Comment by jvanderbot | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jvanderbot | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I managed a group of very intelligent programmers with the highest clearance available, including taking polygraphs regularly.

They know it's just part of the system, and the routine.

These folks have a slightly different mindset, and, I think, view procedures as important to weed out people who might cut corners, lean into their ego (how dare they make ME take a polygraph), or be careless with information. A nice side effect of this process is it selects for humility, openness, and conscientiousness.

And they view the work they do as hugely important for the security of their nation. Including those who laugh at them for their chosen profession.

They were some of the most professional, conscientious, diligent, and excellent technologists I've ever worked with. Definitely on par with anyone at FAANGs or startups that I've work in.

>A nice side effect of this process is it selects for humility, openness, and conscientiousness.

Or perhaps it selects for submissive, controllable automata that will go along with anything, with no limit on absurdity. Your rationalization of this stupidity is embarrassing.

You're entitled to that opinion, and I don't think it's a great system, but I think it's not the lunacy you're implying. Military life, for example, involves a lot of bullshit routines, which have ancillary benefits of creating discipline and coherent mindset. I don't mind disagreeing about how good or bad this is.

But I do want to dispell the idea that people are less intelligent, less capable, or somehow mindless just because they disagree with you about this (Or OP), and choose to be part of it.

Being skilled != being intelligent

Not sure what you're implying or responding to, but that _is_ why I listed capable and intelligent separately.

I don’t believe that’s an accurate representation of the situation on either side

I'm sure they were technically brilliant, but it really sounds like it was weeding out people who would not be compliant. It's a small jump from that to realise it's most likely weeding out people who have 'egos' that might make them object to morally dubious orders. Arbitrary requirements (like polygraphs which are literally bunk) are the most classic way to select for compliant people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com