What would be some topics that could, in your opinion, be fruitful?
I added on via an edit to my last question before I saw an answer. But it's not an easy question.
As far as I understand CFAR has some techniques that they teach on their bootcamps that are effective and change the minds of the person who goes to the bootcamp in a good way.
That change of mindset could be measured with an implicit-association test. Of course knowing what those changes happen to be means knowing the basics of rationality and when you followed what I wrote lately, I consider knowing the basics to be hard.
Suddenly having a data driven tool that tells good rationalists from bad rationalists also would make things uncomfortable for a bunch of people, because it's deeper to their core than a test telling them whether the are implicit racists.
It a lot more fundamental than the basic LW consensus where we assume from each other that we are good rationalists. Data has power. Talking about the value of the scientific method as the only true frame for reality is noble. It makes it easy to signal to be a good rationalist. Identifying good rationalists from bad ones via data driven implicit reasoning tests would be walking the talk instead of just talking it.
I don't think it's my role to say what makes a good rationalist but I think we can agree that the stuff CFAR does makes someone a better rationalist. If someone has better suggestions that could be tested I'm also happy.
The LW survey has a few rationalist testing questions.
Have you ever taken a personality quiz/test that helped you have valuable insights? If so, what were the tests and how were they useful?
The only useful ones I've found all yielded the same type of insight. They showed me where I stand relative to others, which is can be genuinely useful since representative samples of large populations can be hard to come by. This includes IQ tests and tests for mental disorders (in my experience, people are usually aware that they are, for example, smarter than the average (although the Dunning-Kruger effect might complicate this) or have some intrusive thoughts and compulsive rituals, but might be surprised to find that they are three standard deviations above the norm or that their symptoms are sufficiently severe to be considered OCD).
No remotely reliable (as in, not astrology) test I have ever seen has revealed genuinely surprising information for a moderately self-aware person, outside of ranking. Furthermore, they rarely gather personality data in a remotely subtle or non-transparent way ("do you like spending lots of time with large groups of people?" "yes..." "surprise, you're an extrovert!"), and thus seem super susceptible to test-takers' attempts to confirm a desired identity.
An example of a more interesting/subtle way to potentially conduct a personality test would be to use question like OKTrends' "do you like beer?" which clusters strongly with "do you have sex on the first date," and, potentially, sexual openness. Such results might be harder for manipulate (consciously or unconsciously) and could assist with deeper self-awareness.
Edited because the first link was broken.