Deirdre hits the nail on the head ^^^ but if you want the boring version that I already typed out...
How I see people use skepticism is to find flaws in what other (contrary) people hold true. I see that here as much as on a CT site.
In my experience metabunk is primarily a debunking site used to explain mistaken beliefs about generally objective (and fringe, and geeky) subjects such as chemtrails, 9/11, flat earth, UFOs, and various other conspiracy theories involving misinformation, disinformation, false scientific claims, and things that can be measured and proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Typing that it really dawns on me that we've become far too hung up on this word "skeptic". Michael Shermer and Brian Dunning might describe themselves as skeptics, and Mick certainly has associations with them, but though there are crossovers between what they look at and what we look at it's really about the debunking here and less about the skepticism. And if metabunk is skeptical it's only skeptical in the sense that extraordinary claims are greeted with instant disbelief and immediately sought to be explained in mundane terms.
What it isn't is: skeptical about everything
; a hub for philosophy; as hardline as Shermer, Dunning, Dawkins, etc; much at all interested in religion or spirituality; nor very tolerant of speculation and musing and going down tangents of things that are unprovable (at least not in the proper threads).
Probably it would really help to move more towards the word "debunking" - ie, explaining mistakes and misunderstandings in fairly mundane physical things and seeking to arrive at the truth of what's really going on with balloons and birds and falling down buildings and vapour trails - and to move away from the words "skeptic" and "skepticism" and the hifalutin and mostly abstract thought exercises that the literal meanings of those words point to.
What I see neither here nor on a CT site is using skepticism primarily to find flaws in what they themselves hold true. This must be how skepticism was primarily intended: self examination. Now that would be the metabunk for me—the one that focused on questioning yourself. Why I’m wrong to be a conservative. Why I’m wrong to be a liberal. Why I’m wrong to be a Christian. Why I’m wrong to be an atheist. Why I might not be as smart as I think. Why I might not be as open-minded as I think.
Also in my experience, people here generally shy away from the more human aspects of things. I don't think they're too interested in looking at themselves or in seriously investigating the human soul and mind and individual psychology and peeling away the layers of their personalities to arrive at the truth of their being and the truth of what life on planet Earth is actually about. At least on the forum, in public - who knows what they are doing or have done in their lives away from here? - and certainly there are a few members who are into that - but it's not what metabunk is about, it's more of an extremely smart geeky boys club than an encounter group or philosophy circle and if you start a post attempting to explore something genuinely human it'll probably dissolve into awkward jokes and fizzle out pretty quickly - whereas you can have a hundred posts about distant blurs in photographs and people'll commit days and weeks to trying to figure them out.
All of that is okay, of course: it takes all kinds to make a world and there's room for a bit of everything. If you want to sing hymns and pray you go to church and if you want to race go-karts you go to the track; but you don't take your hymn sheet to the go-kart arena and try and get everyone else to start singing and you don't take your crash helmet to the pews (if you catch my drift).
Anyways, if you want to give exploring some issues a try then go for it. Start a thread with a claim and see what happens. How about trying "Claim: I'm of average intelligence" in general discussion or chit chat or open discussion or people debunked and maybe the members'll have a go at that? I do notice you keep saying it and haven't addressed all the myriad times you've been told you're not. It seems almost like a habitual response or a comfort blanket - unless you don't really believe it and are just saying it for the lolz.
Finally, here's a thread that is about real life and stuff (maybe others can link to other such threads) that I started and found quite interesting. Maybe you will too?
And if you really want to investigate your own beliefs and get to the bottom of things start a thread in chitchat and I'll happily do my best to assist (probably best one belief at a time and stay on topic).