> 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 severa

> 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.