• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.

How good is your metacognition

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today, 16:34
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,161
#1
Make a meta-metacognitive statement about yourself. Why have you arrived at this conclusion?

The INTP profile seems like it's open enough to allow its err... adherents... to decide whether they're good or bad at metacognition without compromising their identity.

I think I'm okay at it in some aspects, and kind of poor in others? I see issues with other people's metacognitions all the time, which implies I've got something going on... But I can also be pretty oblivious too. I'm often bad at gauging my understanding against what's expected (either over or undershooting in exams for instance).

My memory is bad, but I employ a lot of mnemonic strategies to make up for this and as a result tend to have a good idea of whether I really know what I know (but far far from infallible). When compared to people with better memories, when we disagree, I'd back myself to be correct more often than not because a strong sense of knowing doesn't come easy to me, where for them it's the norm.

You?
 

Animekitty

(ISFP)-(E)(N)(T)(P)
Local time
Today, 01:04
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,785
Location
subjective
#2
I can understand a person by the emotions and the reactions they have. But this is only useful for how I will interact with them. I have no ability to explain their personality not can I predict what they will do. All I know is is their emotional being. It is instinctive knowing what I can and cannot say, the best ways to explain myself, and when to back off. But I do not do this consciously. I internalize all the metacognitive experience. I realize what mistakes I've made and I feel how my "Thinking" should be improved. I do not have a monology in my head delineating how my thinking works. I just know if something "Feels" right or wrong. No words involved. With enough experience, I can know which feelings work out. When self-reflecting I et a sense of self-control to better monitor the feelings I get from what is really out there. But its feelings, not an analytical process. I do not order things in my head step by step. I just associate things and see if they feel right and sort things that way. I use my emotions to enact the process of self-reflection, not analytical structuralism.
 
Local time
Today, 08:04
Joined
Feb 4, 2016
Messages
83
#3
Make a meta-metacognitive statement about yourself.
My meta-meta-meta-cognitive awareness is far too low for understanding some of meta-cognitive features and properties that are understood by my meta-meta-cognitive awareness.
 

Serac

A menacing post slithers
Local time
Today, 08:04
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
1,512
Location
Stockholm
#4
I would say I have a fairly active metacognition. When I'm trying to learn some concept, I often think about things like: why don't I understand certain aspects of it and why, who do I understand other aspects and what other structures do I have lying around in my mind that pertain to the concept, etc. I also often think about the psychological underpinnings of various notions I have – for example why am I a libertarian and right-leaning, why have I chosen to take the various path I have taken in life, why do I have certain narcissistic traits, etc. Maybe I am a libertarian because I have narcissistic traits? After all, it's an insult to a narcissist to think that the state can do a better job at handling his life than himself.
 

Animekitty

(ISFP)-(E)(N)(T)(P)
Local time
Today, 01:04
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,785
Location
subjective
#5
I suppose the essence of metacognition is to ask why questions. Thinking at its normal level can be about what is something and how to get from a to b, but asking why changes things into a function of "why must a get to b in this way?" _ "is there a reason a got to b this way and not some other way?". Judging by the complexity of a personal explanation for a getting to b or simply the cutting clarity of the explanation we can see the depth to which we see that they have on the matter.

Just the depth to which a person understands they have asked a large amount of why questions or they have asked a lot of "quality" why questions.

The teachers in High School thought I had Aspergers because I had no friends and never talked to anyone. I never got that much social feedback, I never asked that many social "why" questions. I understood people but not social relationships between people. That is what makes you smart in school is knowing about people and the relationships between all the kids around you. The meta-narrative of the social atmosphere.

Sometimes I am good at asking why questions but am generally poor at thinking. Reasoning is easier to do.
 

redbaron

Worst Mod Ever™
Local time
Today, 18:04
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
6,742
Location
38S 145E
#6
i tend to judge my meta-cognitive abilities by how the people around me recognise it in me. i'm a bit distrustful of how accurate my thoughts about my own thinking can be in judging my thoughts about my own thinking, you know?

other people have commented that i tend to quickly understand how things work/see the deeper meaning behind something, or how i'm quick to realise my own placement within a wider framework. i naturally put a fair chunk of time into refining my own processes, less so from a results-oriented perspective and moreso from the perspective of what i can realistically expect will lead to me having a consistent experience. i tend to be aware of myself cutting corners (on anything) and routinely check my own approach towards things to ensure that i'm not becoming complacent or lackadaisical in my approach

i tend to think of my memory as about average but most of the people i've worked with seem to think i have a great memory. maybe for abstract things or for processes, but just general life memory like where i left the keys or my wallet (seriously how did they end up there?) and remembering people's faces or names, i think i'm not bad, but definitely not great.

tl;dr
BITCH IM FABULOUS
 

washti

tellurian
Local time
Today, 09:04
Joined
Sep 11, 2016
Messages
473
#7
I have a good memory about ppl related information (individuals/patterns in interactions)
I'm shit in motivation management.
I deleted 10 points about what i'm bad at. So focused on negative aspects - likely low-self esteem.
Or quite self-aware about growth possibilities. And overuse of pop-psych lingo.
With a tendency to think in dichotomies. But without a concrete reference point to compare with.
Self-assessment based on temporal emotional attitude. With difficulty to identify underlying feelings and what leads to them.
Thus lack of logging history of washti's emotional states in memory and retrieving them for future use. (I learn this in small amounts by observing others, recognizing and relating my own behavior).
Need for physical contact (real-time observance) with a variety of people to build the reliable scale of possible capabilities to see where I'm with my potential. To be confident enough and act.
A difficulty with accepting personal limitation and deriving motivation to overcome aspects which are realistically achievable. A tendency to form phantom identities and testing them in imaginary scenarios. Risk-averse and currently too disgusted to use any other psychology term.

I have arrived at this conclusion because it's composed of recently obtained or the easiest to reach info I can retrieve from my memory and compose semi-sense-possessing description. Or I just prefer to think about myself like that. Habit.
 

The Grey Man

Active Member
Local time
Today, 02:04
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
420
Location
Canada
#8
Once you've thought about everything excepting thinking (cognition) and about thinking itself (metacognition), there's nothing left to think about. Thinking about thinking is still thinking about thinking even if the thought that is thought about has as its object still another thought; meta-metacognition is merely the application of metacognition to a particular class of thoughts. If the veracity of the information about a suprasensory reality provided by metacognition in general is in doubt, than so must be that of meta-metacognition in particular; the latter can on no account be assumed to be exceptionally reliable and thus an appropriate mechanism of verification.* You have made here the same error you made in the Pence Rule thread, which there brought you, however briefly, into the sordid intellectual company of those who espouse ‘realpolitik’ thus defined:

A system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations.
This is plain nonsense. Practical considerations just are moral or ideological considerations. For a principle or political belief of a group of people that regulates its behaviour to be based on practical considerations merely means that it has been adopted by that group on the grounds of the instrumentality of doing so in achieving its ends, fulfilling its desires, constitutional values, which collectively constitute the group’s (more or less completely conscious) system of morality, ideology. Practical principles are thus subordinate to moral principles, which are just these desires; the system of practicality is the procedural corollary of the substantive laws of behavior furnished by the moral system. Morality and practicality thus form an inseparable dyad of ‘why’ and ‘how’, of ends and courses of action; just as a value is impotent and irrelevant without a pursuant course of action, so is a course of action arbitrary and absurd without an end as its ground. Divorcing the dyad makes a mockery of both morality and practicality- and the vermin who infest civil society in alarming numbers do precisely this!

“That may be true morally, but you have to think practically”, or some such twaddle, is regurgitated with an sneer by every scoundrel who means to excuse the banal egoism of his own ends with a rhetorical sleight of hand whereby, like the petty illusion of the woman cut in half, morality and politics- one in the same body- are chimerically separated into a remote “idealistic” (for his resentful hatred for any graceful, benevolent spirit that reveals by contrast the vulgarity of his own character is betrayed by his refusal to recognize the indispensable role of the ideal in any conceivable conscious pursuit of something better as the representation of perfection, the complete realization of one’s desire- which may never be reached but is yet striven towards and perchance approached- as a standard of success, for it is precisely his deficiency in ideals that he means to excuse and trivialize) fantasy on one hand and an absurd, lawless playground for rapacious, “pragmatic” Mammonites like him on the other (for there are no surroundings more congenial to a rat than a worthless trash heap upon which to glut himself), and when one lays bare the folly that he has had the audacity to pass off as political sagacity, protests of “that’s minutiae” and “you’re splitting hairs” can be heard as he cravenly terminates the discussion, vanishing behind a verbal smokescreen thick with the pungent odour of intellectual dishonesty, to see if he might have more success beguiling another audience with his cynical misdirection. And you have participated in this wretched stage magic by embracing the false dichotomy between practicality and morality in the aforementioned thread!

I don't believe in rights because they're a social construct just like responsibility. But responsibility is useful without the assumption of rights. Rights are useless without the assumption of responsibility. It just feels like conceptual creep to me. Tell someone who's starving they have a right to basic sustenance -> useless. Take responsibility for providing that sustenance -> useful.
As you then thought to ground the practicality of a course of action (feeding the person) in still more contingent practicality instead of its proper ground in morality (the desire to see the person fed), so you now seek to verify metacognition with still more- still fallible- metacognition. Though it now takes an epistemological rather than a moral form, the error is yet the same, and my objection now is the same as it was in the Pence thread: that the ruler stick cannot attest to its own length’s matching some important standard, but it is taken on faith that it does, for it is self-defeating to think that the instruments that we have been given to arrive at accurate conclusions about the world are manufactured by a deceitful 'evil demon'.

Edit: is this thread about memory? I have a great memory. Not photographic tho. But how do I know I can trust my memories...?


Oh, shut up and use induction already you miserable skeptic.

* Similarly, there is no such thing as metaphilosophy, properly speaking, because philosophy is merely the study of everything present for the subject- there is nothing left over for a ‘meta’-philosophy to study. As Michel de Montaigne famously stated in the preface to his Essais, "je suis moi-même la matière de mon livre"; like metacognition, philosophy is never outside itself, the self such that it can be an external arbiter, but always in and through the self; the philosopher and that which is philosophized about, the knower and the known, are one.
 

Animekitty

(ISFP)-(E)(N)(T)(P)
Local time
Today, 01:04
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,785
Location
subjective
#9
Thining is about figuring out things.
meta-thinking is self-monitoring the figuring out (thinking) process.
Then self-monitoring begins to self-monitor the self-monitoring.

This third level is effortless cognition ar rapid speed.
Ideas and realizations become self-generating.
Speed reading at 1,000 wpm is possible.
Effortful Control is no longer required to think, it is automatic intuition.
 
Top Bottom