• Zombiepirate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    92
    ·
    7 months ago

    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.

  • Frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    7 months ago

    Real leaders don’t need to be paranoid about what their underlings think about them. Fascism is more fragile than it appears.

    • OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      7 months ago

      “[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.”

    • billwashere@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

  • toppy@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    7 months ago

    Is polygraph test reliable ? Doesn’t it fall under pseudoscience ?

    • HowAbt2day@futurology.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      7 months ago

      The “original” snowflakes. “I can’t drink from the same water fountain as a colored person!” Type of people.

  • AskThinkingTim@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    7 months ago

    Enforcing polygraph testing will invariably make people less trusting of you. There needs to specific reasons that target specific people.

  • FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    7 months ago

    Wouldn’t FBI agents be able to pass a “lie detector” test? Has anyone told Kash they aren’t actual lie detectors?

    • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • CosmicTurtle0 [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

    • MNByChoice@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      7 months ago

      Good thing the system already selects for people that can pass polygraphs without much issue.
      It is also junk technology.

    • skisnow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Only in as much as they know it’s bunk that only works if the participant believes it does.