Friday, November 6, 2026

Book Review: “Know Thyself” - Dorothy Maitre

Imagine yourself, deciding whether to take a new job, thinking whether you made the right choice buying a house in the suburbs, figuring out how, when, or what to study for an exam, not knowing how to solve a problem, or realizing that you made a mistake and need to change your course of action. These, among many others, are examples of self-reflection or metacognition. According to Fleming (2021), a cognitive neuroscientist and author of Know Thyself, “metacognition is the ability to reflect on, think about, and know things about ourselves, including how we remember, perceive, decide, think, and feel” (p.2). He believes that it is central to how we experience the world. Referring to the teachings of Socrates, Fleming says that the essence of a life well lived is the time and effort taken to know ourselves. “The unexamined life is not worth living” (Apology, 38a; Plato, trans. 2002). This famous quote by Socrates resonates in many of the pages throughout this book as the basis of self-reflection through which one questions, takes time to wonder, and searches for meaning in one’s daily actions, words, and interactions.

The biggest takeaway and the core of this book is Fleming’s message that the skill of metacognition is under increasing threat from modern life. Overfocus on achievement and productivity, time spent on technology that is taking away our competence/autonomy (through autopilots, AI, surgical robots…), stress, and disease lead to less time spent on reflection or our complete inability to use it. Through strong research-based studies from the field of psychology, computer science, and neuroscience, he hopes that by helping people understand the roots of self-awareness, the factors that lead to its failure, and how/when it is used, people can take necessary steps to recognize its importance and work on boosting it.

This is exactly the order of topics through which he organized the book. Making it easy to read, yet not always easy to understand due to its high amount of neuroscience/psychology specific concepts, theories, and terminology. Therefore, having background knowledge in those fields would be helpful when reading the book. Otherwise, be prepared to occasionally look up information.

The first part of the book is devoted to the origin of self-awareness and factors that lead to its failure. The idea of “finding ourselves” is the starting point of self-awareness, originally introduced by Greek philosophers like Socrates and eastern traditions of Buddhism. From there, evolution led the way from implicit metacognition, through which we unconsciously sense our uncertainty as early as childhood, tracking errors in our actions and autocorrecting them, to the explicit metacognition, through which we become consciously aware of ourselves and others. The next building block of metacognition is the theory of mind or “mindreading”. As the author writes, “at some point in our evolutionary history, humans found it important to keep track of what other people were thinking, feeling, and doing” (p.55). This meant that they were reflecting on others, what others thought about them, and consequently using the same tool (part of our brain) to think about themselves. That special part of the brain used in both “mindreading” and metacognition is the pre-frontal cortex (part of the association cortex). 

Understanding why self-awareness malfunctions or is destroyed is important for our own self-analysis and that of others. That’s why the author explains this in detail through research, including his own. Not that everyone who reads this book should be getting an fMRI, but that is one of the ways of determining one’s “metacognitive sensitivity” (or level of metacognition: moment-to-moment changes in one’s performance). “People with better metacognition tended to have more gray matter in the frontal pole (also known as the anterior prefrontal and frontopolar cortex). They also had greater white matter integrity in bundles of fibers projecting to and from this region” (p. 81). Brain damage either directly to the prefrontal cortex (such as through brain trauma, alcoholism, or lack of oxygen at high altitudes) or to the temporal lobe (with memory being impacted first) is another reason for poor self-awareness. Other factors such as disease (Alzheimer’s/dementia), personality, mental health, emotions, stress (high cortisol), cognitive abilities, upbringing, environment, education, metacognitive distortions (ex., illusions: mind wandering), and our ability to map our confidence level also play a role in shaping metacognition.

Mapping out our confidence is one of the malfunctions that stood out to me the most and seems to be a big factor in metacognition. The author says that “confidence is a construction that can sometimes be misleading—it does not always track what we are capable of” (p.126). Yet it is a big precursor to what actions we take and what we succeed at. For instance, overconfidence when being wrong/unprepared, feeling confident when being wrong, or feeling less confident when being right are signs of poor metacognition and can lead to failure or embarrassment. Fleming compares this to Alfred Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy, in how our beliefs in our abilities influence our performance. Being able to accurately determine our abilities instead of pretending we have them is the key to healthy metacognition and then a true level of confidence. This also made me think of the motivational phrase, “Fake it till you make it,” which seems to advocate for overconfidence without the ability. According to the research in this book, following it would be self-sabotage. 

In the second part of the book, the author provides a good summary of when and how metacognition is used and the important role it plays in people’s lives, followed by some useful ideas in cultivating and enhancing it. Think about your learning and the times you ask yourself what I need to learn, how I will learn it, when do I stop studying, am I using good resources, or how I will monitor my progress? These are all examples of metacognition, which sets the stage for how we learn. Teaching children and youth how to self-reflect on their studying improves their achievement, especially later in life, because it teaches them to see their mistakes (am I right/wrong), to solve problems, or to change their minds. Employers also like to test people’s self-awareness because those who know their minds also know their skills and limitations. Knowing how to broadcast our thinking to others allows for better collaboration both at work and in school. “For instance, by engaging in regular social interaction, team members can intuitively apply mindreading and metacognition to adapt to each other’s communication style and avoid metacognitive mismatches when under pressure” (p. 171). Metacognition is also used in science, politics, in the courtrooms, relationships, and in teaching.

Evidently, metacognition helps us live deeper, easier, successful, and more meaningful lives. Acquiring it has been and is an evolving process that matures and is cultivated through adulthood. It is not fixed, and it can be shaped or improved. So, if you have found yourself stuck in your study habits or communication with colleagues, perhaps evaluating and boosting your own metacognition is what you need. Reading this book can help you figure out what the issues might be and give you solutions. The author gives a few, such as teaching others because that way we become aware of our and others’ mental states, doing regular mindfulness meditation, practicing being more aware, lowering stress and noradrenaline, increasing dopamine, and, if you have the courage, going for electrical current stimulation to your prefrontal cortex sessions.




References

Fleming, S.M. (2021). Know Thyself: The new science of self-awareness. Basic Books. Plato. (2002). Five dialogues (G. M. A. Grube, Trans., 2nd ed.). Hackett Publishing Company. (Original work published ca. 399 BCE)

Thursday, October 15, 2026

Throwback Thursday: Grammatical Development in the Third Year of Life

How do young children learn the grammatical rules of their language, and what role does the language they hear play in this process? This Throwback Thursday, we revisit “Grammatical Development in the Third Year of Life: Individual Differences and Input Effects,” by Dr. Pamela Hadley and Dr. Matthew Rispoli, a research presentation exploring how children develop grammatical skills and how language input may influence this process.

The presentation focuses on the development of finiteness in English, including grammatical markers such as is, third-person singular -s, and past-tense -ed. These markers help children communicate information about tense and subject–verb agreement. Although children begin using these forms early in development, mastering them takes time, and children vary in how quickly they acquire them.

The research examines individual differences in children’s grammatical development, including how early growth relates to later grammatical accuracy. Findings highlight both shared developmental patterns and meaningful differences in the timing and rate of acquisition, demonstrating the value of examining children’s language development over time.

Another key focus is the role of language input, particularly the diversity of contexts in which children encounter grammatical forms. Exposure to grammatical markers across different words and sentence contexts may support children’s learning. The presentation also explores cross-morpheme facilitation, the possibility that learning one grammatical marker may support the acquisition of other related forms.

This research has important implications for understanding typical language development and identifying children who may be at risk for language difficulties. For speech-language pathologists, educators, and researchers, it underscores the importance of considering not only how often children hear language, but also the variety of linguistic contexts in which they encounter grammatical structures.

Watch the full presentation: Grammatical Development in the Third Year of Life: Individual Differences and Input Effects




Join us in revisiting this research and exploring how a better understanding of grammatical development and language input can inform future research and support children’s language learning.

Friday, October 2, 2026

Does Your Gender Determine Your Cognitive Abilities? - Donielle A. Escalante, M.A., M.Ed.

Cisgender male and cisgender female bodies are biologically different from one another, so it stands to reason that male and female brains may be wired differently–at least in some regards–as well. That said, gender is only one factor when it comes to determining cognitive abilities and talents. Cultural practices and socialization are two other very important factors when it comes to determining what someone is going to be “good at.” We have all heard the stereotypes: women are better with language and communication, while men have the advantage in spatial reasoning. Women have better fine motor skills; males are generally better at math. But why do these stereotypes exist? And, if they are indeed accurate in some cases, why is that?   

In 1988, Alan Feingold, then of Yale University, argued that differences between genders in cognition were disappearing (Feingold, 1988). He asserted that differences in certain types of intelligence are not related to biology, but to social and cultural expectations, experiences, and circumstances. As our educational system and opportunities for women and girls had improved, and as gender roles had evolved, the performance gap between men and women had narrowed. This meant that male and female cognitive abilities were more similar than what many people previously believed, and at least some if not many of the different levels of performance on standardized assessments could be attributed to the two genders’ being taught to prepare for and value very different things. Mainstream ideas about what boys and men should aspire to vs. what girls and women should aspire to are constantly evolving, and they impact what students want to learn, what they study, and what they have access to.    

David Reilly’s 2012 study took things international and analyzed gender differences in the areas of reading, math, and science literacy in 65 countries; he used data from the 2009 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA; Reilly, 2012). This study came out nearly a quarter-century after Feingold’s, yet the results point to some lingering differences according to gender. In all nations, girls consistently outperformed boys in reading, while boys often outperformed girls in math. Science literacy was fairly inconclusive, as the gender differences in that subject were not significant. Reilly found that gender disparities were more evident when looking at both ends of the spectrum: there were larger differences between genders among lower-achieving students and among higher-achieving ones. Like Feingold, Reilly emphasized the significant influence of external factors such as the countries’ different economic situations, gender equity, and power distance (the extent to which people accept the fact that power is distributed unevenly). Reilly affirms that we cannot draw any conclusions about innate cognitive differences between males and females because different societies and cultures afford women very different opportunities:  

When we see consistent gender differences across many or all nations, and when they are large enough in magnitude to have a practical impact on the educational and occupational aspirations of boys and girls, then we might reasonably conclude some systemic process is responsible–be this biological or institutional. (p. 3) 

This brings us to the present day, or at least pretty close to it. In 2023, Kristin Bartlett and Jorge Camba published an article titled, “Gender differences in spatial ability: A critical review” (Bartlett & Camba, 2023). They found that mental rotation, a skill that falls under the larger umbrella of spatial ability, “is widely accepted as the cognitive ability with the largest gender difference in favor of men” (p. 7). So does this mean that men are inherently superior to women when it comes to mental rotation and spatial ability? It does not. The authors argue that the MRT, or Mental Rotation Test, the instrument used to measure mental rotation skills, is not a valid assessment. They go on to insist that the construct of spatial ability has been created together with the construct of gender. For example, plenty of “feminized” pursuits such as sewing, interior design, fashion, and cosmetology, just to name a few, require substantial spatial skills; they just are not recognized as such. We can see here that if a spatial skills assessment does not include a diverse variety of types of these skills, it is biased and therefore not valid. 

So, what’s the verdict? It’s that even with the assumption that a gender binary exists, we will never truly know the extent to which biological gender impacts cognitive ability, because we cannot control for it. There is–and rightfully so!—no way to take a large sample of infants from their families, raise them in complete isolation from societal and cultural gender norms, and then test their intelligence by looking at their performance on unbiased measures. What this boils down to, in my view, is the need for access and opportunities for all people along the gender spectrum. We should not simply accept that boys and men are going to struggle with reading and communication, just as we should not assume that women cannot be architects and engineers. 

I was once at a professional development session in which the speaker said that teachers sometimes make predictions about students that become self-fulfilling prophecies. For example, a teacher might say, “He’s a poor, rambunctious boy from a bad neighborhood. He’ll always struggle with reading.” The speaker then asked us what would happen if our physicians did the same thing. I would definitely not want my doctor to say something like, “She is totally going to fail when she tries to implement some lifestyle changes,” and then write me off as a lost cause! Those of us in education, whether we are teaching, training, hiring, or researching, need to be as unbiased as possible so that everyone gets a fair shot. Gender and gender expression are characteristics that should never be tied to assumptions. The research and data do not support that approach, and it is simply not fair to limit a human being’s possibilities for a full and rewarding life based on their biological makeup.      


About the author: Donielle Escalante is a doctoral student in Curriculum and Instruction and a high school assistant principal.  





References 


Bartlett, K. A., & Camba, J. D. (2023). Gender differences in spatial ability: A critical review.  Educational Psychology Review, 35(1), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09728-2 

Feingold, A. (1988). Cognitive gender differences are disappearing. American Psychologist, 43(2),  95–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.43.2.95 

Reilly, D. (2012). Gender, culture, and sex-typed cognitive abilities. PLOS ONE, 7(7), e39904.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0039904​ProQuest+2PLOS+2PMC+2