#Metacognition

A new scientific study has shed light on a persistent challenge faced by those experiencing anxiety and depression: the tendency to underestimate their own abilities even when objective evidence shows they are correct. The research, published in the esteemed journal Nature Communications, suggests that while anxious and depressed individuals perform as well as their peers, they struggle to internalize moments of success, leaving them prone to chronic underconfidence. This discovery could have significant implications for mental health awareness and treatment approaches in Thailand, where stigma and underdiagnosis of mental health issues remain widespread.

A new study sheds light on a stubborn challenge for people with anxiety and depression: they often undervalue their own abilities even when evidence shows they are right. Published in Nature Communications, the research finds that anxious and depressed individuals perform as well as peers but struggle to internalize moments of success, fueling chronic underconfidence. This has important implications for mental health awareness and treatment in Thailand, where stigma and underdiagnosis remain concerns.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect is a psychological phenomenon where people with limited knowledge or skill in a particular area often overestimate their own abilities, while those who are more competent may actually underestimate themselves. This effect, first identified by researchers at Cornell University in 1999, has become a widely discussed topic in psychology, workplace training, and even daily Thai culture, as it sheds light on why some individuals appear inexplicably confident about topics they barely understand, while experts may downplay their own expertise [thestandard.co], [themomentum.co], [thaipublica.org].

A well-documented cognitive bias, the Dunning-Kruger Effect, shows that people with limited knowledge in a area often overestimate their competence, while true experts may underestimate their mastery. First described in 1999 by researchers at a major U.S. university, this phenomenon now informs discussions in psychology, education, workplaces, and everyday life in Thailand. It helps explain why some individuals appear overly confident about topics they barely understand, while experts may downplay their expertise.

A new study links lower self-awareness to stronger brain responses when people encounter morally charged political issues. Published research shows that moral judgments engage emotion and cognitive-control networks, helping explain why some political beliefs feel non-negotiable.

In today’s highly polarized climate, the findings matter for Thai audiences as well. The study, led by a senior researcher from a major university, examines how moral conviction shapes political choice. It finds that people with moralized views decide more quickly and rely more on emotional brain processes. This pattern is strongest among individuals with limited metacognitive sensitivity—the ability to judge one’s own judgments accurately.

A recent study has unveiled that individuals with lower self-awareness, particularly those unable to accurately gauge the correctness of their decisions, exhibit stronger brain reactions to morally charged political issues. Published in the journal Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, the research indicates that moral judgments activate brain regions involved in emotional and cognitive control, drawing attention to the neurological underpinnings of why certain political beliefs are perceived as non-negotiable.

In a world where political polarization seems to intensify by the day, these findings are particularly significant. The study, led by Jean Decety of the University of Chicago, explores the role of moral conviction in political decision-making. It reveals that when people hold moralized beliefs about political issues, they not only decide more swiftly but rely heavily on emotional brain responses. This phenomenon is more pronounced in individuals who struggle with metacognitive sensitivity—the ability to discern right from wrong judgments.