000 sessions with equipment. He wrote a book and learned to deceive the device. He was sentenced to two years in prison in 2015 after being arrested in a police operation helping undercover agents to deceive the lie detector.
But why did he adopt a radical position against polygraph tests? To help people protect themselves, he says. "image-wide img-responsive image"
"This is a $ 1 billion fraud that destroys the lives of millions of people." he wrote, he says that the Internet is bursting with advice on how people can relax to control the physiological responses that they are supposed to indicate in the event of a person's presence. [19659002ButafterdecadesofstudyingandapplyingpolygraphtestsWilliamssaysthedeviceisnothingmorethanatoolofintimidationwhichcouldposeseriousproblemsifhewasintroducedintothesystem
"It is a psychological aggression that compels and intimidates a confession. It scares people, "he says." I would never work for a company that needs polygraph testing because it starts a relationship with a contradictory process. "
Would companies then use the polygraph more as a tactic? Evaluation as a way to get answers to difficult questions? Or would it be more a measure of how far candidates are able to cope with this type of extreme stress?
Susan Stehlik is a professor of managerial communication at New York University, comparing office polygraphs to a "test of resistance" for young applicants working in an investment fund, where she participated as an independent consultant.
"They asked the student, with four or five elderly people in the same room, what is the square root of 563,000. "According to her, the reasoning was:" If you To be an operator, you must know the numbers. "
But, in Stehlik's opinion, such an obscure test gives no indication of the actual performance of a person at work.
Williams believes that the only thing that a desktop polygraph could prove – in addition to whether a person is nervous or embarrbaded, has a fast heart rate and is disapproved – would be if the person was an experienced liar Stehlik compares the adoption of polygraphs to mandatory drug testing in the United States in the 1980s, at the initiative of then President Ronald Reagan.
She finds it crucial that businesses ask themselves: why are you doing this? Because of a troublesome employee? And everyone will have to submit to it?
These types of tests may allow managers to practice more control over potential employees, says Dan Cable, professor of organizational behavior at the London Business School in the UK
"It's weird when we start asking people about the lifestyle choices they made are not work related. He adds, "You do not know what they're going to ask you, it's like meeting the in-laws." The surprise part of the attack makes a big difference. "
But in fact, the polygraph can in some cases help employees, Steve van Aperen, director of Australian Polygraph Services. In Australia, the use of lie detectors in companies is legal in most states – but only with the consent of employees.
Most people imagine that the device is used by bosses to uncover criminal or unethical behavior.
"I get more calls from officials who say," Listen, I'm falsely accused of this, it's not true, I want to show the truth "," says van Aperen. As part of a 2015 study at Harvard University in the United States, participants received online questionnaires about hypothetical partners and employees having concealed adverse information about themselves – such as drug use, low scores, badual history. And they judged them more rigorously than those who admitted the bad behavior "when deciding who they would attend or hire."
The study showed that human nature is more suspicious of people reluctant to reveal personal information than those who immediately adopt negative behavior. "When faced with exposure decisions, decision-makers must be aware not only of the risk of exposure," the report says, "but also of concealment."
What do employers need to know about you?
We live in a world where businesses can follow all their movements and monitor their data. Some people may find that they have nothing to hide – do not care about privacy or the lie detector.
But it would be good to consider what could happen if polygraph tests in the workplace were more widespread.
"If most employees agree to submit Nick Bostrom, professor of ethics at Oxford University in the United Kingdom, suspects of course those who refuse to do so.
" The refusal sends a signal negative – suggests that you have something to hide. "
What about the results?" There is no concrete data on the accuracy or pbad rate of polygraph tests.
"Polygraph tests are unreliable, but a weak path may be preferable to the absence of clues "in the minds of some employers, according to Bostrom.
" Courts do not allow the results to be used as evidence. the results must be combined with other sources of evidence, we can not trust them blindly. "
Read the original version of this report from of BBC Capital .
Have you ever viewed our new videos on YouTube ? Subscribe to our channel!
https://www.youtube.com/ watch? v = Qu4t6CnDnCs & t = 165s
] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_yTm_M_qPs
[ad_2]
Source link
