 Calibration curves are widely studied by empirical psychologists who find that human beings’ reliability tends on average to vary systematically and uniformly with confidence, with for example high confidence tending to overconfidence, as in eyewitness testimony. Despite the averages found when subjects take tests in controlled settings, the curves also vary with sub-group, individual traits, professional skills, and particular circumstances. All manner of higher-order evidence about a subject’s belief-forming processes, methods, circumstances, track-record, and competences are relevant to estimating this function. In real life no one could get enough evidence in one lifetime to warrant certainty about an individual’s calibration curve for q in a set of circumstances, but if one is a Bayesian one can form a confidence about what a person’s calibration curve is, or what value it has for some argument x, that is proportional to the strength of one’s evidence about this, and one can have such a confidence about one’s own calibration curve.