“The idea of “testing someone’s honesty and relying on the result” is not something any serious security practice depends on.”
“Notably, we generally don’t evaluate humans for this: We don’t test politicians for corruption before giving them office. We don’t test executives for recklessness before giving them control of companies.”
I think I mildly disagree? Certainly honesty-testing shouldn’t be the only line of defense in human-trust situations, but I think people often do rely on this. For example, many advisors don’t check their students’ work very closely because, after years of knowing the student, they trust the student to report their results honestly. Or for another example, a teenager in a small town might be more likely to be accepted for babysitting jobs if that teenager has a reputation for being level-headed and dependable.
These trust dynamics only work for relationships built on years of experience and repeated interaction, but I think they do work.
Right. I agree with the point that we pay attention, and rely, on something like “track record for honesty”. And I would also grant that we use things like “he is giving me dishonest vibes” as criteria based on which to rule people out, or start being more suspicious around them.
The claim is more that we have nothing like “honesty exams”, the same way we do have driving tests and coding interviews. (Maybe the thing that comes closest is testing people for faithfulness by having some pre-arranged third party invite them for a date? Unless that only happens in TV shows?)
“The idea of “testing someone’s honesty and relying on the result” is not something any serious security practice depends on.”
“Notably, we generally don’t evaluate humans for this: We don’t test politicians for corruption before giving them office. We don’t test executives for recklessness before giving them control of companies.”
I think I mildly disagree? Certainly honesty-testing shouldn’t be the only line of defense in human-trust situations, but I think people often do rely on this. For example, many advisors don’t check their students’ work very closely because, after years of knowing the student, they trust the student to report their results honestly. Or for another example, a teenager in a small town might be more likely to be accepted for babysitting jobs if that teenager has a reputation for being level-headed and dependable.
These trust dynamics only work for relationships built on years of experience and repeated interaction, but I think they do work.
Right. I agree with the point that we pay attention, and rely, on something like “track record for honesty”. And I would also grant that we use things like “he is giving me dishonest vibes” as criteria based on which to rule people out, or start being more suspicious around them.
The claim is more that we have nothing like “honesty exams”, the same way we do have driving tests and coding interviews. (Maybe the thing that comes closest is testing people for faithfulness by having some pre-arranged third party invite them for a date? Unless that only happens in TV shows?)