Is cognition a metacognition?

The key to this puzzle (in the big picture) is understanding parts of the brain--which is where I am headed with this inquiry.

(Note: this is a work in progress -- my real question is "is Putin autistic?" because there is someone similar where I live who is a business leader who is cruel and who rocks in a chair like autistic do. But here it is, a similar discussion, and the other will have to wait.)

Synthesis
Because humanity has become so synthetic, this cannot be pulled away from philosophy despite its being pseudo-science at best. Oligarchy, the philosophic "right," consistently loses the "war of words" to democracy, the philosophic center. Oligarchy wins because oligarchy it is cruel and violent, and it perpetuates its violence by leveraging a reduced "set" of thinking, which is rational reduction. Rational comes from Latin ratio, which essentially competes with natural human "sense," (or common sense). It is mathematical thinking , but, as it happens rationalists lack a sense of proportion. Surprisingly (and tellingly), rational reduction also competes with logic. Rational reduction is, by definition, an oversimplification of whats before a philosopher (presumably an oligarch). Logic, coming from Greek logos, or language, clearly implements fluency to define reality as fluency is how both the individual, and society, self-organize. Sense and logic are holistic in that they include observation, as learning, and also visceral "thinking" as a neurological link to the environment, which can be included under the topic of empathy.

Logic
Logic is often rationally reduced to exclude language, and hence fluency, so definitions of logic that agree with rationality must be marked suspect.

Rational reduction
A rational reduction in thinking must be accompanied by a reduction in the use of the brain so that thinking is no longer holistic, but synthetic. Spindle neurons (or cells) have two long threads that specifically connect parts of the brain, so, in the rationally reduced brain, one might expect either missing or spindle neurons, or, in my belief, a strong possibility of dormant, or "sleeping," spindle neurons. The reason for this is that metacognition is not an extension of the dialectic and Sorates' dialog (of child-rape and national death), but it defines it a lot better by suggesting different parts of the mind (without naming them), that, of course have to map to parts of the brain (that cognitivists are apparently unable to name).

The psychology of state
Cognitivists struggle hard to make themselves appear humanistic by embracing the therapeutic relationship as the "alliance," and leveraging empathy. A quick read of psychological ethics will reveal that the therapeutic relationship as defined by associations is anything but empathic, as oligarchic therapists seem unable to keep their hands off their patients genitals (which puts them on "the impulsive-compulsive-obsessive continuum"). What cogntivists are really interested in is old-school Viennese psychoanalysis because it's dirty secret ~is~ rational reduction. Freud may not have "rationally reduced" his patients to sex objects, but Jung certainly did. (The Freuds have an even darker dirty secret.)

In short, old-school psychoanalysis is philosophic as psychology was the last philosophy to join Science, and must therefore be oligarchic and not democratic as it was aristocratic. Cogntivists are most certainly oligarchic as they can't help but apply Zeitgeist to Socrates' pedophilia (as if parents naturally want their school-age children raped by philosophers--try bothering a wolf pup near its parents).

Brain bits
My present leap (of faith) is that the reduced set of brain parts (that is not a voluntary reduction) may be a maladaption by normal people to societies (and civilization) that is controlled by people who are altered to be cruel, and have altered language (and hence logic) to be rationally reduced, and thus have forced normal people to abandon major parts of their brains, specifically those parts that connect with the surrounding environment. Following this line of logic, the only normal people who would not thus altered are aboriginals who have not been civilized. They, to keep their societies "clean" (as nature keeps wildlife genetically clean) by whacking potential oligarchs. (No wonder Jung referred to aboriginal child-care as "monkey love.")

Cognition, as the basic component psychological activity, does not actually have a specific definition. Most people see it in the word "recognize" where "see" is the operative word, as in "seen before" as an image of a person or thing. Cognizant is also another common use, which suggests "aware," usually on a factual level, which is much different. Cognition is not the only word psychologists cannot nail down; neurosis is another such word, that psychologists bandy about all day and thus say nothing useful. Together, these words could probably be used to confuse whole societies. If you hear them, you must question the context that they are specifically being used (and, also, don't fail to ask for fMRI evidence).

In the above context, metacogntion is two parts of the mind, and thus two parts of the brain. I will throw out "part of the prefrontal cortex (that scores IQ tests), and part of the limbic system (that is thought of as the Id by old-school psychoanalysists). So therefore cognition must be that, or part of that. It is a reduced view of human thought by people with reduced thinking who have created mathematical processes that provide causal or relational relationships as "proof" that they have superior knowledge (Actually, it's insurance math that they use.). Thus, to survive, cognitivists must control societies by rationally reducing the brain sets of school-aged children, providing a whole new form of rape called metacogntion that is new only in that it's modern (or classical), rather than pre- or post-modern.

Hope this helps.