Self-awareness as a foundation for understanding
By Brian Lewis
Introduction
In a world driven by information, opinion and performance, one of the least discussed human capacities is perhaps the most essential: self-awareness.
We are social creatures, shaped by experience, culture and memory. Yet many of us move through the world with limited understanding of our own motives, patterns and blind spots.
Without self-awareness, we become poor interpreters of our own behavior - and even worse interpreters of others.
This has consequences in relationships, work, politics and public discourse. When we lack awareness and understanding of ourselves, we project, react, misjudge and may become vulnerable to those who claim to offer clarity.
This paper explores the foundational role of self-awareness in human capacity. It draws on psychological and behavioral research, as well as lived experience, to examine how self-awareness - or the lack of it - shapes our ability to connect with others, discern accuracy from influence, and act with ethical intention in a complex world.
What Is Self-Awareness?
Self-awareness is the ability to reflect on and understand one’s internal state - emotions, motives, biases, beliefs and behaviors - and how those impact others.
It’s both introspective and relational. It allows us to ask: Why did I react that way? or How might my words have landed on someone else?
There are two main forms of self-awareness, as defined in the research:
Internal self-awareness: understanding our own values, passions, patterns and emotional states.
External self-awareness: understanding how others see us and how our behavior affects them.
(Eurich, 2018)Most people believe they are self-aware, but studies suggest otherwise.
Research shows that 95% of people think they’re self-aware, but only 10–15% actually are (Eurich, 2018).
This gap between perceived and actual self-awareness not only leads to poor decision-making and interpersonal conflict, it reflects what psychologists call the Dunning-Kruger effect, in which individuals with lower competence in a given area tend to significantly overestimate their abilities (Kruger & Dunning, 1999).
In other words, the less self-aware we are, the less equipped we are to recognize our own limitations.
Self-awareness is shaped by multiple factors, including:
Early developmental experiences
Cultural norms and expectations
Neurological health and injury
Feedback-rich environments (e.g., therapy, coaching, reflective leadership)
The Continuum of Capacity
Self-awareness exists on a continuum - not as an on/off switch, but more like a dimmer.
Some people operate in near-darkness, unable or unwilling to examine their motives or emotional patterns. Others cultivate a reflective practice that allows them to observe themselves clearly, with humility and curiosity. Most fall somewhere in between.
This continuum impacts nearly every facet of human capacity:
Our ability to regulate emotional reactions.
Our willingness and ability to take responsibility for our behavior, especially when it causes harm.
Whether we can recognize patterns in our relationships and learn from them.
Our capacity to consider others’ perspectives without defaulting to defensiveness.
Human capacity is not only a matter of intelligence or education. It’s deeply tied to self-awareness.
Two people can receive the same information or feedback, but without self-awareness, one may grow from it while the other dismisses it or interprets it as a threat (Carver & Scheier, 1998).
Policy, education and workplace leadership sometimes fail to account for this uneven terrain.
Too often, systems are designed as if everyone brings the same level of insight, emotional regulation and reflective capacity to the table.
But that’s not the case, and if we want more thoughtful and ethical communities, we need to acknowledge this gap and build systems that support growth in self-awareness, not just compliance or performance.
Understanding Self and Others: The Relational Power of Self-Awareness
Self-awareness allows us to know our own minds and, by extension, better understand the minds of others.
It gives us the internal vocabulary to recognize when we are projecting, avoiding or reacting impulsively. Without this capacity, human interaction becomes reactive rather than reflective.
There’s a direct relationship between knowing ourselves and being able to truly see others.
Empathy, widely regarded as one of the defining strengths of the human species, begins with awareness of one’s own emotions (Goleman, 1995; Decety & Jackson, 2004).
Effective listening depends on quieting the internal noise of assumption.
Low self-awareness limits not only our ability to form meaningful personal and professional relationships, but also our capacity to contribute responsibly to civic life.
It can lead to blame, rigidity, emotional volatility, and a rejection of feedback, all of which erode trust, connection and collaboration.
By contrast, even modest increases in self-awareness can improve:
Relationship quality and emotional resilience.
Decision-making under stress.
Receptivity to feedback and openness to change
(Goleman, 1995; Brown, 2012).
Vulnerability to Influence: A Hidden Cost of Low Self-Awareness
Self-awareness acts as an internal compass. Without it, we’re more easily swayed by emotional appeals, ideological manipulation or the validation of groupthink (Kahneman, 2011).
This internal compass functions much like what organizations require when defining their purpose. In the organizational world, I’ve written about how an organization’s clearly articulated cause - when strategically engaged - can serve as a compass to guide decisions, reduce noise and increase focus (Lewis, Core Intent Consulting, 2025). The same is true at the individual level: when we know our internal motivations, values and purpose, we’re far less vulnerable to being pulled off course by fear, persuasion or confusion.
This makes people more susceptible to:
Charismatic leaders who bypass critical thinking.
Simplistic ideological messages that affirm preexisting biases.
Echo chambers and algorithms that reinforce emotional rather than rational engagement.
Manipulation in personal relationships through guilt, flattery or coercion
(Cialdini, 2006).What psychologist Irving Janis famously termed groupthink, a dynamic in which the desire for conformity or cohesion overrides critical evaluation, leading individuals to silence, doubt and embrace consensus at the expense of sound judgment (Janis, 1972).
Individuals without the tools for internal discernment are more likely to outsource their beliefs to others (Cialdini, 2006).
Without the habit of reflection (“Why do I believe this?” or “What am I reacting to?”), people become vulnerable to narratives that feel emotionally satisfying, even if they’re untrue or harmful.
This vulnerability isn’t a moral failing, it’s a structural gap.
In a culture that often discourages reflection, rewards performance over insight, and teaches compliance over critical thinking, low self-awareness is not only common, it’s incentivized (Giroux, 2006).
Implications for Policy, Education and Public Discourse
Many systems of policy, education and organizational leadership operate as if self-awareness is a given.
But it isn’t. If we want to create more ethical, thoughtful and connected communities, we need to build for the reality that reflective capacity varies widely.
This begins with acknowledging that many people are not equipped to process feedback or new ideas without emotional reactivity.
Effective (and ethical) communication strategies must take into account emotional baselines, cognitive load and psychological defensiveness.
Opportunities for intervention include:
Embedding emotional intelligence, critical thinking and reflective practice in K–12 and higher education - skills that not only support academic development, but protect against manipulation and ideological capture (Facione, 1990; Freire, 1970).
Acknowledging the educators and school systems that have long championed these skills through inquiry-based learning, debate and media literacy - often in the face of political or cultural resistance.
Recognizing that in recent years, some states have introduced policies or legislation that restrict how critical thinking and related topics (such as race, history or civic inquiry) can be taught, This undermines students’ ability to engage with complexity and nuance (ACLU, 2022; Ravitch, 2010).
Training leaders (especially those in public-facing or high-influence roles) to build their own self-awareness and adapt messaging accordingly.
Encouraging media literacy, digital discernment and critical reflection as civic skills.
Recognizing that opportunity and access must include psychological readiness, not just information access.
Naming the decades-long efforts to defund, devalue or dismantle public education, not as neutral policy disputes, but as strategies to reduce civic agency and suppress critical thinking (Giroux, 2006; Ravitch, 2010).
This is not a call for manipulation - but for compassion.
We don’t raise the level of discourse by assuming people are smarter, stronger or more self-aware than they are. We raise it by meeting people where they are, and supporting them in growing their self-awareness.
References
ACLU. (2022). Educational Gag Orders: Legislative Restrictions on the Freedom to Read, Learn, and Teach. American Civil Liberties Union.
Batson, C. D. (2011). Altruism in Humans. Oxford University Press.
Brown, B. (2012). Daring Greatly: How the Courage to Be Vulnerable Transforms the Way We Live, Love, Parent, and Lead. Gotham Books.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the Self-Regulation of Behavior. Cambridge University Press.
Cialdini, R. B. (2006). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (Revised ed.). Harper Business.
Decety, J., & Cowell, J. M. (2014). The complex relation between morality and empathy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(7), 337–339.
Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71–100.
Eurich, T. (2018). Insight: The Surprising Truth About How Others See Us, How We See Ourselves, and Why the Answers Matter More Than We Think. Crown Publishing.
Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction. American Philosophical Association.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Continuum.
Giroux, H. A. (2006). Stormy Weather: Katrina and the Politics of Disposability. Paradigm Publishers.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. Bantam Books.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134.
Lewis, B. (2025). Core Intent Consulting - Organizational Purpose and Strategic Compass. Internal white paper.
Ravitch, D. (2010). The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education. Basic Books.
NOTE: Written by the author with editorial and research assistance from ChatGPT (OpenAI).
