[NeedMoreTea]

> but I would want them to be used if I were interviewing for FBI/CIA/NSA

Why?

As well as being known to be a form of trickery it's also the case that it is easy to teach someone to manipulate the results at will.

All you achieve requiring it for those organisations is that there will be a) some who are rejected unjustly thanks to a false positive, and b) the people you really don't want in there have another bit of flim-flam to reinforce their apparent legitimacy.

[meowface]

Yes, undoubtedly there are good candidates who are weeded out due to false positives, but there are probably many bad candidates who are weeded out due to true positives (or don't apply at all because they fear the test). It will lead to bad actors who study the test and pass it, but that's why it's critical that law enforcement agencies do not use a passed test as indication of trustworthiness; merely an initial barrier to entry to be passed. The trustworthiness has to come from a thorough background check and normal interviewing.

As long as the examiners, recruiters, interviewers, and higher-ups fully understand polygraphs are a trick and nothing more, I still think they serve a useful purpose for three-letter agency hiring.