You have a certain aversion to bearing any burden. That fact doesn't bode well for you. — creativesoul

You claimed the hard distinction. You can provide the evidence to support your claim.

I say pick up any anthropological discussion of the issue and you will see folk talking about how literacy makes a big difference - particular to the fostering of a "theoretical" mindset over the preliterate "narrative" mindset - and yet they don't claim some hard difference in terms of "metacognition" .... itself an abused term that doesn't even go to the question of linguistic scaffolding, oral or otherwise.

So I can't just cite some experiment or book here. Your tangle of crackpottery goes off in too many self-contradicting directions. Having pointed out the silliness of talking in terms of metacognition, I also then pointed out a further silliness in terms of treating written texts as critical to the human mental difference ... when it comes to what is different about human perception in relation to animal perception.

But good luck getting your thoughts written up and published, revolutionising the course of psychology as your reveal your great hidden truth.

More rhetorical drivel. One example to the contrary is all it takes...

One example to the contrary is all it takes... — creativesoul

The contrary of what? It is your lack of any properly grounded claim that I drew attention to.

You contradict yourself to the degree you confuse metacognition as a semiotic position.

You could try to rescue your claim that writing makes a critical semiotic difference when it comes to perception. That simply speaking - simply an oral culture - isn't enough.

I already agree - with the literature :) - that literacy does make a difference. Just not a critical one in terms of human perception.

So continue to talk and act like a crackpot. I've done my best to help you sort it out.

Metacognition is thinking about thought/belief. Prior to thinking about thought/belief there must be something to think about. Thought/belief is prior to metacognition. Prior to thinking about thought/belief there must be a means for doing so. Written language facilitates our ability to isolate our thought/belief and then talk about it by virtue of using the terms "thought" and "belief". The same is true of all mental ongoings and the terms and notions used to take account of those. — creativesoul

Written language allows us to think about our own thought/belief in a way that spoken language alone cannot. Metacognition requires written language. Written language is the means by which we isolate, set aside, and pay attention to our own thought/belief. — creativesoul

...athropologists study hunter-gatherer tribes that rely on oral memory to transmit metacognitive thought habits. There is simple proof your assertions are fallacious. — apokrisis

I've provided the argument. You denied the argument based upon evidence to the contrary.

Provide it.

Provide the evidence for the argument. I think that's how arguments usually work. :)

There is no evidence to the contrary. That's how universal claims work. See the Kant excerpt again with that in mind...

There is no evidence to the contrary. That's how universal claims work. See the Kant excerpt again with that in mind... — creativesoul

Yeah. Sounds legit.

A verified universal claim about thought/belief is appropriately, rightfully, sensibly, and properly called a law thereof.

Yep. Sounds legit. Can't imagine anyone not believing that. Snore...

There is no stronger justificatory ground.

The Kant excerpt looms large.

Upon what ground does one doubt a claim that is true of all thought/belief?