Cool, but a fair number of the questions are vague or lack needed context.
Still, I'd agree for people that aren't used to self-calibration with the above assessment that, if not the most valuable, it's really up there on the list of "most valuable 4 hours of rationality training you can do."
Vague or context-less questions might help you calibrate your views on topics you know very little about?
I am now somewhat better calibrated at claims about European football than I was before, I guess.
Agreed, but a fairly large questions were so ill-specified that I was basically trying to decide what orders of magnitude was relevant for games I not only knew nothing about, but couldn't find clarity even after knowing the answer, over and over.
A sample example I'm making up, but is similar to some of the questions I saw: "England out-scored France in 1982 by how much?" What sport is being referred to? What series, or single game, or Olympics, or season?
I've tried the offline version of this and found it very enjoyable. I've heard some very smart people say that it's the most valuable 4 hours of rationality training you can do.
Very useful tool. Interesting to know my calibration of CI. Most of the questions are not in my domain of knowledge. I had to use large ranges for most of the questions. Would it make a difference to do a test with questions in a related domain vs something of which I have no idea?