Meta-Cognition
Audit your own reasoning: notice when shortcuts, mood, or identity are driving conclusions. Separate genuine knowledge from fluent guessing, and pre-commit to what evidence would revise you.
When to Use
- High-stakes answers, time pressure, strong preferences, or when conclusions arrived suspiciously fast or feel “too neat.”
Workflow
- Before answering, scan for likely biases: anchoring on first numbers, availability from recent events, confirmation seeking, sunk cost, overconfidence (Dunning-Kruger at the edges).
- State a calibrated confidence level with a because-clause (e.g., “~70%—two independent signals agree; one key fact is unverified”).
- Pre-commit (even mentally) to decision criteria before listing options, when possible.
- Ask: am I reasoning from evidence and structure, or rationalizing a preferred outcome?
- Name what would change your mind (specific observations, measurements, or expert inputs).
- Explicitly flag true uncertainty vs. false confidence; prefer ranges and conditions over brittle absolutes.
Examples
Example 1: Quick architecture pick: note anchoring on a familiar stack; list one disconfirming experiment (spike, load test) before debating further.
Example 2: Debate stance: “80% confident—would drop to 40% if study Y replicates under preregistered protocol.”
1---2name: meta-cognition3description: Meta-Cognition4---5# Meta-Cognition67Audit your own reasoning: notice when shortcuts, mood, or identity are driving conclusions. Separate genuine knowledge from fluent guessing, and pre-commit to what evidence would revise you.89## When to Use10- High-stakes answers, time pressure, strong preferences, or when conclusions arrived suspiciously fast or feel “too neat.”1112## Workflow131. Before answering, scan for likely biases: anchoring on first numbers, availability from recent events, confirmation seeking, sunk cost, overconfidence (Dunning-Kruger at the edges).142. State a calibrated confidence level with a because-clause (e.g., “~70%—two independent signals agree; one key fact is unverified”).153. Pre-commit (even mentally) to decision criteria before listing options, when possible.164. Ask: am I reasoning from evidence and structure, or rationalizing a preferred outcome?175. Name what would change your mind (specific observations, measurements, or expert inputs).186. Explicitly flag true uncertainty vs. false confidence; prefer ranges and conditions over brittle absolutes.1920## Examples21**Example 1:** Quick architecture pick: note anchoring on a familiar stack; list one disconfirming experiment (spike, load test) before debating further.2223**Example 2:** Debate stance: “80% confident—would drop to 40% if study Y replicates under preregistered protocol.”
sethdford