The Forecaster Test- based on Tetlock's superforecasting research
The Forecaster Test- based on Tetlock's superforecasting research
In Tetlock's 20-year Expert Political Judgment study, domain experts performed no better in their own field than outside it — and "hedgehog" specialists actually did worse when predicting within their specialty. The Good Judgment Project (Tetlock & Mellers) later found that superforecasters weren't dramatically smarter than average participants — what separated them was thinking style. What predicts accuracy? Calibration, Bayesian reasoning, and willingness to update beliefs. These traits beat raw intelligence and domain knowledge. I built a 10-minute test that measures them: Bayesian updating: Commit to a probability, receive new evidence, update. Tests whether you move the right direction and magnitude. Calibration: When you say 80% confident, are you right 80% of the time? Replication prediction: Predict whether famous psychology studies replicated. Instant feedback since outcomes are known. Free, no signup. Results show where you're calibrated vs. overconfident, and how you handle disconfirming evidence. Looking for feedback on questions and scoring. Research basis is Tetlock, Mellers, Baron, and Stanovich — but I'm sure there are improvements to make.
Share cardActual performance
Launch Intel predictions
Analyze your own launch →Correct prediction on native model
Similar products
Atom, find grants based on your research interests
TorchGAN – Research Framework for Modelling GANs Based on Pytorch
Test and visualise a buffet of artisanal PRNGS
Dat-container Debian test
Test with Go
Beating the Turing Test
WebhookTest. Test Your Webhooks
How I Test Controllers
Circulus - put your finger to the test
Is Turing Test Passed?