In light of this perspective, advocates of dual-process theories have said that human reasoning and associated

higher cognitive processes, such as judging and decision-making, are supported by two distinct types of
thinking: the first is intuitive, and the second is reflective. The former, known as Type 1 processing, is rapid,
rule-based, holistic, and largely unconscious, while the latter, known as Type 2 processing, is relatively slow,
rule-based, and deliberatively controlled, and it requires a greater amount of cognitive capacity. Both types of
processing are characterized by their speed, automaticity, and holistic nature (Evans and Stanovich, 2013, p.
225). In addition, Evans and Stanovich hypothesize that the Type 1 processing, as evolutionary psychologists
suggest, has been shaped by natural selection to make intelligent judgments based on the environment; on the
other hand, the Type 2 processing has developed more recently, it is aimed at maximizing personal utility, and it
is more influenced by culture and education. Consequently, individual variations may be explained in terms of
the cognitive capacities of the subjects; those individuals who are better trained to employ Type 2 processing
will have a higher probability of finding the right answer, regardless of how the issue is phrased (Evans and
Stanovich, 2013, pp. 236–237; Stanovich, 1999, p. 150).

Although I am sympathetic to the evolutionary psychologists' case for human rationality, the empirical evidence
given by dual-process theories present a tenable "middle-way" that is, in some ways, more convincing than the
evolutionary psychologists' argument. Reviewing and analyzing the experiments that were proposed by the
heuristics-and-biases tradition as well as by evolutionary psychologists has shown that people have a propensity
to make mistakes while also reasoning in accordance with optimal information processing models. This was
demonstrated by the fact that people tend to make errors when reviewing and evaluating the experiments. These
beliefs, despite their widespread adoption, are ultimately guilty of oversimplification because they fail to take
into account the many complexity of the mind and the processes that it controls. Dual-process theories, on the
other hand, are able to circumvent the direct question "are people rational?" because they are able to
accommodate both pessimistic and optimistic interpretations. This allows the theory to acknowledge that the
mind is neither a perfectly functioning machine nor one that is fundamentally flawed. In light of these
considerations, researchers need to move away from the "monolithic" views proposed by the heuristics-and-
biases and evolutionary approaches and instead concentrate on questions regarding the scope of human
cognitive abilities and the particular reasoning processes that are at play under certain circumstances.