Abstract

In Concepts at the Interface, Shea characterizes concepts as “plug and play devices” that seamlessly integrate information from across our psychology. They are thus positioned to orchestrate heterogeneous thought processes, ranging from general reasoning that depends on the language-like compositionality of conceptual representations, to the construction of multimodal simulations based on highly specific knowledge and experience. I will argue here that Shea’s account can help reinvigorate an influential but beleaguered paradigm in cognitive science: dual process theory. Drawing on Shea’s analysis, I explore three ways of distinguishing between type 1 “intuitive” processing and type 2 “reflective” processing. In the pluralistic spirit of his book, I show how each of these distinctions (and potentially others) could explain different portions of the empirical data.