[joe_the_user]

I feel like there are two ways you can take a book like Thinking Slow And Fast; One is that there are variety of mental processes, some faster than others, some more conscious than other, etc. The other is that there's a hard distinction between "the" slow process and "the" fast process.

If you take with the first implication, it's plausible, useful as one more datum. But it seems like replication problems make the hard distinction approach more problematic.

[mistermann]

> The other is that there's a hard distinction between "the" slow process and "the" fast process.

I've yet to read the book, but I've listened to him on several podcasts, and I've never gotten the sense that he wouldn't see it as a continuum, didn't he even say something early in the interview that the "1 & 2" is more of a metaphor? (his answer to that question starts at 9:00). System 1 is trainable, for example, and I can't imagine he'd suggest that isn't highly dimensional.