There are a lot of clever ideas in this post, despite the harsh downvotes.
You may have some misgivings about the extent to which say, mental health issues may be a barrier to security clearances. It’s more like people disqualify themselves by lying or failing to apply in the first place. Those who do get through and get issues, are prisoners of their own misconceptions.
Austalia’s protective security guidelines are based around subjective evaluations of
impair(ment of judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness. They explicitly state
G11. There is no indication of a current problem.
is a mitigating factor in any history of mental illness
see this. Caution, if you’re speaked by getting tracked, note that this is a word document on a Aus gov website.
It also explicitly says that seeking help from mental health places shouldn’t be the sole basis of exclusion, and the guidelines suggest that the opinion of a mental health professional should be given due consideration.
This wasn’t always the way things were down, at least in the us.
The really contentious issue here is whether it is correct to privellage the hypothesis that those seeking mental health care are more likely to have worse judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness. Intuitions and stereotypes say yes. Research suggests they among those seeking treatment, they are not anymore violent, I’m not sure about those criteria specifically, but I suspect that there is far too much assumption of mental illness as a description of abberant behaviour, rather than as an exclusive construct resilient to black swans and that soon mental health and the military and intelligence fields will become subject to scrutinty by mental health activists, the same way other activists have scrutinised discrimination in security fields.
There are a lot of clever ideas in this post, despite the harsh downvotes.
You may have some misgivings about the extent to which say, mental health issues may be a barrier to security clearances. It’s more like people disqualify themselves by lying or failing to apply in the first place. Those who do get through and get issues, are prisoners of their own misconceptions.
Austalia’s protective security guidelines are based around subjective evaluations of
see this. Caution, if you’re speaked by getting tracked, note that this is a word document on a Aus gov website.
It also explicitly says that seeking help from mental health places shouldn’t be the sole basis of exclusion, and the guidelines suggest that the opinion of a mental health professional should be given due consideration.
This wasn’t always the way things were down, at least in the us.
The really contentious issue here is whether it is correct to privellage the hypothesis that those seeking mental health care are more likely to have worse judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness. Intuitions and stereotypes say yes. Research suggests they among those seeking treatment, they are not anymore violent, I’m not sure about those criteria specifically, but I suspect that there is far too much assumption of mental illness as a description of abberant behaviour, rather than as an exclusive construct resilient to black swans and that soon mental health and the military and intelligence fields will become subject to scrutinty by mental health activists, the same way other activists have scrutinised discrimination in security fields.