38564

When I first saw this question, I thought it was really easy. But when I tried it out, it was definitely not easy. I didn't even made exactly 10 seconds one time.
People are usually better at counting short amounts of time (10-15 seconds) because when you are counting longer periods of time (30-60 seconds), people get confused.
My first attempt was an over-estimate (13 seconds), but I underestimated (8 seconds) on my second go. This is probably because people are scared to over-estimate again, so they are tempted to count faster so their second attempt became an underestimate.
If a person is good at estimating 10 seconds, they should be good at counting longer time intervals too. Because you know the time distance between the seconds, so it is the same method to count longer time intervals.
Older people and younger people are basically the same at estimating time. All they need is to practise to get the best results.
Anybody can get better at estimating if they practise. You know the time distance between the seconds if you practise. For example, after doing the question for a couple of times, I noticed that you have to press the red light at the same time when you count zero; and turn off the red light at the same time when you when you count to ten.
I think the best strategy to estimate is to count. First, I think reciting or singing will make your mind go in confusion; second, using a watch won't always work, for example, when your watch counts to ten and you press the red light afterwards, some time will be delayed.
People that are good at estimating time are not really likely to be better at estimating angles because angles and time are two different things. In my opinion, angles are harder to estimate than time.
Someone that can react faster doesn't mean that they are good at judging time intervals, because estimating time is not actually related to your reaction. Time doesn't link with reaction.