> though only 32% accurate, had the highest accuracy among methods of identifying which sexual offenders will go on to commit new sexual crimes

i.e. a random number generator is more accurate.

Accurate? Sure. But accuracy is only one part of the picture: a system with 32% accuracy but a 0% rate of false positives would be very useful.

The results are combined with a polygraph test to improve the randomness...

So if you invert its output, it will be more accurate than a rng?

No because then you have to invert the question too, and you’re back where you started.

What? No.

> A phallometric study indicated that men who are more homophobic show greater penile arousal to stimuli depicting gay sex than do less homophobic men.

An interesting tidbit if there's any real scientific value to this device.

The study: https://web.archive.org/web/20081030231209/http://www.oogach...

They also note that the physical arousal may be entirely due to anxiety; and that the used definition of homophobia seems not to be accurate (ie not a phobia).

FWIW there's a very important distinction between physical arousal and sexual attraction - ignoring that can be a source of great shame for some men (those who are abused/assaulted for example).

I used to hate riding on the bus (because I'd get bullied), but I also commonly got erections on the bus (the vibrations); so was I really bus-sexual ...

An important point. I'm sure many young males might be classified scholar-sexual under similar classification methods due to similarly innocuous erections during class.

You would hope some kind of control would be ran so as not to provide a false positive. Kind of crazy something so specific even exists..