Current LLM post-training methods optimize complete reasoning trajectories through Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) followed by outcome-based Reinforcement Learning (RL). While effective, a closer examination reveals a fundamental gap: this approach does not align with how humans actually solve problems. Human cognition naturally decomposes problem-solving into two distinct stages: first acquiring abstract strategies (i.e., meta-knowledge) that generalize across problems, then adapting them to specific instances. In contrast, by treating complete trajectories as basic units, current methods are inherently problem-centric, entangling abstract strategies with problem-specific execution. To address this misalignment, we propose a cognitively-inspired framework that explicitly mirrors the two-stage human cognitive process. Specifically, Chain-of-Meta-Thought CoMT focuses supervised learning on abstract reasoning patterns without specific executions, enabling acquisition of generalizable strategies. Confidence-Calibrated Reinforcement Learning (CCRL) then optimizes task adaptation via confidence-aware rewards on intermediate steps, preventing overconfident errors from cascading and improving execution reliability. Experiments across four models and ten benchmarks show 2.10% and 3.86% improvements in-distribution and out-of-distribution respectively over standard methods, while remaining highly robust to variations in teacher model selection, optimization methods, and symbolic perturbations.