/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11905091
>implying you can't discuss meta-cognition (especially its anecdotal aspects) without being a psychologist, philosopher or psychiatrist.

It's precisely this kind of elitist mindset that was the reason why the phenomenon of aphantasia was so unknown for so long by the general public, and the phenomenon of unsymbolized thinking as well until it reached critical awareness on the internet. We just tend to assume everyone thinks like we do even though we have the theory of mind to know it is not always true, the more we peer into metacognition from any angle (mongalian fingerpainting discussion forum is one angle), the more insight we might find, the more misinformation we tackle (muh P-zombies NPC meme, etc..)

Come on, where's your sense of curiosity anon? In any case, since making this thread I've gotten many new insights and new perspectives from anons on metacognition from the anecdotal perspective and from my own mind piecing shit together, so it was worth it

>>11905091
>implying you can't discuss meta-cognition (especially its anecdotal aspects) without being a psychologist, philosopher or psychiatrist. It's precisely this kind of elitist mindset that was the reason why the phenomenon of aphantasia was so unknown for so long by the general public, and the phenomenon of unsymbolized thinking as well until it reached critical awareness on the internet.

We just tend to assume everyone thinks like we do even though we have the theory of mind to know it is not always true, the more we peer into metacognition from any angle (mongalian fingerpainting discussion forum is one angle), the more insight we might find, the more misinformation we tackle (muh P-zombies NPC meme, etc..)

Where's your sense of curiosity anon? In any case, since making this thread I've gotten many new insights and new perspectives from anons on metacognition from the anecdotal perspective and from my own mind piecing shit together, so it was worth it