Improving at thinking = metacognition
/By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.
Reading time: 10 mins
Summary: We often make decisions/create outputs based on intuition and thoughtless thinking. IMO the best outputs are products of thinking about the thinking that went into creating that output. Then, levelling up that thinking to improve the system for that output.
Input * Metacognition = Output
Culture happens by default or by design.
Metacognition is happening by default or design.
Whether you are aware of your own or others metacognition doesn’t mean there isn’t metacognition.
Levels:
L0: just doing. For the longest time I wasn’t even aware of the concept of metacognition, I was just ‘trying hard’.
This is only focusing on input. If you don't work nothing will. But are you working smart or working dumb?
L1: feedback on output. IMO feedback on output is better than no feedback, but IMO this is often treating the ‘proximate cause, not the root cause’.
Ie this output was good / bad vs let’s talk about your process for making output.
L2: feedback on metacognition. I want to get good at not having problems, not good at fixing problems.
IMO talking about metacognition = becoming aware of metacognition. Whilst I don’t think one will ever likely fully know oneself (unless one stops growing), I do believe that each day one can try to know a little more about oneself… and try to help others learn about themselves. One key way I have to do this is to talk with others about your own and their metacognition.
IMO improving metacognition is working smarter.
Jingle: Improving at metacognition = unlocking mind consciousness (awareness)
understanding metacognition --> improving metacognitive processes --> levelling up --> unlocking mind’s potential
IMO want to improve yourself? Get better at understanding and explaining your metacognition.
IMO want to improve at helping others? Get better at understanding and explaining others metacognition.
If you can’t explain the metastructure of how you are thinking? Do you know how you are thinking?
“You don’t learn from your experiences, you learn from reflecting on your experiences.” John Dewey
IMO good reflection on your experiences = metacognition.
Experience = Our assumptions (why we do what we do) + Strategies (what we do)
I think with effort one can try to become aware in real time of one’s metacognition (assumptions and strategies).
++++++++++
Details
Socrates “Know thyself.”
“You are not your thoughts, you are not your feelings.” Eckhart Tolle
They say one can observe one’s consciousness, i.e. one can become aware real time of one’s metacognition.
Eg I am not frustrated, I am experiencing frustration. Eg I am not sad, I am experiencing sadness.
In other words:
10 years ago Single loop Duncan: Mental Input = Mental Output. Eg duncan experience frustration = duncan frustrated.
“Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.” ― Viktor E. Frankl
Today, Double loop Duncan tries to be: Input * Metacognition = Output
Ok, this is a ‘frustration stimulus, why is that? Ok, now what should I do about this?’
When looking at others: Input * Metacognition = Output
Ok, what this person said doesn’t appear to make sense to me, don’t become frustrated, let’s try and see if you can think about and then talk about their metacognition to see why they said this vs saying ‘I don’t get it’.
IMO one core part of ‘knowing thyself and others’ is the ability to describe your own and others metacognition.
-L1: assume because someone said something that doesn’t make sense they are a bad person.
L0: give feedback only on output
L1: are able to explain the metacognition of yourself and others after the fact
L2: are able to explain the metacognition of yourself and others realtime
L3: are able to express in a positive sum way the metacognition of others real time as part of a discussion.
L4: L3 + able to transfer your own and others metacognition across domains and problem areas in real time to make reasonable predictions about future outputs.
I often find now that eg 10-50% of work discussions are about the metacognition of the participants vs ‘I like proposal A, well I like proposal B’.
One articulation: “Metacognition = the structure of how you are thinking” = “thinking about thinking”
Most of the time, I find it much better to have a model to explain a problem space than not to (All models are wrong, some are useful).
I often segment problems by ‘amount of unknown’: small, medium or large amount of unknown.
At work, for a problem with a ‘large amount of unknown’ I normally try to figure out ‘a model of 2-5x variable with associated taxonomies that give 80%+ explanatory power’.
One key way I find to talk about metacognition is to use a model we are building to try and explain a problem space during a discussion with others.
Eg is someone oversimplifying and saying that there is only one variable that matters vs trying to balance it vs ~3 key variables?
Eg is someone oversimplifying a variable as ‘black or white’ when it’s grey?
Basically think aloud and possibly draw on a board the model you are building and the variables you consider important and try to balance against each other. IMO typically the more interesting a problem the more complex a problem. Most things worth discussing are not black or white.
Metacognition = explicitly integrating the model you are building and balancing variables
Output = just that someone said eg ‘I like X’
Another key way I find to talk about metacognition is to look for cognitive biases.
A nice list of them for ya.
From my perspective we have all these biases baked into our source code. If you are not aware of them then you are biased. IMO the way to try and be neutral (unbiased) is to 1. Be aware of the cognitive biases and 2. Try to lean against them.
I’ve found “Confirmation Bias” is a big one. This is where we overweight information that confirms our point of view and underweight info that disproves it. Of your ego… you need to let go!
No direct ‘brain mouth connection’
Another articulation of metacognition = strategically thinking before you speak (vs thinking aloud)
Talking taxonomy
-L1: direct brain mouth connection. Input = Output
Problem solving ≠ going with the first idea you have
L1: do a layer of thinking before you speak, ie what are two possible options for what to say here and which one should I go with?
IMO in a work discussion this is normally the minimum level of metacognition one should be doing.
IMO minimum level of problem solving = coming up with two options and considering which one you should go ahead with
L2: what is the model I’m building in my head to explain the problem space and how is what I’m saying fitting into this.
L3: explaining aloud your metacognition (eg model you are building) and meta-tagging what you are saying vs the model.
Good intention ≠ good outcome
It’s not acceptable not to have good intentions… IMO it’s also not acceptable to have a “-L1: direct brain mouth connection” in a work discussion.
I find a well intentioned low level strategic thinker (aka “-L1: direct brain mouth connection”) can be one of the most destructive things in a work discussion.
Think (metacognition) before you use your mouth for output… else your mouth might put you out (of a job).
One possible ways to represent this taxonomy:
There are two types of thinking: Cognition and Metacognition
Cognition = running the machine
Metacognition = explaining how the machine runs and as such being able to upgrade how the machine runs.
Comment:
You can work for 10,000 hours and be exactly the same at the end (aka 100% cognition)
Or you can do 10 hour of metacognition upgrading and be 10x better.
You upgrade your thinking by doing upgrades, not by doing more.
The better you are at metacognition, the more meta your cognition.
You get better at metacognition by doing metacognition
IMO what should one consider doing:
Trying to learn all key cognitive biases and counter them by leaning against them.
Trying to blog once a week as I find often one can implicitly see one’s metacognition after rereading what you wrote (imo much harder to see it when you are discussing).
Trying to metatag any verbal conversations real time to try explicitly see your own and others metacognition
When writing blogs put in equations which try to show you balancing multiple variables
After key meetings at work do post game analysis where each participant puts forward one ‘metacognition thought’ about every other participant.
Increasing the pace one can think so that one has space not just to listen to what is being said (output) but to try and consider the metacognition of what is going on as well. (Blog link: Brain upgrading: increasing the rate at which you think!)
Modes of metacognition:
-L2: try to win arguments (ego) vs look after the over best outcome (common good)
-L1: have a subconscious metacognition bias you commit consistently. Eg strawman, eg over simplify
L0: no conscious metacognition while thinking (aka direct brain mouth connection)
L1: state metacognition while talking
L2: state metacognition and build useful models real time in a discussion - link to blog
Ok I think we currently have 2 variables in the model, I’m proposing we add a 3rd variable which is ‘X’...
L3: can guide conversations towards improving the common good if there are participants at L0 or below
L4: can guide people to level up on this taxonomy
The only feedback you should give is an ‘upgrade opportunity’. IMO one of the best ways to give an upgrade opportunity is the help 1. Someone understand their metacognition and 2. Be able to upgrade their metacognition.
Feedback levels:
-L1: your output was good / bad. What is someone meant to do with that?
L0: your output was good / bad with specific reason
L1: your output was good / bad with specific reason + here is an example of better output with reason
L2: awareness of and explaining what possible metacognition could be for a certain output. Eg are we all having the following blind spot? Eg are stuck with anchoring bias?
L3: L2 + explaining how to have better metacognition, aka increase the quality of someone’s thinking
After a meeting get the participants to explain 1x thing about the metacognition of each person there. Ie about the way people were thinking. IT IS THE BEST FUN! To me this is not explaining the play (then Person A kicked the ball to Person B), but explaining the strategy (I think Person A might have been thinking about the concept of esteem and that is why they were approaching the topic from X).
If you can explain to someone their metacognition and how to possibly improve it they want to give you a hug (for the way they think they can upgrade; this is not a dressing down, it’s a way to level up). If you can’t explain the metacognition and how to improve then often they just shrug.
At work, I now try to include metacognition (eg tagging) when I’m speaking, and when I’m trying to help someone level up I try to talk about their metacognition, not the output alone. I find that talking about output alone is often counterproductive.
This can be achieved with some simple questions; how did you get to that decision, what was the thinking behind selecting X, how would you change your approach if you had to do it again?
If you only take away one thing
10 years ago Duncan wasn’t aware of the concept of metacognition.
5 years ago Duncan was aware of the concept but didn’t really understand what it meant.
Today Duncan believes that metacognition is one of, if not the most, important way he can upgrade himself and others.
If you want a way to try and improve metacognition skills try the following:
When was I the happiest this week and then try explain why (ie unpack the metacognition)
When was I the least happy this week and then try explain why (ie unpack the metacognition)
When was I the most frustrated this week and then try explain why (ie unpack the metacognition)
When was I the most relaxed this week and then try explain why (ie unpack the metacognition)
“You don’t learn from your experiences, you learn from reflecting on your experiences.” John Dewey
IMO good reflection on your experiences = metacognition.
I think with effort one can try to become aware in real time of one’s metacognition.