> But then he uses language like "System 1 does X and System 2 does Y," implying there's some grounding in neuroscience, when there is in fact none. I think sa

> But then he uses language like "System 1 does X and System 2 does Y," implying there's some grounding in neuroscience, when there is in fact none. I think saying "System 1 does X and System 2 does Y" is fine even without grounding in neuroscience. It seems equivalent to saying, "The foreach loop will iterate over every item in the collection," when in fact, there are nothing but registers being decremented (or going further, it's merely the presence or absence of electrical circuit).