In a recently published book, Know Thyself, cognitive scientist Stephen Fleming describes “the science of self-awareness.” He reviews the many studies carried out in recent decades under the less snappy phrase “meta-cognition.”
Clearly, on the whole, meta-cognition is a good thing. In school, those individuals who are aware of what they need to do, how to achieve it, what help they might need, are far more likely to be successful than those who daydream, or forget what they were told to do, or who lack a skill or concept and yet don’t have the wherewithal to address that lack. Similarly at work, without meta-cognitive skills, you are unlikely to carry out tasks successfully, determine where you have gone wrong, know when and how to consult others, how you fit into the rhythm of the workplace, deduce when it’s time to move on... and where you want to end up and succeed.
Of course, meta-cognition helps one at home, on holiday, and in relations with others—be these superficial or deep, friendships or romances.
In my work on “MI theory,” I wrote about the two personal intelligences—interpersonal intelligence (understanding of others) and intrapersonal intelligence (understanding of self). Interpersonal intelligence is far easier to explain, to study, to evaluate—we can observe how well you navigate the world of other persons.
But what of self-knowledge? I have never been pleased with my (or others') efforts to assess self- knowledge, even in the abstract. Our selves are strange entities—with due respect to Socrates, what does it mean to “know thyself?” And indeed, I’ve quipped that only your psychoanalyst can assess how well you know yourself.
It would be convenient if intrapersonal intelligence could be equated to meta-cognition. But I don’t think it can be. Meta-cognition helps you to navigate the world—the worlds—more successfully; and unless you get obsessed by such reflection on your mind, that’s a good thing.
But one can understand one’s own mental capacities (and incapacities) quite well without having significant insight into how distinctive you are as a person, how you differ from others, in what ways, and what difference those differences make. Moreover, it's not clear whether, and if so how, your understanding of yourself might help you to be a different or better person—a major set of insights that one hopes to gain from therapy. I believe that’s because emotions, feelings, affect are vital parts of our person, our persona—and yet they only have meaning if you actually experience them—unless you feel fear, it does not help to know that you are 'fearful' or 'frightened' or 'anxious.'
Put differently, I can easily see a computer program or robot becoming meta-cognitive; but when I ask about the intrapersonal intelligence of the program or robot, that seems—at least at present—to be a category error.
Photo by Laurenz Kleinheider on Unsplash